increasing area of land should not be seen as a logical contradiction (Donchyts et al.
2016).
Global catastrophe deniers cannot take the reading from trendlines (statistics) to a
global disaster for humanity (cf. IPCC Reports). Most regions and ecosystems on
earth with their inhabitants—humans and biota—do not suffer from global warming
or climate change, and many regions are affected by other serious environmental
problems such as habitat destruction and damage, pollution, and/or an increasing
human use and pressure on their systems. This is the reason why we accept climate
change as a challenge but cannot evaluate it as biggest environmental problem of the
century.
Gifford (2014, p. 392) defines environmental hazards as “events of unusually
large magnitude, often unpredictable and allowing little or no preparation, that
cause death or injury to many people, destroy much property, and disrupt many
social and economic activities.” Examples are volcanic eruptions, earthquakes,
bomb explosions, chemical spills, drought periods, floods, fires, and others. With
respect to Gifford’s definition and Harold Foster’s system for assessing the impact of
environmental hazards and some stress scores for selected large events (Gifford
2014, p. 405) climate change as a general and global trend can hardly be characterized as environmental disaster, hazard, catastrophe or calamity.
However, the scientific evaluation of the relationship between global warming
and the constitution of ecosystems, biota and social life is complex, and the scientific
reflexion is ambiguous at the moment. This might be the reason for the plurality of
perceptions, interpretations, and opinions in this special case (see e.g. IPCC 2014,
and the IUCN Red List, National Reports on biodiversity conservation in popular
online media). Meanwhile a strong interpretation dichotomy developed across
scientific disciplines leading to the proclamation of each party that the contrary
position was non-scientific.
Furthermore, many people are aware of climate change, an increasing rate of
hazards and risks that are in critical exceedance of tipping points. However, these
people often overlook natural scientific facts, ecological processes and the meaning
of ecosystems for human wellbeing and life (ecology ignorants). Climate change
does not tell the whole story of environmental pressure on humans, flora and fauna.
I also want to introduce the opposite of any denier or skeptics which may be
called non-skeptics or non-deniers. Credulous people often belong to this group. It
might be fruitful not to have so many members of this group in social and scientific
communities.
However, it is easy to denigrate members of any group of basic adjustment and it
is more complicated to find a neutral label (attempt in Table 1).
Around eight billion people worldwide, and a growing life expectancy—isn’t this
a success story? One billion undernourished people, murder and increasing migration waves—isn’t this a disaster story?
Whenever the media report a catastrophe or disaster the number of killed people
is one of the most important for the scale of severity. Which are the facts and what do
we fear most? Most people today die because of old-age and disease, cardiac
insufficiency and cancer. However, which one, would we think, is the most
30
C. Hobohm
2016).
Global catastrophe deniers cannot take the reading from trendlines (statistics) to a
global disaster for humanity (cf. IPCC Reports). Most regions and ecosystems on
earth with their inhabitants—humans and biota—do not suffer from global warming
or climate change, and many regions are affected by other serious environmental
problems such as habitat destruction and damage, pollution, and/or an increasing
human use and pressure on their systems. This is the reason why we accept climate
change as a challenge but cannot evaluate it as biggest environmental problem of the
century.
Gifford (2014, p. 392) defines environmental hazards as “events of unusually
large magnitude, often unpredictable and allowing little or no preparation, that
cause death or injury to many people, destroy much property, and disrupt many
social and economic activities.” Examples are volcanic eruptions, earthquakes,
bomb explosions, chemical spills, drought periods, floods, fires, and others. With
respect to Gifford’s definition and Harold Foster’s system for assessing the impact of
environmental hazards and some stress scores for selected large events (Gifford
2014, p. 405) climate change as a general and global trend can hardly be characterized as environmental disaster, hazard, catastrophe or calamity.
However, the scientific evaluation of the relationship between global warming
and the constitution of ecosystems, biota and social life is complex, and the scientific
reflexion is ambiguous at the moment. This might be the reason for the plurality of
perceptions, interpretations, and opinions in this special case (see e.g. IPCC 2014,
and the IUCN Red List, National Reports on biodiversity conservation in popular
online media). Meanwhile a strong interpretation dichotomy developed across
scientific disciplines leading to the proclamation of each party that the contrary
position was non-scientific.
Furthermore, many people are aware of climate change, an increasing rate of
hazards and risks that are in critical exceedance of tipping points. However, these
people often overlook natural scientific facts, ecological processes and the meaning
of ecosystems for human wellbeing and life (ecology ignorants). Climate change
does not tell the whole story of environmental pressure on humans, flora and fauna.
I also want to introduce the opposite of any denier or skeptics which may be
called non-skeptics or non-deniers. Credulous people often belong to this group. It
might be fruitful not to have so many members of this group in social and scientific
communities.
However, it is easy to denigrate members of any group of basic adjustment and it
is more complicated to find a neutral label (attempt in Table 1).
Around eight billion people worldwide, and a growing life expectancy—isn’t this
a success story? One billion undernourished people, murder and increasing migration waves—isn’t this a disaster story?
Whenever the media report a catastrophe or disaster the number of killed people
is one of the most important for the scale of severity. Which are the facts and what do
we fear most? Most people today die because of old-age and disease, cardiac
insufficiency and cancer. However, which one, would we think, is the most
30
C. Hobohm