Debunking science more important than saving the planet?
Share your Thoughts
Posted on July 21, 2006
Filed Under Global warming/Climate change, Deep ecology, Ecological hope, Population growth, Fossil fuel dependency, Environmental disasters, Earth spirituality
Fostering Ecological Hope
Today from Margaret Swedish:
Here is a good example of what we’re up against — a guest op-ed in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel yesterday morning from a right-wing ideologue named William Rusher. He is heralded as a “Distinguished Fellow” of the Claremont Institute for the Study of Statesmanship and Political Philosophy.” I put that in quotes simply because where he is so distinguished is at an institute created by and for neoconservative “fellows” just like him.
Not a scientist, just another rightist think-tank type.
Yet, this op-ed yesterday morning by Rusher [the J-S chose not to put this article on their web site, hence this other link] not only debunking the science, but relegating the reality of global warming and its threats to just another wave of fear over the weather that manifests from time to time — sometimes folks fearing a new ice age, sometimes folks fearing ecosystem collapse due to warming. Silly us.
I don’t know which is worse — that these people would rather defend a political and economic ideology that is sending us freefalling towards catastrophe, or that the media would actually print this stuff as if it is just another serious opinion on the matter.
This is another example of what these global warming debunkers try to do — to act as if there is a serious debate on this issue and it is all just a matter of opinion. Take your pick: global warming, or not.
As if an article on warming in the NY Times in 1776 is the same as an article about global warming and climate change in 2006. As if the science has not advanced a wee bit since then, as if we don’t know anything more about climate change since then, as if a now intensely populated planet and industrial and post-industrial societies spewing carbon and methane into the atmosphere haven’t changed things a bit.
Once again, there is as close a consensus as you can get among SCIENTISTS on the reality of global warming, measured not by mere fluctuations in weather patterns but in the real measurement of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere, how they will increase exponentially over the next decades, and what this will mean for the permanent alteration of the earth’s atmosphere, and hence, climate change.
We need to respond whenever these articles appear and let newspapers and other media outlets know how we feel as they play with an issue that means life and death for humanity. If nothing else, give a real picture of who these writers are and what their agenda is.
Fight for the truth. We are running out of time for this kind of stupidity.
[I am still on the road, and I apologize for not being able to post more frequently. I will continue as I can until I settle for a bit towards the end of July. Thanks for visiting, reading, caring.]
Comments
2 Responses to “Debunking science more important than saving the planet?”
Leave a Reply
Ms Swedish; As a scientist who has followed the global warming debate for over 10 years, let me make the following points. Yes, almost all scientists believe that it is real, but only in the past few years when the satellite measurements started showing a trend. That has ended that debate. [The satellites didn’t previously, and don’t believe any of the charts that show trends of even a 100 years ago, as they have not nearly enough points of measurements to be meaningful — ice cores and tree rings don’t show global averages, which are very hard to come by]. There is also no debate over whether man has caused a portion of it as the CO2 measurements and their source are indisputable! The whole argument, though, is on whether that portion is significant or even measurable, with a large portion of scientists believing that it is not. The amount of misinformation is rampant. “CO2 is the major greenhouse gas” it is not! Methane is 10x more and H2O is 10x more than that. “The debate has ended with 100% of scientists in agreement that man is the cause!” Discovery Channel last week showed the scientific evidence for a coming ice age based on the most recent ice core evidence, and look around the web for proof that the debate is still on by serious and credible scientists.
The southern ice cap on Mars has diminished greatly in the past 20 years and this squares with the NASA measurements showing that solar output is increasing at .05% per decade and that this can account for much if not most of what we are seeing [Why are these facts never dealt with by Gore and others when they are easily available, though hard to dispute].
Consider the following two facts [check them out]: 1. Mt Pinatubo’s eruption in ‘89 put more pollution into the atmosphere in two weeks [of CO, CO2, methane, Sulfuric compounds, among many others +huge amounts of particulate matter] than all of the industries of the world have, since the industrial revolution began – [the earth cooled 1 degree for over a year - that unimportant but interesting], but otherwise the world seemed to take that in its stride- at least you never see the warmist’s point to it as a reason for what we are seeing. 2. The same scientists that vouch for warming, admit that if the Kyoto treaty were to be adopted and followed by all the world, including China and India [China now projecting to bring on line, one coal fired power plant per week for the next many years according to the warming program on Discovery Channel], then it would make the difference of only a fraction of a degree over the next 100 years [Germany, a prime supporter of Kyoto, has now dropped their goals as being impossible to meet]. Measure this against Gore’s recommendations of recycling and turning off the TV when we aren’t using it, along with several other innocuous and easy things to do. You see the bankruptcy of their arguments, in their solutions. They may be right, but to be right, would require them to use “nuclear power” [the only source of power that could possibly make a dent in what they say is happening] as the next topic in their discussion. But environmentalists don’t like nuclear power, so it is mentioned only infrequently [and by Gore not at all?]. The second thing to look for among true believers is the whether they have the honesty to recommend that we cut our driving in half, turn off our air-conditioning units permanently, and cut back our heating thermostats to 50F and buy sweaters. Anything less than such drastic measures are completely inadequate to address the problem as they describe it [watch the movie]. Gore on the AOL Web site said the following: “This can end civilization and in perhaps in only 10 years we will hove reached the point of no return”– I have that recorded, for it seems now to be missing from the site. In all my reading of the debate, I have never seen any scientist ever hint of Civilization’s end. Further, if we are but 10 years away from such a disaster, what was he doing 6 years ago when he was running things? And, how can we now believe his statement that “we have all the tools needed [recycling] to deal with the crisis” — doesn’t it seem to you that there is something of a disconnect there?? Measure their sincerity by these standards before you blindly accept what they say. You may want to spend the trillions of dollars it will take to just follow Kyoto, but at this point, I would judge that after 50 years you would have nothing to show for it. I certainly may be wrong, and I am continually looking at the evidence, but I am unconvinced by the many arguments that do not come close to adding up, and by the patently false statements they include in their arguments.
Well, first of all, Mr. Caldwell, thanks for the long comment. Secondly, I don’t blindly accept anything “they” say. I do my own research, reading, thinking, talking with experts, and more.
Since you say you are a scientist, I am curious if you have done studies, research, papers on the topic because I have not had success googling you. I am always interested in other opinions.
A couple of things: Yes, Kyoto is woefully short of what is needed in terms of drastic reductions in carbon emissions. It is the fact that even these modest and inadequate goals cannot be met that should concern us. Of course, wealthy western governments want life to go on as before, with economic growth their aim, no matter how unsustainable. That is very much part of the problem.
Mt. Pinatubo — lots of pollution, lots of particulate matter that darkened the skies and temporarily cooled the atmosphere. We have the same reality with human caused particulate matter pollution. That is why some scientists warn that, as we try to clean up this major threat to human health, it could end up warming things even faster as these particulates dissipate and the air grows cleaner. Pick your health threat — deadly pollution or deadly climate change.
Next, you say no scientist is predicting the possible end of civilization. Not true. A few are very alarmed. One is James Lovelock (http://www.ecolo.org/lovelock/lovedeten.htm), whose credentials are pretty impressive. Here’s what he thinks right now (http://comment.independent.co.uk/commentators/article338830.ece).
You can argue with him, but there is no doubt that at least one expert scientist in these matters is very, very worried. Then there’s Stephen Hawking who recently said that he fears earth will become another Venus (http://ecologicalhope.wordpress.com/2006/06/22/will-earth-become-like-venus/). Hawking is one of the world’s leading cosmologists. His credentials are pretty impressive too.
Finally, I agree with you that many of those giving the bad news have only lukewarm suggestions for how to salvage things. What is required is nothing less than a new way of living on this planet. You see, even beyond the issue of global warming and climate change is this reality — that we are over-consuming the earth’s resources. The earth cannot sustain our levels of human consumption. So unless we are willing to change how we live, to reorganize human societies and economies, we are headed for a very difficult future.