Global Warming and the Stupid People

“No one cares”: That’s not an inconvenient truth: It’s a sad commentary on the self-imposed blindness of those who want to believe the world works the way it did in the good old days – you know, when presidents could strut around on aircraft carriers, when the West ruled and everyone could bow to the shibboleth of “free markets” or socialism, or communism, or consumerism. You may not care about the millions who starve in Africa today as a result of the fairly moderate changes already occurring. You may not care about future damage and lives disrupted or lost. You might not care, but your planet does. The world did not become flat because humans decided it was; the sun and stars did not revolve around Earth because that was the prevalent belief; and global warming will not become a “non-issue” because people “don’t care”. Alcuin

The climate of the world does ebb and flow, just as polarity switches from time to time.  However, there's no excuse for us doing our level best to accelerate the effects of climate change. 

There's no evidence that climate change has not, in the past, actually been the result of man's interference.  Think on this possibility:  the last ice age may well have been brought about by our own "advanced" species building "civilisations" that are now long lost under millions of tonnes of water and earth.  We know very little about human history and even less about Earth's in general. 

Personally I don't think it's a good idea to be contributing to next millennia's archaeological mysteries.

Ice core samples, ocean floor core samples, chemical analysis of the contents matched to the times of their origin, ie. the industrial revolution.  The current thawing of permafrost is now releasing more methane in the atmosphere and accelerating the process.  These are some of the things that constitute the clues of origin.  While the earth has indeed fluctuated climate many times, this time looks pretty interesting.  In the past, when climate patterns changed, there were quite a few less people and the borders were quite a bit less stiff.  To what extent should science be censored by politics?  If you take two sides of an issue, examine what each side has to gain if their perspective prevails, you at least have a sense of motivation for whomever is passing on their analysis.  Scientists gain grant money.  Industrialists protect some pretty big profits.  And "stupid" environmentalists?  Are they merely out to do battle against the capitalist economy, or do they have legitimate concerns for the well-being of humanity as a whole (and not just those who are profiting in the short term)?  Such a complicated topic, but most only know what someone else says about it, and what's said about global warning is about as politicized as it gets.  I tend to think about it the same way I think about painting my house:  if I stick my head in the sand when the paint is chipping, then the wood rots and the whole repair job has gotten that much more complicated and expensive.  But the ecosystem is not siding, and the complications potentially involve a fairly profound degree of suffering in other parts of the world.

cool.  an essay.  I haven't seen Gore's movie, so I can't comment on that except to say I'm pretty sure Rush Limbaugh and his ilk have no greater passion for truth than Al Gore.  But I do have a few other thoughts.

For instance, core samples do give evidence of climatic patterns over the millennia, much as tree ring samples do over a shorter period of time, but what it all means is subject to debate.  My understanding of “global warming” tends to focus more on shifting weather patterns and their effects on current populations.  For instance, in the Little Ice Age you mentioned, it’s speculated that rain patterns shifted hundreds of miles south of the region where the Mayan culture flourished, subjecting that region to severe drought and contributing to the fall of their civilization.  (On the bright side, those populations had a little more freedom to migrate than they would now.)  In Europe, about the same time, it’s speculated that changing patterns in the Gulf Stream through the North Atlantic caused sporadic bouts of cold weather which resulted in equally sporadic bouts of sometimes extreme famine.  Some current speculations about global warming, though not in the recent UN report, point to the potential for a larger disruption to the gulf stream resulting in the same types of cooling trends for Europe - even as the Earth grows warmer – due to the infusion of fresh water working to shut down thermohaline circulation in the North Atlantic.  But as with much of the science investigating these potential trends, there is a great deal of contradictory data leading to a variety of conclusions.

Still, there are many areas of study lumped under “global warming,” and many competing hypotheses.  The science behind greenhouse gases and their impact on climate is pretty solid, and theories concerned with global warming sometimes demonstrate how the accumulation of those gases can potentially have an impact that accelerates the natural causes of those same gases (i.e. water vapor from increased levels of evaporation; the release of methane previously locked in permafrost) as well as the diminished ability of the earth to absorb carbon (i.e. deforestation.)  The political question seems to be whether or not carbon emissions from human activities is a major factor in the build up of greenhouse gases that lead to warming, whether or not we should coordinate efforts to reduce carbon emissions, and whether or not the dangers are largely overblown.  I think it’s a legitimate debate and would be loathe to label either party in that debate as “stupid.”  But I do believe there’s different motivations on the part of those who finance the lobbying campaigns that seek to sway governmental action in either direction, and I believe there are huge PR campaigns, from both sides, that seek to influence the debate.  As for the rest of us, who seem to argue largely for argument’s sake, we have an alarming tendency to pick one side of the battle and belittle those on the other side, as well as any legitimate information brought to the table.  I think that’s sad.

So where do I stand?  I believe there is a certain amount of truth to human causes in the rise of greenhouse gases and that the impact could be potentially devastating to some regions which are already stressed by over-population as well as other environmental and economic factors.  I also believe that aspects of this may be overblown, and don’t deny there can be a certain amount of hysteria involved as well.  I further believe that where there’s a lot of money at stake, the people with the money tend to serve their own interests even at the expense of others.  I’m not ashamed of any of these beliefs, and don’t consider myself stupid, misinformed or hysterical.  Cynical, maybe.  I also believe that, at any given time, on any given subject, I can be mistaken.  So I prefer not to call the other side stupid – they might be correct.  Still, I tend to question motives at the higher levels of influence, particularly where money is involved.  That’s just part of my cynical nature.  Sometimes, it's just good political sense.

*****

for data, check these sites out:

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/trends.htm
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/16...o/chapter1.html

for both sides of the political debate, check out these two sites and compare (but don't forget to check their references!):

http://www.environmentaldefens....cfm?tagID=1011
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/t...bal_warming.htm