Introduction
Proponents of climate change argue scientifically that the cause of global warming is the accumulation of green house gases and water vapor in the atmosphere over a period. On contrary, opponents view global warming as scientific assumption and fraudulent which does not obey the physical laws of nature.
The controversy has lead to conclusion that “action on climate is justified, not because the science is certain, but precisely because it is not” (The Economist Para. 1). This conclusion questions the validity of the scientific evidence and recommendations used by politicians to achieve their desired ends.
Climate Change
The United States senators and industrial groups discussed on legislations to regulate carbon-dioxide emissions based on the scientific recommendations from Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
The implementation of the legislation is still to face some drawbacks such as unwillingness of the politicians as demonstrated during Copenhagen summit, economic recession, and credibility of climatologists (The Economist Para. 2). These drawbacks enhance the doubts and give an upper hand to the skeptics of global warming to reject scientific recommendations.
Although the United States government took seriously the problem of climate change at first instance by establishing the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, their recommendations attracted opposing views.
While some politicians felt that the problem of climate change have been overstated others felt it was understated. These opposing views have increased doubts on the certainty and reality of the global warming since politicians and journalists seem to be simplifying and exaggerating the problem of climate change.
The economic recession and the uncertainties of the scientific report has provided basis for unwilling politicians and economists not spent money in combating climate change (The Economist Para. 3-5). The controversy pose a great challenge to the scientists since their results and recommendations are misinterpreted hence it is a daunting task for them to regain their credibility.
The IPCC report illustrated uncertainties in their predictions by giving a very wide range of temperature increase. Due to the demands for certainty by the politicians and voters, varied scientific results are subjected to many interpretations to suite their interests.
For instance, exaggeration of the global warming effects may provide temporary measures to combat it, although it is wrong and dangerous approach of influencing people to support unknowingly (The Economist Para. 6). Exaggeration of the climate change effect and occurrence scare people in favor of certain political views rather than concrete scientific evidence.
Skeptics argue that the uncertainties and inconsistencies of the IPCC report exaggerate the gravity of the climate change because the results were very subjective and had many mistakes. Moreover, allegations of the unwillingness to share data by the scientists before Copenhagen climate summit raised more concern and criticism about the certainty of the results and the criteria of determining the extent of climate changes.
There is a perception that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is a political tool used by the government hence it has lost credibility and public confidence (The Economist Para. 7). Loss of credibility on the part of scientists is a deadly blow to the world of science.
Conclusion
The uncertainties and inconsistencies of the scientific results coupled with the varied political and economic interests led to the manipulation and misinterpretation of scientific recommendations. The misinterpretation of the scientific results has raised questions over credibility of scientific procedures that seem unreliable in defining strategies of solving climate change.
Works Cited
The Economist. “Climate Science: Spin, Science and Climate Change.” The Economist Newspaper Limited. 2010. Web.