I am writing concerning the article "If global warming is real how should humankind respond?" by Andrew Palmer (OGJ, July 30, 2001, p. 24). The article was not of the usual standard that I have come to expect from your publication, and this letter outlines three reasons why I drew this conclusion:
1. Sources
The author completely failed to mention the IPCC (Intergovernmetal Panel on Climate Change); instead, the author refers to the UK Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, when in the UK, the UK Climate Impacts Programme (UKCIP) is more authoritative.
2. Science
A lack of understanding that although present extreme events (such as storm surges) are of greater magnitude than potential gradual climate-induced impacts, these occur relative to the base level, and may themselves increase in magnitude and frequency as a result of global warming.
While there may be "no sign of panic related to global warming" in the Netherlands, it would be wrong to imply that the issue of global warming-induced sea level change is not considered a very serious issue there.
3. Content
The main "proactive prevention" mechanism described is the evacuation of low-lying islands in the Indian and Pacific Ocean-this seems reactive rather than proactive.
The author suggests that the Ganges and Brahmaputra delta could be protected against the sea in the same way as the Rhine delta in the Netherlands, given "will and energy," having just made the point that Bangladesh is one of the poorest countries in the world, and failing to consider differences in scale.
The author uses two examples of the human capacity to respond to change-using fossil fuels to replace firewood and whale oil. I would not consider these very appropriate examples, given the context of the article.
Mike Steel
London
