Welcome to Dr Lincoln's blog

Welcome for visiting my blog. Hope you enjoy the visit and always welcome back again. Have a nice day!


Academic scholars in Australia shouldn't be Chinese-scholars bashing on climate change

Comments on Justin Norrie "Rich nations should do more on climate, say Chinese" 26/07/2012,  https://theconversation.edu.au/rich-nations-should-do-more-on-climate-say-chinese-8417#comments
It seems the tone of this article appears a little biased against China and Chinese scholars.
For example, the article states "It (China) produced 8.3 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide in 2010 – an increase of 15.5% on the previous year".

Readers with a rational mind would naturally be surprised how an increase of that magnitude could occur in China at the current economic environment and at the current high level of emissions.

Then you have the more obvious first and second paragraphs:
"Greenhouse gas cuts pledged by developed countries will not be enough to stop temperatures rising by 2 degrees by 2100, according to Chinese researchers who argue wealthy nations should bear greater responsibility for tackling climate change.
The controversial assertion is contained in a paper published today in the US Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The paper, produced by 37 Chinese climate scientists and statisticians, says that two types of modelling show developed nations were responsible for 60% to 80% of the global temperature rise, upper ocean warming and sea-ice reduction until 2005."

Why is that argument or viewpoint a controversial assertion? Is that because it was made by Chinese scholars?

Why in academic fields like the Conversation should people bash China and Chinese scholars?

No comments:

Post a Comment