RTL4: Delta Commission Exaggerates Climate Threats

[Andre]

Meanwhile, somewhere in a backyard in Europa, a tiny TV station, RTL4 did something not seen before.

It admitted that climate issues had been greatly exagarated to pursue a political project.

Obviously, The Netherlands being mostly a river delta below sea level should be very keen to keep it's defence against the water up, in proportionality with the treath and sea level changes would always have the full attention. So some time ago a big governmental report about sea level rise and how to cope, had been published

http://www.rtl.nl/(/actueel/rtlnieuws/binnenland/articleview/)/components/actueel/rtlnieuws/2008/10_oktober/04/binnenland/1004_1930_Deltacommissie_overdrijft_klimaatverandering.xml

for the broadcast click on "Deltacommissie overdreef gevaren water"

Rough translation and idea of the broadcast.

Blackest scenario
In their description of the sea level rise, the Delta Commission has pictured the blackest scenario, scientists say. According to them, the delta commision want to scare the citizens to sell the enormous infrastructural project. (100 billion Euro)

"Biggest danger is denial"
When presentating report, the chairman of the Delta Commission, Cees Veerman, said that the Netherlands should not wait for the disaster to occur.

Last week a number of attachments was brought open in which the commission was encouraged to paint the blackest possible scenario to scare the people and thus attempting to prevent a national discussion about the feasibility of the plan. A charismatic leader should be appointed as "Delta Dictator" to smoothen out resistance and expedite the implementation of the plan.

People start to realize that they are being treated as children, the D66 party request to know why the government uses "functional fear" to enforce a project instead of a broad general discussion based on honest research. "Functional fear does not fit in our image of democracy", he says.

Really? never read any IPCC summary for policy makers?

 

[Andre]

Open letter to the prime minister of the Netherlands

To:
His excellency PM J.P. Balkenende
Binnenhof, Torentje
Den Haag,

Dear Jan Peter

To govern is looking ahead. I know that you cherish this old Dutch saying, and you are deeply aware that the future well being of our little country is highly dependent on the actions we take now. We have to identify the risks, assess them accurately and estimate how to act to optimize the environment for the future of people and nature. That's a most delicate job, of which the ultimate responsibility rests on the shoulders of the Prime Minister, you, Jan Peter.

A short recap of the currently identified problem areas: environment, climate, sea level and energy. Each of them interacting in a complicated scenarios where forces are often not understood. Therefore a PM has to prioritize. What is the most important area, what is it's threat and what can we do.

it appears that the government has isolated sea level as the most urgent and has called for draconical measures, not be discussed in public, using "functional fear" (ref RTL broadcast). This implies that the government has chosen for the most unrealistic scenario, just to make very, very sure that we keep our feet dry.

Another slang, like the first sentence, is that you can only spend a dime once. Money spend to elevate dwelling and dams cannot be used to the other problem areas. So how realistic is that worst sea level rise scenario, where it was about 140mm in the past century, we are led to believe that we are facing 1200mm in the next century. Do we?

If so, we may enjoy safety behind the water fortesses, but do we have a life? The population unable to affort an air conditioner in the scorching heat of climate change, since we neglected to take care of the energy problem, knowing that all those renewables aree not nearly enough to satisfy our basic energy needs?

But then again, several of the climate specialists, are talking about solar minimums and approaching ice ages. That would imply in this scenario that we are looking from high a above, to a receding sea level, whilst freezing in the unheated -energy deprived- houses.

To govern is looking ahead, but what is ahead? We can only guess with the best possible science, not by "functional fear". Fear is the worst advisor. We need sound single agenda science, the truth.

Incidently in both scenarios, as painted above, it seems that having secured energy sources, could have mitigated the problems either way.

I wish you much, much wisdom, Jan Peter, to re-evaluate the process of conducting sound science in order to take the best possible decisions

Andre

 

[Architeuthis Dux]

I am concerned about the implications of this statement from RTL4. While it is important to have open and honest discussions about climate change and its potential impacts, it is dangerous to downplay or dismiss the severity of the issue. The Delta Commission's report was based on extensive research and input from experts in the field, and to suggest that it was exaggerated for political gain is irresponsible and undermines the credibility of the report.

Furthermore, the idea of appointing a "Delta Dictator" to push through the project and silence dissenting voices goes against the principles of democracy and open debate. It is important for any major decision, especially regarding infrastructure and potential threats, to be thoroughly discussed and debated by all stakeholders.

Additionally, the comparison to the IPCC summary for policymakers is not valid. The IPCC report is a consensus-based summary of the most up-to-date scientific research on climate change, while the Delta Commission's report is specific to the Netherlands and its unique vulnerabilities to sea level rise.

It is crucial for society to have a well-informed and fact-based understanding of climate change and its potential impacts. Downplaying or distorting the severity of the issue only hinders our ability to effectively address and mitigate its effects. As scientists, it is our responsibility to continue conducting thorough and unbiased research and to communicate our findings accurately to the public.