I have some background in science, enough to know when I have to hit the books rather than depend on instinct or “the buzz”. Some issues are obvious, others less so. The trouble is, most folks don’t know when something isn’t obvious. The ability to analyze and interpret data is a skill no longer taught in schools as a part of general education. We teach young people they have a right to speak, a right to their own opinions, yet we don’t teach them how to form intelligent opinions.
At our fingertips is access to all the information of the world, but without the ability to discern fact from fantasy, how do we really know to discard the web page from Elvis’ lover from outer space? In a large number of cases, we trust certain sources to be accurate, but there remains massive amounts of people who will believe anything, and once they believe, their faith cannot be shaken.
You may or may not believe in what is now called “Anthropogenic Climate Change”. It was previously called Climate Change, and before that Global Warming, and before that Weather. One clue an idea is without merit is when it keeps changing its name.
The idea of Anthropogenic Climate Change became popular after Rachel Carson’s book “Silent Spring” was published in 1962. Carson’s focus was the use of pesticides, notably DDT, which could be directly linked to genetic damage in wildlife. Her book launched the environmental movement, which at the time was warning air pollution would cause a decrease in planetary temperatures by blocking sunlight, bringing on an ice age.
There are wondrous benefits to humanity to be gained by realizing where “away” is when we throw something away. Archeology provides several examples of societies that polluted their environments, and either moved on to pollute new locations or found themselves trapped in an environment that could no longer sustain them. There is no question that we can foul our immediate surroundings, or consume all of the locally available resources. Today we see ourselves as a global community, we realize we might actually be able to use all the resources on the planet, the pollution we ship off to someplace we can’t see can wash back up on our doorstep.
Somewhere in there is the break in logic. Maybe if we compare the issue to physics, where we recognize the rules change with scale, we may be better served. The thin crust of humans on this planet can destroy individual species, and in some cases those species may be keystones in the environment. We can do a lot of damage, and might even be able to make the entire planet hostile to human life. What is far more likely is we will find our pattern unsustainable, and due either to wisdom or necessity reduce the number of humans on the planet. Fewer humans, fewer resources consumed and polluted, the environment heals. If we do manage to drive our own species to extinction, should we shed a tear?
Everything works in cycles, we might mourn the loss of the Snail Darter, but is anyone campaigning to bring back Tyrannosaurus Rex? Part of our minds accepts, even embraces the cycles of lives, another insists on controlling them. Perhaps Homo Post Sapiens will do better.
For me, the issue of “Climate Change” boils down to a few critical points.
First, “Is it happening?”. Despite what either camp is shouting, the answer is “The jury is still out on that one”. There is adequate data to indicate we are following natural cycles, and there is adequate
speculation extrapolation of that data to indicate the trend might be towards unnatural warming.
Second, “Is there anything that should be done about it?”. Note that before even questioning if how or if we can, the question is “should”. The questions that arise here are “Is this a natural process?” and “Is there some reason to believe altering a global process could have positive results?”. We put on sunscreen before going out in the sun, and carry an umbrella in the rain, but is it a good idea to stop the sun or the rain? If it does turn out that humans have caused Climate Change, are not humans part of the ecosystem? Everything humans do is by definition natural, so should we consciously attempt to alter the climate of the entire planet?
Third, “What can be done about it?”. If there is climate change (Anthropogenic or not) and we determine we should attempt to alter it, what should we do? How precisely will allowing some countries to pollute more, and assigning fines to countries that have been arbitrarily chosen to pollute less, affect the climate in any possible way? If the problem is carbon in the atmosphere, and the problem is a global one, why is it a solution to allow Russia to buy India’s capacity to produce atmospheric carbon? Wouldn’t the solution be closer to eliminating atmospheric carbon production altogether rather than transferring currency?
My skepticism on the subject is not assuaged by the fanatics that claim humans are responsible for climate change. Starting from the beginning, are not weathermen the least trusted when the question is accuracy? Maybe they can forecast today’s weather, but next week? Next century? Ten thousand years from now? These are people who can’t remember not to wear green in front of a green screen, their only interaction with technology each day.
Our local weatherman mentioned today the wind chill temperatures would be lower in a certain area because they had more snow on the ground. There is more snow on the ground there because it snowed there yesterday. Wind chill is determined by air temperature and wind speed, snow on the ground does not factor at all.
A fake petition was passed around at a global warming rally (I’m just guessing they’re against, and not for, global warming) requesting the United States government to lower the temperature of the sun. Stupid followers do not enhance your public image. People claiming that global warming “deniers” are ignoring science might want to check where that thermostat on the sun might be, and share with us why they think Americans have access to it.
Gallup recently presented the results from a poll, indicating “More than four in 10 Americans say the seriousness of global warming is generally exaggerated, while one in three say it is generally underestimated and about one in four say it is generally correct”. Despite the odd presentation (4/10 + 1/3 + 1/4 = 1) the poll was not about the science, or even about the scientists, but about public opinion, what people thought the scientists (more precisely the media) were saying. And this is my point. People are arguing about their opinions, with no knowledge of the facts. Despite the fact public opinion has nothing to do with the validity of data, it is interesting that even though more people believe scientists believe in global warming, more people than ever believe that global warming claims are exaggerated in the media.
Climate change deserves your attention. I have seen nothing that convinces me it is not a totally natural process, but regardless of your beliefs, seek out facts to support them. Don’t listen to wankers, they’re on both sides of the issue.