Back in college (during the Nixon administration - yikes!), I had a Psychology professor who startled me with an assertion about human behavior that I still fondly recall.
He said that humans appear to have a need to maintain a certain level of anxiety, and that, no matter what the level of your particular civilization, you will find something to worry about.
Which brings me, once again, to Global Warming. It's something I think about daily, with fear and trembling. A few years ago, the concept that occupied that place was -- wait for it -- Nuclear Winter.
Reminds me of the classic Twilight Zone where people are suffering from unbearable heat. It seems that the Earth has changed its orbit, and is gradually getting closer and closer to the sun. People lie there, listlessly and sweating, dealing with their inevitable doom from heat.
Then, it is revealed that that situation was a person's dream, and she describes that dream to the folks around her. Everyone nods in understanding, as it is revealed that, really, the Earth's orbital change is taking it further and further away from the Sun, and they are all, really, suffering from terrible, irreversable cold.
Or maybe it was the other way around. You get the idea.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
And as Al Gore's movie explained with striking clarity, the intial warming that we are experiencing -- if allowed to continue -- will actually lead to an ice age. Quite ironic.
But the good news is a few very simple changes can make a big difference, and we have the technology and the ability to make these changes NOW. The question is one of getting enough people to acknowledge the issue and have the *desire* to take a few simple steps. Things like:
- switch home lighting to florescent bulbs
- plug TVs, stereos, computers, etc into power strips and turn the lot OFF when not in use. These devices consume up to 40% of their 'normal' draw when just sitting waiting to be turned on
- as vehicles need to be replaced, purchase hybrid or other alternatively-fueled vehicles
- reduce single-occupant commutes by telecommuting, carpooling, riding public transportation
- purchase locally-grown food (it reduces the carbon footprint of the food, since there is less transportation, and it supports the local economy)
And so many other very doable little and larger changes. There is hope.
Dream on Sparky! It's facinating to read Barry's post about fears, dreams, etc. and meld them with his current reality. Yikes indeed. Barry is a history buff. Perhaps he remembers that the earth was so warm in the 12th century that there were vine yards in Scotland. The Vikings in the 12th century in Greenland in a couple of generations died off of global cooling. What caused the warming to begin with? SUVs? Nucs? Coal-fired plants? How about the evil, Enron manipulating oil prices?
The obvious answer, the earth's temperature variations are a very complex model which we don't understand very well. So, instead of leveraging rational science to figure out what is the major contributor to global warming (could be the sun) and what we can do about it, we decide to tank the world economy. Great idea!
Mad
I guess you're right - there is no difference between conditions on earth in the 12th Century versus the 21st Century.
Oh, wait - I just remembered: the Industrial Revolution, a global petroleum-burning-based economy, massive clear-cutting and burning in equatorial rain-forests, and 7 billion more people!
'Scuse me while I bury my head in the sand - it's much cooler there.
You missed the point as usual, Barry.
We had global warming in the 12th century when there were none of the conditions you describe. What caused it? The latest figures I've seen on the Kyoto agreement was that if all the emission standards were met it might reduce global temperatures by 1/4 of a degree. And for that you tank the world economy and put additional stress on the poorest of countries. There's real liberal compassion for you!
Mad
Thanks for your comment.
One of us is sadly deluded.
You might take a look at this: http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p357.htm A counter opinion signed by 17,000 basic and applied American scientists on global warming. So much for "consensus" on global warming! I have taken the time to read and research the many sides of the argument. I would urge you to do the same.
Mad
Yes, I would certainly stake the future of human civilization on crackpots from Cave Junction, who have been soundly discredited.
http://experts.about.com/e/o/or/Oregon_Petition.htm
http://timlambert.org/2004/05
Try this instead (National Geographic):
http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0409/feature1/
Well, there WERE petitions circulating at the time, claiming that some major scientists had doubts as to Global Roundness, and that more study was needed.
As it turns out, most of the studies were funded by the Map-Makers lobby, who were afraid that their profits were being threatened by Global Roundness.
Eventually, though, they decided that more money could be made by embracing Global Roundness, and they bought up all the fledgling globe-maker guilds.
Fifty years later, you couldn't find any politician who was willing to admit that they ever denied Global Roundness, and the entire controversy quickly faded from people's memory.
A glorious age of global exploration followed, in which native peoples all over the world were exploited and massacred, but that's another story.
Interesting.... Instead of engaging a meaningful dialogy, you choose to attack any criticism of the "global warming" orthodoxy. I particularily like the reference to crackpots. The 17,000 did sign the petition. There is no refuting that. The claim that is asserted in your reference is that global warming is a "lie". That's not what the petition says nor is it my postiion. Have you read the criticisms of Al Gore's movie?
This is just too easy.
Obviously you didn't take the time to look up the reference I posted above, so here it is.
From http://timlambert.org/2004/05 (do a find on 'Oregon Petition'):
Did 17,000 scientists really say that global warming is a “lie”? I looked further and found the actual words of the petition. What they actually agreed with was this:
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.
So they weren’t saying that it was a lie or wasn’t happening, just that there wasn’t good evidence that it would be a catastrophe. The OISM people have misrepresented their own petition.
Still, why would 17,000 scientists agree with the far weaker statement above? Well, it looks like that involved misrepresentation by the OISM as well. It seems they were mailed this letter from Frederick Seitz which said:
Research Review of Global Warming Evidence
Below is an eight page review of information on the subject of “global warming,” and a petition in the form of a reply card. Please consider these materials carefully.
The United States is very close to adopting an international agreement that would ration the use of energy and of technologies that depend upon coal, oil, and natural gas and some other organic compounds.
This treaty is, in our opinion, based upon flawed ideas. Research data on climate change do not show that human use of hydrocarbons is harmful. To the contrary, there is good evidence that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is environmentally helpful.
Unfortunately, the “research review” they were sent is not a research review of global warming evidence, but just a review of the evidence against global warming. According to the “review“, the earth isn’t warming, it’s cooling:
Predictions of global warming are based on computer climate modeling, a branch of science still in its infancy.
The empirical evidence actual measurements of Earth’s temperature shows no man-made warming trend. Indeed, over the past two decades, when CO2 levels have been at their highest, global average temperatures have actually cooled slightly.
How was the “review” able to claim cooling? Simple. The authors presented the satellite data (which at the time showed slight cooling, but now shows significant warming) but dismissed the more extensive surface data because it had “substantial uncertainties”. The only uncertainty that they mention is the urban heat island effect and what they fail to mention is that the surface temperature estimated by GISS corrects for the urban heat island effect. The “review” is not honest.
As a researcher, when I see a “research review” I expect that it will cover all the relevant research. I can certainly understand how a scientist who was under the impression that it was a genuine review might be persuaded that there was no good evidence for global warming, especially because the vast majority of scientists who signed were not climate scientists. Furthermore, in his cover letter Seitz identified himself as a past president of the NAS and the typeface and format of the “review” matched that used by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. This report from PR Watch explains how the NAS was forced to correct the impression that it endorsed the “review”:
“The mailing is clearly designed to be deceptive by giving people the impression that the article, which is full of half-truths, is a reprint and has passed peer review,” complained Raymond Pierrehumbert, an atmospheric chemist at the University of Chicago. NAS foreign secretary F. Sherwood Rowland, an atmospheric chemist, said researchers “are wondering if someone is trying to hoodwink them.”
NAS council member Ralph J. Cicerone, dean of the School of Physical Sciences at the University of California at Irvine, was particularly offended that Seitz described himself in the cover letter as a “past president” of the NAS. Although Seitz had indeed held that title in the 1960s, Cicerone hoped that scientists who received the petition mailing would not be misled into believing that he “still has a role in governing the organization.”
The NAS issued an unusually blunt formal response to the petition drive. “The NAS Council would like to make it clear that this petition has nothing to do with the National Academy of Sciences and that the manuscript was not published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences or in any other peer-reviewed journal,” it stated in a news release. “The petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy.”
In fact, it pointed out, its own prior published study had shown that “even given the considerable uncertainties in our knowledge of the relevant phenomena, greenhouse warming poses a potential threat sufficient to merit prompt responses. Investment in mitigation measures acts as insurance protection against the great uncertainties and the possibility of dramatic surprises.”
Of course, some of the signatories might have signed it even if they were better informed about global warming research. The Scientific American did a check:
Scientific American took a random sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science. Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition—one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages.
Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers—a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community.
And I can’t help but share the Tech Central Station take on Scientific American’s check:
SciAm reported on the Oregon Petition against Kyoto back in October 2001, but rather than being encouraged by the extent of professional opinion supporting an optimistic reading of the evidence, the publication sniffed through the names until the editors found six (unnamed) signatories who apparently have since changed their minds.
Gee, that makes it sound like they had to search through the entire 17,000 to find the six. And who wrote that highly misleading account of the Scientific American’s check? None other than Ross “no such thing as a Global Temperature” McKitrick.
So, I take back the usage of the word 'crackpot'. These people are, instead, promoting a document that is (in the words of the article) 'clearly designed to be deceptive'.
Crackpots? Maybe not. Shamefully dishonest? I'd go with that.
Please go away for a while, and come back after you read this:
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/06/4_stages_denial.php
Greets to the webmaster of this wonderful site. Keep working. Thank you.
»
Post a Comment