I will take a moment to discuss it. I won't share facts concerning scientific data or theory, but I will share facts about what I - as an average person - have learned about global warming.
Facts:
#1 Many many people, including many international well-educated scientists, many acquaintances who themselves are very well educated, and of course the majority of international opinion seem to believe very strongly in global warming.
#2 When I say that people believe in global warming I mean the following, which is what I think most people mean (this certainly needs to be clarified the way people talk about this issue): that human activities have affected global climate to the extent that many people will suffer, die, or be generally worse off than otherwise AND that we must enact, at the least, policies that will impact us very significantly from an economic point of view.
#3 Many other people (though not nearly as many as those in #1), many of them well-educated, not all of them biased, seem to not 'believe' in global warming. That is, they at least think that we should not enact these very extreme measures advocated by their opponents.
#4 Both sides of the discussion seem to easily and handily rebut their opponents using seemingly sophisticated scientific and economic arguments. From the point of view of a non-climatologist, it seems that the science cited by both parties seems to be of equal validity. That is, some arguments seem very good, and others seem really poor.
#5 If the global warming 'believers' are right, then inaction would probably be immoral and extremely shortsighted and foolish. If they are right. If the non-believers are right, then carbon trading schemes and the like are nothing more than fraud, big time fraud.
Let me state that I have no intention of discussing specific scientific data in this post. I welcome it in any discussion, and I would probably post about it in the future. I'm only citing my point of view - which is based on all the information that has distilled upon me by informally reading about this subject. I feel like I know more about this subject than most people with whom I discuss it. I understand very little about it.
Questions (This is what I need to know to take a side):
#1 How much has the climate changed?
Regardless of cause, what does science say about how much climate has changed and how reliable is that information? This is a basic question, but the answer is not clear to me even after Al Gore and lots of other reading. Some people say that temperatures are rising faster than ever. Others say there are about the same they have ever been. How can this be debated? Weird that you can get both messages, shouldn't this be easy to answer? What I've learned has makes me think that maybe temperatures have risen about 1-2 degrees Celsius in 100 years. Is that an uncommon change?
#2 What is the effect of the this change?
Assuming we know how much things have changed, or even if we know how much they will change (see #3), what will really happen? Ice caps will melt? How much? Al Gore says that a chain of events could see our polar ice virtually disappear faster than we could imagine. Other sources say that land ice has increased, that global warming believers cite selective examples of melting. Isn't this something we can easily know. Don't we have satellites?
#3 How much will the climate change in the future?
I think this depends on other knowledge (#4), that is, predicting the future. Still, can we really tell? If we can, how much will it change? Again (#2) what will the effects be? I mention this because my understanding was that the most likely amount of change is going to be another 1-2 degrees Celsius in 100 years. Again, is that bad?
#4 What effect did humans have on this?
The infamous graph (I suppose the 'hockey stick' is THE infamous graph) relating to this question is the one with temperatures juxtaposed next to CO2 levels. We see CO2 shoot up (Al Gore and the mechanical rising thingy, remember?). I want to know, if it's so much higher, what's taking temperature so long to catch up? Okay, that is not really an informed speculation, but I have seen a graph that shows sun activity v. temperature and that seems to correlate much better. CO2 seems to keep up with temperature. So, really, how much CO2 have we put into the atmosphere and how much has it affected us? How much change in climate, assuming we know #1, can be attributed to human activity.
#5 What can we do about it/What impact will our reverse efforts have?
Let us suppose we enact a hugely expensive international carbon-reduction program. Will it really change the negative effects (#2,#3). Really, how much can we say about what it would acutally do. From a moral perspective, maybe one could argue that it's not about solving the problem, it's about 'doing our best'. That's stupid! If we know that our efforts won't significantly reduce negative effects, then why throw a wrench in the global economic engine to try?
Conclusion
It sometimes seems that all this global warming talk is designed to do just that, throw a wrench in our economic system. There are plenty around (future post) who don't like our current system and would have it destroyed.
*Big Answer* So, if our activities can be reasonably demonstrated to have caused a change in global climate to the point that significant and negative consequences will result, if there is a solution that will almost certainly significantly reduce these changes and thereby the negative consequences, then heck, let's do it.
But no one has convinced me that this is the case. Yet, I'm not convinced that it's not the case so I'm still swayed by all the believer rhetoric.
I want the rhetoric to stop. I want the believers to stop radically condemning non-believers - from anti-american snobbery at the UN, to my physicist cousin who despite being perfectly respectful about it, seems overly passionate about the absolute 'reality' of global warming - and just explain to us well why we should side with the their radical-seeming proposals.
I'm tired of people taking sides. I'm tired of average people declaring that global warming IS or IS NOT real. They don't know, they don't have a clue. They just have read a thing or two like me and have formed an opinion. I want as clear answers to the above questions as possible, and I want them from someone who cares more about answering those questions honestly than whichever 'side' is right.
Gosh! Haven't you heard the discussion:
"So, do you think global warming is real?"
"Absolutely, it is definitely real!"
"No it's not, it's all made up, not real at all!"
"What? Of course it's real, haven't you looked at the science?"
"Yes! The science is clear, we should do nothing!"
What the heck? You know that those people don't know (this one comment is irrelevant if you have never heard such a conversation).
GIVE US SOME ANSWERS! PEOPLE!
My personal opinion (as best as I know, and I have an ever open mind)-
Temperatures have risen 1-2 degrees in 100 years, will do so again. Human activity is a factor. A few negative consequences may result. A few positive consequences will also probably result (less winter deaths, open NW passage, less powerful hurricanes, etc). Kyoto and other such schemes will hardly have an impact. They will destroy our current economic model. In fact, they seem to exist as an absolute alternative to our current economic model and seem to be nothing more than the implementation of a literal global and local redistribution of wealth.
Solution:
Invest money in better climate research - don't be afraid of it. Invest in technology research. We could theoretically emit very little CO2 if certain technologies emerged. Invest in medical research - advances in medicine and treatment would certainly be far more effective than preventing small changes in climate. Etcetera!
I mean, isn't it clear? Some say we don't need to reduce emissions at all. I almost agree.
Please help me answer these questions.
0 comments:
Post a Comment