Group 2
Members: Albelar, Batallones, Bautista, Demecillo, Flores
This house believes that it is justified for climate scientists to make exaggerated facts
regarding the effect of climate change (e.g. report that due to climate change, rising sea levels
will flood Netherlands in 15 years’ time; due to climate change, countries near the equator
like the Philippines will experience severe drought that will last longer than 5 years in 20
years time etc.) so people will act and prioritize the climate change agenda now.
Brief background:
-People’s actions towards climate change
-How far the climate change agenda has gone
-Studies on the effect of climate change – are they sufficient?
-Projections scientist claim – are they exaggerated?
Background
Climate scientists have been providing us with data and information about the effects
of climate change and its extend with in a particular area at a given time. The climate change
agenda of different agencies have used these data to further advance their cause to combat or
alleviate those effects. Some of these, however, are future projections of these effects (rising
sea levels, drought, ice melting, etc.) to divert the public's attention and for the people to act
on the problem. Unfortunately, climate scientists are in hot water due to making 'exaggerated'
or non-empirical claims in which the data is considered fictitious and far from reality.
GS 1
First, we recognize that climate change is real due to the foundation of evidences as
well as the fact that humans are the greatest contributor of climate change. If people won’t
fear a certain phenomenon or a catastrophe, there is a slim chance that they would be able to
act now in terms of reducing their GHG emissions, carbon footprint, etc.
Thus, we believe that is it justifiable to release exaggerated facts on climate change to
inform the people about the alarming situation of our planet and to encourage them to act
urgently upon this matter.
Add: how the climate change agenda is taken into consideration over time.
OS 1
It is not justifiable that scientists should make exaggerated data. With regards to
initiative, it is unacceptable to instil fear on the people because it would create chaos and
make the situation worse.
When it comes to the climate change agenda, it has been effective even without the
use of exaggerated data. In fact, these data may be false with defeats the purpose of the
agenda and will confuse the people.
Exaggerated data on climate change, as it defeats the purpose of the agenda, tampers
the integrity of the scientists and science itself. Some of these unverified data were proven
wrong in succeeding studies.
GS 2
Climate scientists use different methods to predict models of climate change. Also,
those data were also based on facts such as previous studies and other evidences and not just
plain misinformation, which is how science works.
Also, fear-mongering is not how climate change data should be presented since some
of these are done by politicians, the media, and other influential people.
In addition, these data that shows projections of sea level rise, droughts, and other
climate change phenomena are deemed reliable. Studies that claim these “exaggerated” data
on are peer-reviewed and news articles on climate change are also reviewed by other
scientists to verify the scientific basis that they use. In this high time of misinformation and
fake news, the validity of the data should be its primary concern and the scientists’ goal must
not to confuse and fear the people but to promote awareness.
OS 2
The scientists’ "exaggerated" claimsare just projections. They are not based on
empirical data which includes climatic phenomena at the present. Other climate scientists
only give us data at the present since they focus more on grounds of physical evidence rather
than climate change alarmism. The influence of politics and media is also strong that they
release non-scientific data. And worse, businesses are commercializing climate change since
they encourage the people switch to “green” products which would gain the profit of some
businesses.
Since most climate change alarmists are based on future projections, most of them
have not taken into consideration the past warming and cooling periods of the earth due to the
Roman and Medieval Warming Periods. Most climate change scientists start their analysis at
the late 19th century and they failed to consider the temperature changes in history.
GS 3
Those who invalidate the claims of climate alarmists have a privileged standpoint, and
even deny the fact that anthropogenic activities are the cause of climate change and deniers of
such. There have been a lot of empirical evidences of climate change such as ocean level rise,
Arctic ice melting, etc., but these people pretend to be blind about these.
For example, the islands of Kiribati in the South Pacific and the Maldives in the
Indian Ocean are threatened to disappear in the next 100, or even 50 years’ time. Billions of
climate change refugees are expected to find a new home by the end of this century.
OS 3
Those claims are not always reliable. Some claims are only based on reasoning and
not on facts that are presented, and it defies the purpose of science.
Climate is complex, and it is impossible for scientists to run experiments to test their
hypothesis. They tend to really on past climate models which is not certain for there are
different factors that affects climate and the intensity of damage doesn’t meet the expectation
of exaggerated claims.