Continuing to try to answer the question I posed near the top of my last blog: What is it that others see in Global warming that I dont, or why do I see things that others apparently don't?
If you search on the web for "Global Warming Denial," most of what you find relates to willing denial because the denier doesn't accept the basic science reported through the IPCC. There is a reluctance to believe that such bodies are presenting valid results, or that they are pursuing their own strange motivations. This can only arise from ignorance.
There are those who claim that the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere were fairly recently at levels far in excess of those of today -- 1500 ppm has been claimed within the last few thousand years. I don't know where these figures come from, since I have not seen them in the literature*. Indeed the greatest they have been over the last 15 million years, has been less than they are today -- 380 ppm. (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091008152242.htm) In our experience as a species, we have never been subjected to levels greater than they are today. The earliest evidence of the genus Homo is from about 2.3 million years ago (WikiPedia) and of Homo Sapiens much less than a million years ago, perhaps as little as 100,000 years.
Another search I have tried is to find books that support the hypothesis that global warming is not happening, and they certainly exist. When you search on "Global Warming" on Amazon, you will find 26,704 listings. If you search on "Climate Change" there are 63,435 listings. Substantial numbers.
If you go through http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/, a site dedicated to debunking the science, and trace through their bookstore, there are only 22 entries. If you search on Amazon for "Global Warming Hoax" you will find 384 entries. Either the hoax site is not trying, or most of the references are not calling it a hoax.
In any case the overwhelming majority of published books are not calling it a hoax. Man-made global warming is a fact.
But setting the deniers aside for a moment (or two), there may be something else at work here. Maybe we should welcome the idea that the climate is getting warmer. Despite many of the dire predictions of increased atmospheric turbulence, perhaps improvements will also appear. Maybe its good that grapes will grow in the northern part of the Canadian Shield. Maybe it is good that the Arctic will cease (for a time) to be ice bound, and the Polar Bear will go extinct. Maybe its good that the Maldives will be flooded to of existence. Maybe its good that the Antarctic ice shelves have vanished, and Penguins will go extinct.
Certainly there are those that embrace the change. Sir Richard Branson has hosted a private conference of entrepreneurs (can't find a web reference to this though) asking, prudently, how to benefit from Global Warming. If its going to happen, let's work out to get the best advantage from it. On the other hand he has also set aside $25 million for work towards reducing global warming. So maybe he's hedging his bets -- and I wish I could afford to do the same thing!
Personally I'm with Sir Richard, and Al Gore, and David Suzuki, and George Monbiot. Unless we do something radical, we are heading for a precipice. Unless we change directions we are heading to where we are going.
* Going back many millions of years to the time of the dinosaurs and before that, there were periods when CO2 levels exceeded 20 times today's levels. But that's not a climate that will or ever could sustain us.
The climate change issue will always be of utmost contention between scientists, industry, and the public. Such is the nature of the beast. I will not brand myself to be a climate change denier, but frankly, I think the whole notion of climate change, and CO2 emissions to be utterly misguided. Allow me to elaborate further.
ReplyDeleteFirst, it is obvious why the government and industry turn a blind eye to the issue; should there be even a mere glimmer of doubt within scientific analysis they can argue for the continuation of the status quo. Further, suffice it to say that a large majority of the populace are blue-collar workers who are employed at these industrial plants, and although most of the glory is gone from these jobs as plants close down, I believe there is often a great loyalty to these corporations, who employed multiple generations of their families, and provided them with wonderful benefits, pension plants, and the like. One must not bite the hand that feeds.
I don’t wish to argue for or against the issue of climate change, and whether or not it is happening – for starters I am not up to date on the current literature. As an archaeologist, however, it is hard to grasp how other scientists can claim to definitively know trends which span less than 1% of the earth’s existence, and I can see how this would be confusing to the public. In the last glacial period, the Wisconsin glacier covered most of Canada, Washington State, Minnesota, etc. During the 10,000 + years ago when peoples from Siberia crossed the Bering Strait, a large number of those first migrants populated regions like the American SW, where the weather was most hospitable. There were likely coastal settlements along BC and California, which have for the last millennia or more been inundated by melting glacial waters from the Wisconsin, and are now 100s of meters underwater. The earth’s climate is always changing, and dramatically so. Since the dawn of time, animals, plants, bacteria, and fungi have had to adapt, evolve, or face extinction in response to changing ecologies. Personally, I think this process is beautiful. The idea of polar bears, penguins, or people going extinct really does not get me running for the hills.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I do think that the intentional destruction of the earth's fragile ecosystems for our own benefit is irresponsible. And disgusting. But I would argue that we need to change the discourse in order to create a bigger impact within society. Instead of waiting for the end of (endless!) bickering between scientists on the issue of climate change, the answer is simple (to me, at least). Frame the argument in terms of things that most people accept as being truth already, and consider as being more insidious to their own existence – pollution in our cities, waters, and atmosphere. Toxic chemicals that the government allows for use which have not been thoroughly tested need to be banned, and in so doing, a byproduct of creating cleaner, healthier, and safer environments will be reduced CO2 emissions. Pesticides, herbicides, flame retardants, phalates, food additives, coal burning, etc, are serious public health issues. So is summer haze which clouds and darkens our cities, and keeps us indoors, as well as toxic waste, and agricultural runoff in our lakes. The general public does not care about polar bears. In this highly individual-oriented, self-absorbed world, they care about themselves. And maybe their kids. Why not get the public all riled up about rising cancer rates, along with respiratory illnesses and endocrine disorders? People don’t care what will happen to future generations to come, but they care about their personal health and well-being. Will they get cancer at a young age? Will their newborn child have birth defects? Everyone faces these concerns, regardless of income, political affiliation, job, age, gender, etc. It hits closer to home than melting ice caps, but overall it is indeed part of the same greater issue.
If we fight for a safer world for all of us, and strive for a more natural existence, of course we will, in the process, cut our CO2 emissions. But it isn’t that the angle we should be taking? We need to hit the right nerve within society if we want change.