I was listening to the radio the other day, when I came across a particularly ear-catching story. Some professor of climatology or other was claiming that Climate Change/Global Warming was not due to any human causes. This, despite the now-famous UN Report written by some 2000 scientists from across the globe that stated unequivocally that climate change is occuring, and that it is more than likely a man-made problem. Anyone who’s watched An Inconvenient Truth can attest to at least agreeing with Al Gore (whether you like the man or not – and the movie isn’t half bad) that we all feel it and see it happening – that the environment is changing, though slowly, but we can all feel it at some level. Certainly, at least in Toronto, having the warmest December in decades followed by the coldest February in nearly the same amount of time at least qualifies as unusual, if not signalling some grander scale change.
But here was this guy, denying that climate change was man-made. That I could understand, perhaps, as he was justifying it based on solar surface activity (currently a highly debated subject as we cannot measure the sun very well, and reliable measurements from the past is virtually nonexistent). But he went on to attack several leading environmentalists of today, including Al Gore and David Suzuki. Now, I’m no fan of pure environmental rhetoric – surely, technological advancements should have an equal importance to the sustainability of the environment – after all, we only have one Earth – but I see nothing wrong with the perfectly rational arguments of these environmentalists.
He claimed that water vapour, not carbon dioxide, is the leadng cause of any greenhouse effect, and that the greenhouse effect is over-estimated in general. The case was made, essentially, that fossil fuels are not the problem, but the changing climate is in fact a natural phenomenon. But he was completely missing the point. Whether or not the burning of fossil fuels causes greenhouse warming is an important point to debate, but that ignores a great part of the system as a whole. It is obvious that fossil fuels are an unsustainable form of fuel (read Thomas Homer-Dixon’s new book), and that sooner or later, it will run out. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out the world’s fuel supply is coming to an end. My own Data Management project in grade 11 was plenty enough to show the remarkable decreasing trend of oil supply. All of this data from independent sources, all pointing to the same conclusion – there is no more oil.
Climate change may very well be a consequence of our fuel-dependent economy, which is indeed my own position, but that’s only one consequence. There are far greater implications on a global economy – and essentially a human species – that is dependent on a nonrenewable resource. The fact is, it will in all likelihood lead to a disaster, if the status quo is maintained.
It wouldn’t be so bad, if this was an isolated incident. But it appears climate change deniers are rather commonplace. The “union of concerned scientists” and the “cooler heads coalition” (I may not have gotten the exact names right, but it’s along those lines) are two examples of large ’scientific’ communities denying either the man-made nature of climate change or climate change itself. These groups are coming out to the press and giving the scientific community a heck of a lot of trouble. People don’t know what to believe anymore – is the climate changing because of us, or because of something else?
But again, these advocacy groups may be completely missing the point, and misguiding the public. The facts are in, folks, the Earth is changing, and we’re running low on fuel. There is no mistake, and we’re going to have to do something about it, sooner or later. Whether it’s man-made or not should not even be a point of discussion. The fact that it’s changing for the worse should already be getting people worried. Why is it so hard to comprehend? Let’s just hope our semi-incompetent governments will stop listening to the naysayers and just get on with finding a real solution (none of this “carbon intensity” crap).
Comments (8)
my friend yesterday offhandedly commented yesterday that ‘two years ago, scoffing at global warming was a social norm.’ now to be honest, i can’t remember far back enough to know, but it sounds about right. so of coruse there are going to be people a little slow to reckoning, and of course there are going to be scoffers here and there.
there is something called the ‘teeter totter effect,’ [i have no idea if that's the official name, i will be the first to point out that this is unsourced colloquial 'knowledge'] although i think it’s supposed to be more like an old school scale.
it basically says that we are driving our earth and its sustainability to the point of no return; we currently push one side, but the earth’s own repair mechanisms push back on the other side and somewhat restore the balance.
eventually our environmental debts are going to outweigh what the earth can sustain and it’s then that we will really begin to see our consequences full-force. and i think even then there will be some people who insist it’s natural; that the earth is still actually flat.
[scientists] have predicted this tipping point to be as soon as some time in 2011, it supposedly coincides with a prediction for the ‘end of the world’ (tipping point?) made by the mayans, who also predicted the ‘end of civilization’ (coming of the white man, enter Mel Gibson’s Apocalypto, blah blah) interesting stuff to say the least.
but that’s all uninformed and unsourced. =)
that took wayyy too long, i have to go to school -_-
ice cream!!
COFFEEEEEeEEE!
It’s gravely concerning, see, for those of us who have actually been following the news, or have been watching the Discovery Channel since the age of 7, since it’s been *over a decade* that it’s been seriously looked at and given warning by scientists worldwide.
Or am I too optimistic that people actually care? =(
perhaps slightly a tad too much faith in humanity.
there’s that terribly annoying carrying capacity / growth theory that i cannot for the life of me remember the name of (there’s malthusian, neo-malthusian… something something.. stupid world issues) where people believe that technology and human ingenuity will continue to develop to maintain our standards of living. i HATE it.
i forget what the point of this comment was, since i’ve wasted about an hour in between and during lecture trying to find the name of the theory. BOOO.
The economic theory by Malthus stating that carrying capacity increases linearly with time while population increases geometrically? =P
I think you might be listening too carefully to the outcry of a very vocal, but very minor minority. One scientist on the radio (likely paid off by the oil cartels) isn’t much evidence of an anti-global warming backlash, not when compared to the otherwise near-unanimity of the international science community, the UN agreeing that humans have a responsibility to deal with climate change, Al Gore winning the Oscar, and so on. In Conservative circles, all this is blasphemy because environmental responsibility is bad for big business (actually, any type of responsibility is bad for big business, but that’s another matter…), but thankfully most of the free world, especially outside of North America and the non-costal United States in particular, is sensible enough to see that things need to change.
“First they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.” Right?
is that it? i thought there was another, among 4 different theories. and i cannot find my world issues notes because amc might still have them, though i now delightfully can recall l’hopital’s rule thing and also where my occipital lobe is.
I’ve heard the oil conspiracy theories, and there are indeed a few of those proven ones in the States running amok, but this guy seemed to be clean of the oil company stuff, except for “one trip to a convention” of sorts. Take what you will from that
Regardless of what people argue, understanding a person’s motives for saying something is ultimately reason enough for me to pass judgement on their position. If the reason you argue for something is corrupt then regardless of what you say, you’re wrong. It’s like an inductive proof where the base case doesn’t work.
I think that it’s far too unlikely that someone of his position would be so narrowminded as to submit a paper contradicting such widely accepted issues without a strong motive. Okay, say he truly believes in his position: that technological and industrial advancement is truly the direction that society needs to advance towards for the betterment of all of mankind. But, is this base case that rock solid? that no matter what, the brute force industrial path is better than the more conservative natural path encouraged by the naturalists? Personally, I think that there’s too many examples in the real world of the conservative path being better for anyone to make any sound argument based on the other.
So, having ruled out the case where this scientist truly believes his position. I conclude that through proof by exhaustion, his motive came from external sources => he is corrupt.
- QED