The pointless debate
This is what I don't understand about the global warming debate. It shouldn't be an issue that man is primarily responsible for the dramatic increase in CO2 and rising temperatures across the world. The overwhelming majority of the global scientific community has repeatedly presented evidence which supports this theory, and just recently strongly reaffirmed their belief in said theory.
I just don't see how overwhelming scientific evidence means folks, almost entirely on the right, want to transform this into a partisan issue. It's ridiculous and flies in the face of science and reason. Global warming isn't a partisan issue, and the businesses and/or pundits who are framing the debate that way are terribly shortsighted.
It would seem to me the more logical stance for those folks who are in opposition to global warming science would be to acknowledge man's influence, but not call for government-imposed mandates and to stress something like having the market work it out since that appears to be the main sticking point.
Naturally, I'm of the mindset that we need to embrace things like the Kyoto Treaty and work to develop a system of mandates and/or incentives to help curb our CO2 emmissions, decrease fossil fuel consumption, etc. Still, this would reshape the debate in a considerably more constructive, and rational, kind of way.
And, even if the folks who continue to deny global warming want to keep doing so, why is a move away from a dependence on fossil fuels such a bad thing? Why is ending our dependence on oil, particularly foreign oil, considered so wrong? Why is embracing technologies which are cleaner burning and more energy efficient treated with such contempt by global warming foes?
I just don't see how overwhelming scientific evidence means folks, almost entirely on the right, want to transform this into a partisan issue. It's ridiculous and flies in the face of science and reason. Global warming isn't a partisan issue, and the businesses and/or pundits who are framing the debate that way are terribly shortsighted.
It would seem to me the more logical stance for those folks who are in opposition to global warming science would be to acknowledge man's influence, but not call for government-imposed mandates and to stress something like having the market work it out since that appears to be the main sticking point.
Naturally, I'm of the mindset that we need to embrace things like the Kyoto Treaty and work to develop a system of mandates and/or incentives to help curb our CO2 emmissions, decrease fossil fuel consumption, etc. Still, this would reshape the debate in a considerably more constructive, and rational, kind of way.
And, even if the folks who continue to deny global warming want to keep doing so, why is a move away from a dependence on fossil fuels such a bad thing? Why is ending our dependence on oil, particularly foreign oil, considered so wrong? Why is embracing technologies which are cleaner burning and more energy efficient treated with such contempt by global warming foes?
posted by Jmac at 9:13 AM
29 Comments:
As I type this, the windchill in Chicago is 30.
30 below. Homeless people are freezing to death.
If I were on the Left, I wouldn't call it "global warming;" you look silly on days like today. Call it--as some already are--"climate change." That way, you can't be wrong, because the climate always changes.
Need I explain the fact that, you know, global warming science is incredibly complicated and that a consistent rise in global temperatues can result in unpredictable weather all over the place? Including dramatically colder ones?
Or the fact that rising temperatures melting glaciers in the Artic could result in the slowing down of oceanic currents, thus bringing a shifting of climates across the globe, meaning some places would be dramatically cooler while others would be dramatically warmer?
But, sure, if you'd care for me to re-phrase it as 'climate change' in order to garner more backing for the work of the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community, than I'm more than willing to concede some semantics.
Oh God, after reading your post I set the over-under on a "Global warming? But its snowing in Denver!" comment at 23 minutes. That has got to be the worst come-back to the mountains upon mountains of scientific evidence that clearly shows global warming is real and we are the cause.
I am totally with you JMac, conservatives have this thing all wrong. It's as if they are advocating for MORE pollution. You hit the nail on the head when you called their tactics "short-sighted". Reason #345 I will never be a Republican.
I'm old enough to recall "The Coming Ice Age" of the '70s.
Followed by nuclear winter, acid rain, ozone holes, and Y2K as things that were going to do us in.
We're still here, living longer and better than at any time in the history of the planet.
The temp increased by 1 degree over the past century? So did life expectancy and standard of living. Any reasonable person might look at that and say hey, pour on the heat for another century.
But, no. To the Left, there is some Perfect Temperature and ever since we started elected Republicans on a regular basis, we've exceeded it, and sooner or later we'll be buying ocean front property in Iowa (home of the first caucus).
There is no grant money, no academic prestige, and certainly no Oscar nominations for the man who says "Hey, the weather's fine."
To get attention, you have to yell that the sky is falling.
It's the same reason that Terrell Owens gets a lot more press than Marvin Harrison.
This is political foppery, silliness of the highest order, and as sure as I'm typing this will be replaced by something even sillier within the next few years, after Global Warming has gone the way of the Coming Ice Age. I just hope we haven't unilaterally disarmed our economy by then.
I've come to the conclusion that there's just no reasoning with some folks, and that's the end of it. My inner eternal optimist hates that, but I really think it's the truth of the matter with certain, how to put it, flat-earth types.
Followed by nuclear winter, acid rain, ozone holes, and Y2K as things that were going to do us in.
OK, nuclear winter never happened because we didn't go to nuclear war, so chalk that one up the successful, bipartisan policy of mutually assured destruction.
Acid rain still exists today, but has been curbed by the actions of a variety of nations, including the U.S.
The holes in the ozone layer have diminished largely because of similar proactive policies from nations across the globe, again including the U.S.
Y2K didn't happen because businesses across the world worked diligently in the years leading up to 2000 to adequately update their software.
Sense a pattern here? It wasn't as if these were just mythical problems cooked up by a bunch of crackpots that simply never happened. Rather, a combination of public sector and private sector actions helped to turn the tide and assure these very real threats either never occurred or improved dramatically.
The same is true for global warming. Contrary to what Exxon might tell you, there is no significant debate over this issue in the global scientific community. It is considered a very real threat, but one that can also be readily addressed by mankind.
In fact, you cite the 'Coming Ice Age' trend in the 1970s, but the scientific community was notably split over these theories. In fact, in 1975 the National Science Board issued the following statement:
Judging from the record of the past interglacial ages, the present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end, leading into the next glacial age. However, it is possible, or even likely, than human interference has already altered the environment so much that the climatic pattern of the near future will follow a different path.
The models suggested a natural cycle of cooling, however even back then, the impact of man's interaction with the environment suggested that the natural models might possibly no longer apply. If anything, the incomplete science of the 'Coming Ice Age' you cite was widely debunked by more concrete evidence of man's role in rising global temperatures.
So, again I ask, what is so terribly wrong about adopting a more market-based approach to combat global warming? Granted, I'd have some disagreements over such a move, but wouldn't it put this important discussion in a more appropriate context?
Furthermore, how is depending on fossil fuel technology a feasible and profitable long-term strategy for our nation? Why not craft our economy to become a global leader in more environmentally friendly technologies such as hybrid cars, green buildings, cleaner burning fuels, etc.?
This won't hinder our economy at all, but rather place it on the path of long-term viability, particularly with nations like Russia, China and India diving into the fossil fuels market.
If life expectancy is increasing, then why are homeless people in Chicago dying!?!?!?
More seriously, I'd like to point out that dependency on foreign oil is at this time a wonderful thing for our northern neighbor, as the largest supplier of crude oil to the United States is Canada. By continuing to purchase Canadian oil, the United States maintains its political interdependency with Canada. However, if the US managed to move over into a wholly self-sufficient, self-sustained green economy, China and Canada would stand to have greater political ties and need for mutual preservation. The thing about green energy is that it permits the return to localization of political interests, rather than the globalization that oil made a necessity in the 20th century, and it is in the field of global politics that the modern empires thrive. If today's conservatives were true to the spirit of the older traditions, developing an economy that was more local than global should be first priority. It is the economic conditions of one's home that determines the political structures the home needs, a condition true since the Greeks' experiments. Global economics requires global hegemony, and as the United States is learning, its coming inability to compete with the devotion of India and China to securing their competitive dominance in the global economy will result in its becoming a suzerainty, rather than being sovereign.
I knew there was a reason why I called this 'The pointless debate.'
But, kudos Corleone ... you worked in swipes at scientists, the U.N., The New York Times and the French ... all while clinging to the conservative victimism card. Impressive. Most impressive.
Instead of popcorn, I think I'll opt for a big bucket o' Freedom Fries to watch this dog-and-pony show...
I'll say it again, if you want me to push for a massive public relations move to tinker with semantics on this thing if that'll get you to come around, then sure. Why not?
But since you and our anonymous poster are using semantics to simply ignore scientific data - or any of my arguments and/or questions - let's briefly look at your concern, that even though we call it 'warming' why is it that some places are 'cooling?'
Global warming is defined by the global mean surface temperature, but it doesn't mean the entire globe is warming uniformly. There are considerable variables such as wind patterns and ocean circulation.
As noted by Eric Steig, an isotope geochemist at the University of Washington, and Gavin Schmidt, a climate modeller for NASA, ...
The temperature change in any particular region will in fact be a combination of radiation-related changes (through greenhouse gases, aerosols, ozone and the like) and dynamical effects. Since the winds tend to only move heat from one place to another, their impact will tend to cancel out in the global mean.
Some observations ...
- If you notice, I said this should be a bipartisan issue. It just happens to be that most of the folks who dispute global warming exist primarily in the GOP;
- Are you seriously - seriously - going to refuse to accept overwhelming scientific evidence pointing to man's role in a global warming trend simply because you don't like how folks are wording it?;
- Again, as repeatedly noted throughout this discussion, we're talking global surface mean temperatures, which would suggest the yearly average is creeping up each year as more CO2 is released into our atmosphere. It doesn't necessarily mean that, all of a sudden, it's going to be 127 in New York City. What it does mean is that the average temperatures are going to be going up in increments over time. So, if it's 82 one year, then 82.4 the next, then 82.9, then 83.4 and so forth, that's an indication of warming.
- Noting the wind blew before aerosal existed doesn't prove anything. Wind served as a cooling element during our natural cycles of cooling and warming, and they still do that despite all of the manmade influences on the environment;
- If you don't think any cent spent would change it, then I'd encourage you to look at the amount of CO2 output each year over the past 100 years, particularly since the 1950s, and compare that with the global surface mean temperature, oceanic temperatures, glacial retreat, etc. and etc. ... and then compare those findings with the modular data that exists from our natural cycles of warming and cooling and CO2 output, and you'll find dramatic differences.
I think a better term is global weather extremism. Ultimately we see larger changes in weather patterns that lead to extreme situations. We'll see more tornadoes like those in Florida and more storms like those in Denver. Sure, it might be warm and you can go play golf right now, but your summer might be full of storms and tornadoes because of extreme weather patterns.
Global warming describes a trend of increasing average temperatures across the globe. It doesn't mean everywhere is supposed to be hotter than it was previously.
I will say this though - I have a good feeling we'll start to see more baseball games called due to weather than in the past.
More observations ...
- Regarding partisan disagreements, I just must disagree with you. The only reason any sort of partisan bickering exists over this is because we have two sides viewing the matter in completely different ways. One side, which is comprised primarily of progressive folks, examines the scientific data at hand and has formulated a response to this problem based on their ideological worldviews. The other side, however, has refused to acknowledge the scientific data and offers no argument. As a result, only one option is being presented to combat global warming. As I've noted here, I would more than gladly accept a discussion between differing visions of how to address global warming. We don't have that right now. We have one side saying 'here's our plan' and the other side saying 'y'all are crazy.'
- More to the point, wouldn't a more a rational way of venting your frustration over this issue be not to foolishly dismiss scientific data, but to offer a new strategy of how to approach this issue?
- You're setting up a false choice with your mysterious scientific disaster, which one could only assume would be either a direct strike by a meteor or astroid, or perhaps the expansion and then implosion of the sun or some other natural calamity. Those are false choices for a variety of reasons. First, they're hypothetical ones catered to your own choosing and for your own benefit. Second, they (more than likely) represent natural disasters which man has no control over, which is contrary to global warming, which man has a direct and significant impact on.
- Furthermore, despite deriding the fact that the scientific community would spring into action to attempt to understand the problem, predict the problem and find a way to address the problem, it would appear that is precisely the way to go. If man is able to develop the technology to, say, divert an oncoming meteor or comet or, in the far off future, colonize another planet to preserve the human race, why wouldn't we explore those options?
- I don't see how 'blaming George Bush and the Republicans' is relevent to this particular discussion. Or, more appropriately, I don't see why scientific discovery, research and investigation specifically blames them.
On the nose again JMac...the point in this whole debate is that its man's reckless polluting of the environment over the past decades, its greed-induced, short-sighted addiction to the burning of fossil fuels, that is causing this whole mess.
The effects of our cavalier attitude toward the environment are FACT. And the plain fact is that taking simple, and sensible steps such as increasing fuel efficiency standards dramatically on the American roadways, perfecting technology that is ready NOW like the electric car, capping industrial pollutants, mandating a switch to more energy efficient home appliances, etc will help now and in the long run. These are measures that every other forward-thinking, intelligent government in the developed world are taking. Meanwhile we pour millions into go-nowhere projects like the hydrogen car. It's beyond frustrating.
But humans don't cause stellar evolution, dawg, which I take it is your allusion (or, at least, there isn't significant evidence that humans have caused stellar evolution). There is, however, a very high probability that human activity has caused a global increase in conditions that favor higher ambient temperatures. While I can understand your reluctance to accept the semantic field of the term 'global warming', I think it's an extremely silly reluctance. Do you have this kind of problem with someone declaring, say, the University of Florida college football's "national champions"? Perhaps, perhaps not, but clearly 'global warming' is a useful term to describe a group of theoretical models both describing and predicting the weather phenomena we have been studying for quite some time. On the whole, the trend is that air and ocean temperatures are globally rising, and this trend is reflected, since the world is such a large thing, in greater variations in its extremities, as ned pointed out.
The world has had a long period of stable weather patterns, but as the heat exchange we have taken for granted between air and ocean begins to falter, there will be very drastic weather changes. Of course, "drastic" here is in the sense of geological time, meaning that it's our grandchildren and their grandchildren who will suffer these changes, unless in the meantime our children learn how to rebuild human civilization in more adaptive ways.
As for this being partisan: again, it is fully in the interest of those who wish to protect the sovereignty of the United States against international governing organizations (in addition to the growing political power of NGOs) to move towards green energy, rather than think that the global marketplace fueled by fossil fuels, because it is a marketplace, is what conservatives should protect. It is a fundamental failure of thought to not see that the United States simply does not have the numbers, regardless of its technologically advanced military, to preserve its energy resources in Canada and the Middle East against India and China. Iraq is a clear example of why the strategy of using an advanced military to secure infrastructure simply does not work and will not work in the 21st century. The result, then, is to find a way to secure the borders of the United States in a way that allows it to truly remain self-sufficient and self-sustaining, which will allow it to disentangle itself from alliances that, as history time after time has shown, threaten the security of the nation. Green energy, without a doubt, is a significant movement towards this self-sufficiency, which is precisely self-preservation.
You speak about funding the "illegitimate babies" of "crack whores." Presumably, dawg, you believe that self-sufficiency is the duty and responsibility of every human being, and so especially of every American. Then why is it not clear that the advantages of green energy will directly lead to national self-sufficiency and self-reliance? Why is it impermissible for our collective nation to support illegitimate crack whore babies, but wholly without question the duty of the United States to depend fully upon Canada and the Middle East for its lifestyle?
This is the true question of this partisan aspect of the disagreement: if there is anything truly worth conserving in the United States, why is it not the self-sovereignty of the nation? Why should the United States continue to follow an energy policy that clearly draws it into alliances and conflicts that threaten its security and the lives of its people? Do the conservatives not see this?
Or is conservatism truly as dead as the fossils it feeds upon?
Quick thoughts:
1. Although I am in Chicago, I am not the anonymous poster. I do "believe" in global warming as much as one can be said to "believe" in scientific findings. I tend to think "belief" in science is oxymoronic. At this point, you are either educated enough to understand or you're an ostrich. (I have no idea if anonymous actually denies the actuality of GW, but whatever)
2. I'm calling a cease and desist on anyone saying anything more about Chicago unless you have to go outside at 7am in the greater Chicagoland area. In wind chill that is 30 below. No one that saw something on the news can say anything more about Chicago. I'm calling for this because I'm IN CHICAGO and it hurts. Chicago is evil. Evil, evil, evil. The news guy said tonight, and I'm quoting, "This is the worst 'cold snap' we've had in the last eight years!" He said it all cheery and smug. I want to kill the news guy even though I know it's not his fault. God hates Chicago. That's the only logical explanation. "Make sure you cover all skin when outside; frostbite can set in in under 30 minutes." Nice.
3. On each side of this thing are people who either have read Crichton's book or watched Gore's movie. Not saying that about anyone here, but I'm guessing that a lot of the noise about this is being made by those folks. Super Informed is what I like to call them.
4. I have no idea if GW is a statistical effect only (yes, temps are increasing on the whole) or an actual outcome that has enough effect size to be cause for worry in the near to distant future (actual bad effects from this warming). I'm guessing it's the latter from what I've read, although not immediate.
5. Best quote ever, "What would happen to the Weather Channel's ratings their viewers weren't afraid?" Something like that anyway. Yep, GW is a conspiracy perpetuated by The Weather Channel and the weather industry.
Finally, another news story was the 25 year old woman who died from exposure to the cold (and cocaine). Seriously, the reporter said the bit about the exposure really loud and slow and then pretty much mumbled the bit about the coke. Fantastic.
On each side of this thing are people who either have read Crichton's book or watched Gore's movie.
Some of us have done neither, feeling it's not necessary. If you already know global warming exists and how bad it is, especially from having read Elizabeth Kolbert's extensive articles on it in the New Yorker, I don't see why you'd read Crichton's nonsense or spend the time watching Gore's film. The former is a load, and the latter isn't necessary if you already know what's up.
I was going to somewhat say what Hillary said, but offer this caveat to it ... namely that I think you're more or less correct in your general observation regarding Crichton and Gore and where folks come down, and I think that's fine.
What both of those vehicles should do is spur the reader/viewer to seek more information regarding the subject.
For instance, I saw An Inconvenient Truth during the holidays and thought it was pretty good and raised lots of interesting points and/or concerns. As a result, I've begun reading up on global warming science from a variety of sources (which, as an aside, for a non-scientific person to try and read a publication like, say, Science is pretty daunting and confusing) which have helped further my understanding of the topic.
I do agree with Hillary, however, that Crichton's work is a work of fiction that features cherry-picked statistics and data designed to paint a one-sided version of the issue to justify the ultimate aims of the main character in the story ... as he does with most of his works.
There's no more reason to believe Crichton's work as truth as there is to believe that The DaVinci Code is an accurate re-telling of the founding of the early Christian church.
"It is considered a very real threat, but one that can also be readily addressed by mankind."
I don't know if this has already been addressed (and I hate it when people comment without reading everything first...), but this isn't what the recent report from that international group says, JMac. What it says is that we temps are going to keep going up, no matter what we do. Supposedly a report giving out practical/policy recommendations is coming out later, but the "consensus" represented by the recent report (the one that put this issue front and center in the news for the last week or so) is that we've already set the planet on a warming course that we are unable to halt or reverse at this point.
Also, I may just be dense with this newfangled technology, but can anyone point me to a link to the actual report, you know with the actual charts and data and scientific reasoning and what-not? B/c the MSNBC article JMac has linked to is just a summary of what the report says. It doesn't give any "scientific" information at all, not even in a crude summary form like news stories often do. It just tells us (a few times over) that this report says that the earth has definitely gotten hotter, will definitely continue to do so, and that we are the major cause of this. I'd like to see the data from the report itself, which might help clear up a lot of this debate on both sides.
Yeah, now I've read through all the comments, and it hasn't been addressed from what I can tell. A pretty obvious thing to me in that article you linked to a while ago, JMac, was that the forthcoming report says that the climate changes are going to keep happening no matter what we do at this point.
So, what of this?
In all honesty, I have absolutely no idea how you reached that conclusion. The report doesn't indicate anything of the sort. It says that some warming will continue to occur, but that it's distinctly possible that some steps can and should be taken to minimize the impact and then, potentially, enable to planet to reverse the effects down the road.
It's not a 'oh crap we're doomed' scenario by any means. Far from it actually.
Plus, we should pursue practices which are more environmentally friendly for a variety of reasons, including economic ones.
As far as the actual report, I saw it somewhere (I want to say the original story had a link to it). I'll have to dig around. Did you Google for it?
You can also try Real Climate, which is run by a collection of climate scientists from NASA and other academic institutions. It's pretty informative, though I don't know if they'll have the report or not.
Just found the IPCC summary for policymakers here.
Why even fight about it? Moving away from fossil fuels is a good idea anyway, so let's just do it.
I just find it funny that Al Gore feels the need to educate the common man re: climate change, when what he should be doing is calling out his fellow cronies in Washington on both sides of the aisle. The federal government of the United States, the same one we presumably are entrusting to enact legislation to reverse or slow climate change, is far and away the biggest polluter of any entity on the entire planet.
Additionally, it stands to note that Friday the IPCC released their latest report, stating that "(in) most scenarios average global temperatures and sea level rise are likely to be somewhat lower than previously projected."
I don't doubt man's influence on climate change - what I do question is (1) if the projected changes over the next century will require radical measures by our overlords in Washington to minimize what causes these changes and (2) if the legislation enacted by Washington will cripple our economy, cost jobs, and taxpayers' money and (3) if it will all be worth it.
Unfortunately, while many scientists have predicted this climate change, none have presented a rational, reasonable cost-benefit analysis of the situation.
Xon, it's a question of stabilization wedges, not whole cures (halting or reversing). Similar to how a growing fever cannot be stopped completely in its tracks, but a person can take measures to slow the rise in body temperatures. The world's temperatures are going to rise, and that is not preventable anymore. But how high they eventually rise is something that can be braked. It's a question of whether just Miami or the whole of Florida will be under water.
Also, dave, appealing to the grass roots is a common way of putting pressure on legislators and government officials to pursue certain projects and agenda. It has worked in the past for both Democrats and Republicans, so I'm not sure what is to be gained by pointing out what Gore is doing as impotent or showmanship. One need only look at how the showmanship of Rush Limbaugh has managed to convince an overwhelming number of people that what he styles is conservatism, which translates into their support of those who style themselves as conservatives.
As for the economy: while worldwide flooding and damaging storms won't completely wreck the economy, since wherever there are humans there will always be exchanges in things of value, measures can be taken in the meantime to preserve as much participation in the economy as possible.
My point in bringing up Gore and Crichton is that they both paint pictures that aren't necessarily the truth of the matter. I do tend to think Gore is closer in his conclusions, but I think they are both prototypical examples of ways "sides" get information or, better stated, misinformation. I think Jmac has a good point though, in that it does hopefully make people want to seek out other, more scientific sources instead of fear-mongering or bury-my-head in the sand denial. (Jmac hits the nail on the head with the comparison of Crichton to Code)
Just in case someone misunderstood that thought.
Hmmm...I swear on a stack of Bibles that there was a different article up on the MSNBC site about this report, and that it said something almost exactly like "the temperature will continue to go up no matter what we do." I remember the article then had to take a couple paragraphs to justify why we should care at all, given that we can't keep it from happening. When I re-clicked the link yesterday it's like I was reading a different article...
And I grant Charles' point that, even if this is so, an inevitable rise in global temperatures does not mean that we cannot affect how drastic a rise it is. I grant that, because it's a perfectly reasonable point.
I'm a bit embarrassed by "conservatives" using the "it's cold in Chicago" argument, so I don't know what else to say right now.
Post a Comment
<< Home