There is no doubt about it. The science is hard, fast and unmistakable. Without a doubt, we are facing the biggest climate catastrophe in history, and it is all man-made. When won’t the government start taking action – and I mean serious action – to help reverse these permanent changes to our environment? How can anyone today deny or even minimize the danger to our entire planet? The biggest threat to the existence of mankind is man-made, and it goes by the name “acid rain.†*
(rewind)
There can be no doubt. Scientists, studying two decades of satellite weather data, have determined that we are, in fact, headed for another “ice age.†We must take immediate action, as humans have influenced the atmosphere with their destructive chlorofluorocarbons that are emitted from their deodorant and hairspray cans.**
(rewind)
Without a doubt, it is man, himself, who has created the catastrophe that is upon us, today. Throughout the European continent, the torrential rains and ensuing floods have destroyed villages and killed many. Without a doubt, the smoke created and dust stirred by the Great War nary five years ago are the cause of the tremendous amounts of precipitation throughout the continent.***
(rewind)
Noah, it’s going to rain.****
(fast-forward)
Al Gore, after he invented the internets, turns his attention to the sky and discovers it is getting warmer. Maybe. But the data isn’t quite all in yet.
Maybe the biggest furnace within four light-years plays a bigger role, after all.
* Circa 1980′s
** Circa 1970′s
*** Circa 1920′s Europe
****Circa 4000 BC
 |
Billy Dennis is a former reporter and editor at small daily and weekly newspapers in Illinois and Missouri. He comments on media, news and politics. He also owns and operates 
I still want my hybrid car. So does my dog.
The earth is flat, too, isn't it Mouse?CG – I want a hybrid car, too, but I'm not buying one until they build one that's not butt-ugly.
Yeah, and I still remember when eggs were good for you, then bad for you, then good for you, then bad for you, then good for you again. All based on the irrefutable proof of science.
No BJ, the world isn't flat. It isn't coming to an end, either.
I wouldn't blame the science for the contradictions. I'd blame the often poorly handled mass media portrayal of science. The media often likes to treat us like idiots, expecting us all to want simple, straightforward, yes-and-no answers. Climatology, like many other scientific fields, provides few simple answers. It doesn't help that the oil industry and some other industrial interests are directly funding individuals whose sole purpose is to confuse the issue.I agree there have been false warnings of catastrophe before, and some in the media (and politics) are overplaying some of the potential consequences of global warming. The hurricane link is not well established, for example. It may be true, and it follows logically (warmer oceans = stronger and more frequent hurricanes), but to my knowledge the data isn't there yet for that particular facet of the story.Global warming IS happening (that's a simple observation – denying that is simple, Flat Earth style delusion), and I think it's probably more than a koinkedink that atmospheric CO2 levels started to rise around the time of the Industrial Revolution. There are certainly still questions regarding the <i>consequences</i> of global warming, but most scenarios in which climate changes rapidly (in any direction) result in major catastrophe for most species extent at the time.One threat that is certainly not overblown is the disappearance of many major glacial systems – a consequence of global warming that is very well documented. The disappearance of these glaciers could have terrible consequences for the world's readily available fresh water supply. Many countries rely on glacial run-off for their fresh drinking water and agricultural irrigation, and population pressures are already straining world fresh water supplies. Rising population + diminishing fresh water supply = bad things.Even if you don't buy the doomsday scenarios, there are enough secondary benefits to reducing carbon emissions (reducing emission of other pollutants concurrently, increasing energy efficiency, reducing dependence on fossil fuels, development of renewable resources) that I believe its certainly something we should pursue aggressively.
Don't blame 'science' for the often ridiculous and contradictory headlines you see. Scientific research is, well, hard. If it was easy we'd have the answers already! Being that it's hard, the real meaning of the 'result' that comes out of a given research project is not always clear. Heck, it's not even /often/ clear.Reporters, however, often have to condense a 20-page paper full of math and carefully chosen assumptions into a 30-second orgy of ignorance and sensationalism. In the process, all the subtlety and complexity goes by the wayside and you're left with junk like "Eggs prevent heart attacks" one week and "Eggs clog arteries" the next week.That's not to say that all scientific research is performed as well it could be. People make poor assumptions, people take shortcuts, and some jerks even fudge their numbers! That is why peer review is one of the key tenets of the scientific community*. Over time, the scientific method teaches us more and more about the world around us (and the world inside us!). Science has taken us from a society that believes lightning is supernatural to one that understands electricity well enough to build immensely powerful computers that fit in the palm of your hand, and we're only going to learn more as time marches on.*It's too bad that newspaper articles about science & technology don't go through peer review before being published…
Global warming and cooling has happened thousands of years ago before humans and their poluting sources, so it's hard to believe that humans are to blame now and even if it were true there is no logical way to reverse it. Useless to waste time on the discussion.
Peach-Are you freaking serious?
Absolutly. For years the U.S. has increased laws on different types of polutants and we still have what some call the ozone, climate change disaster. So either the chicken litte alamist are all wet or the rest of the worlds population is screwing things up so bad that anything we do is small potatoes. But things that are really screwing up the country go unnoticed.
Umm, Peach … CFC regulations are actually working. Results of a study sponsored by the American Geophysical Union in 2003 showed that ozone depletion over the poles has slowed since CFC regulations were put in place. Stratospheric ozone depletion will likely reverse once the long-lived CFC compounds (some have atmospheric half-lives of 50-100 years) degrade from the atmosphere.So thank you, Peach, for providing an example of environmental policy that was successful in averting a potential catrastrophe!
Global Warming is happening, no doubt. Too bad we don't know the cause of it, and we never really will since we don't have the 500,000 years of data you would need to prove any link. Using 125 years of data for weather changes is simply abandoning the basics of scientific observation, stuff you learned in your first 5th grade science lab.
Correct Tony. To many book worms trying to impress and save the world from many unknowns while ignoring many obvious factual problems. Wouldn't it be interesting to know how many of the chicken little's drive gas hog's, bbq every weekend and use other environmetal unfriendly polutants that book worms squak about?
In general, the discussion on this topic is so far off point it is ridiculous. Why does the discussion always seem to boil down to whether or not global warming is real or a myth constructed by science? Why is so difficult to see that; A) wouldn't it be better to err on the side of caution?, and B) why is it so hard to chisel into the "global warming is not real, so what's the use of doing anything" folks, that they don't see that our history of doing what benefits us right now; regardless of the environmental cosequences later, is hurting us? The Black Plague was helped in large part by climate change in Europe. Whether man made or not, we could prepare for this scenario today, or just remain at stalemate as to whether or not Al Gore is believable.
I agree, Rob B. Do you seriously expect us to wait half a million years so we can be absolutely certain, Tony? Do we wait until sea levels are rising, climate patterns are shifting wildly and our fresh water supplies are dwindling and THEN do something? News flash … then it's too late!Yeah, maybe those things won't happen, but climatology is a little more complex than your 5th grade science lab. Those simple rules don't apply to complex systems. Just like biological systems, there's no way you can control every variable when studying climate. That doesn't mean we should just throw up our arms and do nothing.I honestly don't care whether the current global warming is caused by human interference or not. I think it is, but that's not the main point. We shouldn't deny our responsibilities here, because there most certainly are things that can be done about this problem. The proposed approaches to combating global warming have the side benefit of reducing other pollutants, increasing our energy efficiency and reducing our dependence on fossil fuels. Why is that a bad thing???By the way, using a variety of data sources, we can calculate temperature fluctuations and atmospheric conditions back a lot longer than 125 years. We have fairly accurate calculations at least back to the last ice age, and some idea of events long before that.
I also find it interesting that while many on the conservative end of the political spectrum were all for the Bush Doctrine of preventative war in the face of a minimal threat from Iraq and extremely poor supportive evidence, they balk at the much more clearly supported evidence of potential catastrophe due to global warming. A few neocon hawks yell fire and the Red-Staters jump, but a thousand scientists provide reams of data from multiple corroborating sources and they hem and haw and ask for more proof.Why is it that so many conservatives are so anxious to END human life in the face of a phantom menace, but so tentative when given an opportunity to SAVE lives in the face of very real threats???Ahhh … the American war on intelligence at its finest.
And Knight, what do you think we as Americans should or can do? What have you done? I don't see it as political as you indicate with the conservative remark, it's a natural thing that nature controls. My guess is that liberal thinkers do their fair share of poluting and not worried of any fall out from it. As I indicated previously there are to many others world wide that do so much more harm to the enviorement than Americans, that controls are impossible.
Following Peach's logic, since the problems of poverty, hunger, oppression, and strife are so much worse elsewhere than in America, it is impossible to affect global change. It is TOTALLY political. With the money lusters in control, no change s will be made that mean anything if they affect the personal economy of those benefitting. One person supporting alternative fuel research or recycling may not save the planet, but if nothing changes, then nothing changes…..
Silly Rob! Apples and oranges mentality. There is something being done and more can be about world hunger, that is something that is obvious to anyone. And that also is mostly caused by political playing. But changing the weather is a complete different situation. As I said before, even if we accept the premis that there is global warming or cooling and everyone in America did the best they could, the rest of the uncivilized worlds actions would negate that. But I will ask you what I asked Knight, if you believe this stuff, what have your done?