Here’s something that’s been bugging me lately.
One issue that concerns me is man-made climate change. I have my own thoughts on its existence, but I’m not here to debate that right now.
Rather, what I’m curious about is why, exactly, those who aren’t convinced man-made climate change is happening are so goddamned ginned up about it? I can read any article about global warming on any news website and be assured, without even looking, that there will be swarms of the MMCC-unconvinced going on and on in the comments, to the point where it soon crosses the “protests to much, methinks” line.
The only equivalent hot button issue I can think of is abortion (the current astroturfed health care stuff aside). Now, I get where the vehemence comes from on abortion. The passion on both sides makes sense to me. But in my experience on the climate change issue, I’ve seen a lot more vehemence from those who refute man-made climate change than those who are convinced it’s happening.
Anyway, my question is this: what exactly is at stake here? What happens if we take steps to reduce emissions and so forth, even if–for the sake of argument–they’re not responsible for global warming?
If we reduce carbon emissions, we’ll have cleaner air in cities and, thus, improved health for all (and, by the by, spend less money on health care). If we reduce those emissions with cars that run on at least partially sustainable fuel sources, we’ll reduce our dependence on oil, which will do a number of things: minimize global conflicts, ameliorate whatever crisis will occur when oil reserves do dry up, oh, and hey, it might even help lower action figure prices.
So what’s at stake? Making sure the world is informed about what they’re perceiving as “cultish science”? There seems to me much worse and immediate threats than that–say, terrorism, or the declining U.S. educational system, or corporate control of politics, or eroding civil liberties.
Please tell me the concern here isn’t something like “preventing the alternative fuel industry from bilking us.” I mean, seriously–the oil industry and cartels have been screwing with us, and the world, for decades, and the money involved is several orders of magnitude larger than every cent that’s every been invested in alternative fuel.
Here’s my personal theory as to why people get so upset about global warming: they’re scared. Deep down, they’re absolutely terrified that something horrible is happening, and worse, they’re responsible for a little bit of it every time they turn the key in the ignition or flip on the A/C. And so they’ll not only jump on any bit of evidence to the contrary, but they’ll go crusading to prove their side, if only to assure themselves that not only are they perfectly safe, but they can continue doing everything they usually do, without changing their lives at all, and feel assured they’re not hurting the world (or themselves). Again, to be clear, I’m not saying that secretly, these people do think man-made climate change is happening; rather, I’m suggesting that part of them is afraid it might be and thus fuels their vehemence and obsessive pursuit of the issue. If I’ve ever noticed any sort of common denominator in this sort of behavior, it’s that there’s some sort of fear at the root of it.
I know this is something that’s happened to me. For instance, when I first read this post by former Ninja Turtles writer Steve Murphy, it made me both depressed and anxious, and I quickly went and read up on the whole permafrost-methane thing. And I’ll admit: I went looking for something to tell me it wasn’t as serious as Murphy was making it out to be (the answer, unfortunately, was to the effect of: we don’t know enough about it yet, but it could be really bad). But rather than deciding to deliberately seek out contrary evidence (no matter how spurious) to reassure me, I accepted it as a potential future risk and re-affirmed my support for seeking out alternative fuel sources and other ways to minimize any potential man-made contribution to global warming.
Now, I want to make clear that my intent is not to debate the existence of man-made global warming. I’m just curious as to why it seems to gin up so much vehemence. It just seems weird to me–what exactly do we have to lose by doing things like reducing reliance on oil or investing in alternative fuels? Losing jobs in the short-term while we move away from an oil-based economy? Folks, the unemployment–and general suffering–will be a lot worse if we just wait until the oil dries up.
The only other thing I can think of is that it’s popularly considered a “liberal” issue, and therefore anyone who considers themselves in diametric opposition to liberals sees it as one more thing to fight the good fight over. And that’s just sad.
I know that your personal theory put words to the way I feel-every time I start my car, let it idle because it’s so hot outside and I want to keep the AC on while wait/work in it, or the AC units we have in the house, or the stupid styrofoam cups I keep for the pug party, or every bag filled with trash…heck, I feel guilty when a hybrid passes me on the highway ( but not an Escalade hybrid!) When I read about the Antarctic ice shelf disappearing, I am almost too afraid to look for evidence that this is not happening and it is manipulative press. Of course, I grew up having Atom Bomb drills at school ( like getting under my desk was going to protect me…), the Cold War, Three Mile Island just months after my son was born, and now this….I’ve been afraid of something my whole life.
I really believe it boils down that people don’t like change. If they accept a fact like the world is getting warmer then there’s a lot of change that needs to be made.
I can’t speak for anyone else, but the #1 reason I get so worked up about the issue is simply that I am passionate about the Truth. The Climategate scandal has eclipsed Piltdown Man as the worst scientific scandal in Western history, with numerous “leading” climate scientists involved in fraudulent data manipulation and subversion of the peer review process to promote a political agenda at the expense of real science. That should make any real scientist’s blood boil with rage!
I also get worked up by the practical side of the issue. For instance, Obama seeks to reduce per capita American CO2 production to levels not seen since the 1800s, which would effectively push the vast majority of Americans deep into poverty.
For a more immediate example, consider the worldwide effect on food supplies and prices of the biofuels industry (corn ethanol, etc.), which exists mostly to reduce fossil fuel use. We’re burning vast amounts of food, and causing many of the world’s poorest people to starve, to sate the Left’s misguided appetite to “do something” inconsequential about an imaginary problem. It isn’t killing as many people as abortion, but it is killing a lot of people.
A lot of folks also get worked up because of the way that this issue is being used by the Left to justify curtailing personal freedom. For the excuse of curtailing CO2 emissions, governments are seeking to regulate or control everything which produces CO2 — which means virtually every human activity. It is, in a word, unAmerican.
Is that enough reasons for you?
Dave Burton
Cary, NC
Mumma Ghostal, I have good news for you. The Antarctic ice shelf is not disappearing. In fact, the thickness of most of the Antarctic Ice Cap is increasing, and sea ice in the Southern Ocean is also increasing, setting new records.
Now, that wouldn’t matter much except for two things:
1. It means you’re being lied to by the climate alarmists; and,
2. It is strong evidence that one of the key assumptions behind climate alarmism is completely wrong.
You see, every competent scientist knows that CO2, by itself, can’t cause much increase in global temperatures. The reason is simply that there is already enough CO2 in the atmosphere to block the escape of nearly all IR radiation at the wavelengths to which CO2 is opaque. Adding more simply won’t make much difference.
So why are the alarmists so worried about CO2? Well, they hypothesize that the world’s temperatures are unstable, due to “positive feedbacks” which, they suppose, will multiply the tiny effect of additional CO2 on temperatures. They call adding CO2 a “forcing” because it forces the system out of equilibrium.
Chief among the “positive feedbacks” which they expect to multiply the effect of small (CO2-induced) temperature changes is albedo. Simply put, since snow and ice are white, they reflect a larger percentage of the sunlight which strikes them, and absorb a smaller percentage. So, they suppose, as the earth’s temperature increases and the ice and snow melt, more heat will be absorbed from the sun, leading to more melting, more heat absorbed, etc..
However, there’s a problem with that. Simply put, it doesn’t seem to be happening; see this graph:
(click here for updated graph of Antarctic sea ice extent)
That’s a plot of sea ice extent in the Southern Ocean. As you can see, it is up. In fact, it is setting records!
Arctic sea ice extent has decreased a bit, but Antarctic sea ice extent has increased by very nearly the same amount. The significance of that fact is that it negates the sea ice albedo positive feedback effect which some climatologists had expected. (Less positive feedback means less warming effect from forcings such as GHG increases.)
What’s more, there’s a big difference between sea ice near the two poles. Arctic sea ice extent varies more randomly, because it is heavily influenced by wind, because it isn’t anchored to a continent. The wind blows the floating Arctic ice cap around. If the wind blows it into warmer water, it melts, so sea ice extent goes down. Wind has much less effect on sea ice in the Southern Ocean. Hence, increases in Antarctic sea ice may be of greater consequence than the similar-scale decreases in Arctic sea ice.
Dave Burton
Cary, NC
P.S. – Mumma Ghostal, I should have added one more thing: a link to the real story about the supposedly collapsing ice shelf in Antarctica:
Click here.
So, you can stop worrying about the ice shelf. Worry, instead, about the pernicious effects of our dishonest left-wing press.
Dave Burton
Cary, NC
(my email)
Because I believe firmly in free speech, I’ve allowed these comments to go through unmoderated. But I want to point out a couple things:
1.) I’m kind of amazed someone went to this much trouble to respond to a year-old post on a personal blog that gets basically no hits at all. And posted three times, no less. It rather proves my point about the passionate intensity.
2.) I haven’t made a hobby out of analyzing climate data, so I’m not going to respond to your specific claims. I’m not a scientist. Besides, I have no illusions about the fact that it will only result in an amateur-scientist arms race in which neither side will ever make even the slightest concession to the other. I have better things to do with my time.
Nonetheless, I firmly believe that pumping tons of CO2 in the air, dumping millions of gallons of oil into the ocean and filling our lands and seas with trash is a poor way to run a world and a recipe for disaster, so I will continue to support causes and politicians who are looking for better solutions.
Do I want or expect it all to vanish tomorrow? Of course not. But over the next few decades, yes. Why that represents some dire threat to the Republic is still unclear to me. God forbid Americans show the slightest bit of moderation, temperance or heck, maybe even some forethought in anything they do.
One day the oil, coal and natural gas will run out. The only question is how much damage humanity will have done to itself by then. You seem to believe the answer is none. I believe it will definitely be some, and I think we should try to mitigate it as much as possible now.
And while I posted your comments, this is my blog and I do not want to go further down this rabbit hole, so I’m closing the comments.
–JFCC, diehard progressive