Climate change
denial is not, and has never been, a 'dissenting view'. Anthropogenic
global warming has been accepted and taught in Universities since the 70's as a
currently occurring event based on the paleoclimatology data accumulated from
the past 100 years of geologic research. It’s also been confirmed by many other
disciplines, such as atmospheric science, geography, oceanography, biology,
chemistry, physics, and even the social sciences like anthro. The fact
that the general public only heard about AGW in the '90's does not diminish the
science in any way. It was only then that the denial machine went into effect,
of course, but AGW has never been in question in science. There is no other
theory that fits all the current data, and more importantly, all the past data
of the many eras the Earth has had high levels of carbon in the atmosphere.
AGW was and is taught the way plate tectonics and that the
earth revolves the sun and gravity are accepted: that there is no other
explanation that fits all these observations as well, so they are what science
considers 'truth' or 'knowledge'. Even though we can't actually see them in action,
we infer those explanations from our observations. And unless you're a genius
and can come up with a completely new model that explains all these thousands
of papers filled with raw data and analysis every year that confirm this
hypothesis, we'll just have to go with AGW as the best concept. Gravity
doesn't care if you believe in it as a theory or not, either, but you can
declare that as you jump out of a window and see how well that works for
you..
What these deniers don't get is that this isn't
"dire warnings." Scientists aren't just yelling from rooftops
that the end is near. These are a series
of predictions that range from really bad to catastrophic, based on past eras of
the earth and modern trending. Scientists are just doing their job in
making these public, and suggesting which parameters changing and how fast will
alter the models. SOME of them are agitating actively for change, but they are
in the minority. They have no stake in anything, other than that they are human
and might like the human race, including their children, to continue. But those
destroying the planet really do believe that these predictions are just
'warnings' and that they aren't murdering everything. Because most of them
aren't that sociopathic, so they have a vested interest in hoping that the
scientists are lying or wrong or misinformed or paid off.
Perpetuation of the bizarre myth that climate change is just
cyclical global warming, or that colder temperatures are proof that it isn't
happening, is more than unethical or criminal. It will kill us all.
Life on Earth will continue, even if only 1% of current species survive
that kind of climate alteration. But we humans are a soft species that can only handle
a mild medium in the spectrum of weather and temperature that the earth is
capable of, when we observe the geological record. (Unless you think
you can handle 800km/h winds?) We have very little time to make very drastic
changes that tip the engine back in our favour before we are all wiped out.
There is a reason that frogs can hibernate for years and other species
can go dormant when there is no water at all. It's because their
species developed in times where the earth was far less hospitable to life than
it is now. We are not such a species, and we will not survive this next,
and largely induced, phase in the Earth's cycle.
For those of you who need a one paragraph summation, and missed your science classes on
the subject... On Earth, heat is collected from the sun and, depending on the
conditions at the time, largely by carbon and other reflectors in the
atmosphere, that energy is either dissipated into space or retained to add heat to the
weather engine. That engine is responsible for moving heat around in the form
of winds, ocean currents, etc. The more heat in the engine, the greater
disparity in temperatures in different areas of the world, and the greater
strength of storms, etc. There are times on this planet when storms could average 500km/h, and when temperature fluctuations ranged from -100 to +60C.
For the past few millenniums, more energy has been released into space, making
the earth milder in all dimensions. With the increase in the atmosphere of
previously buried carbon, more heat is being added to the weather engine,
average earth temperature is increasing, while local temperatures are becoming
more extreme or altering altogether. Pretty clear, right?
In a world where it's +50 outside, or -70, or severe
hurricanes or tornadoes are the norm, humans would be living on an alien world.
Like a colony on Venus, humans
would have to live in underground bunkers or climate controlled cities. We could never interact with the environment again without protective
gear. That's already happening in many parts of the world. Our
children would never be able to play outside for their entire lives. Like
a civilization out of science fiction, this is really what some deniers propose
our solution to be, if they happen to be wrong, that is...
The entire eco-system will collapse as well. So there will
be no complex life on earth for a few million years. No mammals like whales and
bears and cats, no giant trees, almost no fish, most bugs gone and therefore
more plants. Never to be seen in the Universe again. Solving the eco-system
collapse problem seems a better solution than letting everything go extinct.
Sure, Earth has had that kind of environment many times before,
and life has thrived, but not life as we are used to. Dinosaurs survived
and evolved for hundreds of millions of years before their climate change
finally made them weak enough for the meteor to pop them off. Mammals
have had a relatively short stint in this new, far milder world, but now the
cycle is shifting back well before its usual time. We, as the dominant
intelligent species, have either contributed to it, or can change it back to
something our type of life can continue with. Denying that we have
anything to do with it, or that we can do anything about it, and should
concentrate our focus on "traditional" environmental causes, makes
someone a climate change denier, regardless of whatever emotional baggage they
carry with that.
In most of the geological history of the Earth, the climate
has been far more like Venus than what we are used to. Yes, life thrived then,
but not mammalian, and not the biosphere that maintains mammalian life. In this
particular incarnation of Life, we have a very narrow window of temperature
that is necessary to function and reproduce. We can manage to keep warm, but
cooling off is another matter. At a certain heat point, most of this
incarnation of the biosphere completely breaks down. And that includes us.
Humans alone, for various reasons, become less fertile as
the temperature rises for example. Include higher death rates, and you can see
the problem already starting. And that is IF no one starts mass migrations to
areas away from the equatorial band. Now include other mammals and support
systems and you can see the magnitude. It’s not just sea level rise or crop
failure. It is *human bodies* that begin to fail, as well as most other mammals
and plant systems.
Life will continue on this planet, but it won't be a kind of
life that can support anything that we need to survive.[1][2]
Our governments can't control everything, of course, not
without complete re-organization. But simply allowing our economic systems alone to decide if our environment is polluted, or determining if our
non-renewable resources are left behind for our children, is madness. Governments
MUST start showing long term leadership and make the decisions that will permit
our ecosystems and resources to sustain themselves for the next generations.
And not just for the human populations…
Lowest possible carbon is the only way to go. The feedback
loops make our current course a death sentence, but restoration, including
re-integration of carbon, can save most of our ecosystem. Adaptation is a myth. Science and tech can't do that for us.
That's why compromise and slow alteration simply won't work. We, and this
entire eco-system, are way too squishy and vulnerable to survive the change in
climate. However, there is still time to reverse the trend. More than we need,
in fact. Rainforests need to be encouraged to be rainforests again, wetlands
back to wetlands, carbon taken out of the atmosphere and put into plants, where
it should be. Yes, we have much more than the usual carbon in this kind of
system, but we can still compensate. This system is designed to do what it was
doing, and can revert in some cases in less than a decade. Its natural equilibrium
*wants* to go there. I'm not a conservationist. I'm a Restorationist. And it's
still possible. If we stop the damage we are doing now, and reverse the trends.
[3]
The environmental movement in this moment IS Climate Change.
Biomes moving to different areas due to local alterations; severe and far more
violent events, water loss, food growing areas shifting... What the heck
do you think the environmental movement is? Putting litter in it's place?
All those contaminants in our air and soil? Those may have
been the galvanizers 20 or 30 years ago, but they are nothing to the serious
issues facing the current life on earth as we know it. If you can't stand with
us, at least get the heck out of the way while we try to save the last remnants
of this ecosystem from going the way of the Age of the Dinosaurs, or the Age of
Insects, or the Age of...
Further
reading, including the Climate Change and the Integrity of
Science[i],
raw and interpreted data from many different disciplines[ii], and
some of the alleged controversies, like denier scientists[iii]
and “Climategate”[iv]
[1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12781636
[2] http://www.harryfisch.com/pdf/Global%20Temperature%20change%20and%20Fertility.pdf
[3] http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth_news/newsid_9364000/9364044.stm
[i] Data doesn't
change, but we learn better how to interpret and where to look for more:
Scientists' Statement and Response on Climate Change and the
Integrity of Science http://tinyurl.com/373c5pp
[ii] One of
the many disciplines that have yielded this data for 100 years, and how it is
used to create future projections: (and has one of the coolest names)
paleolimnology
I loved paleoclimatology, but it certainly didn't
receive the attention in the 80's than it does now! From boring cores samples in
back rooms of museums to media scrums! How glamorous for them...
Paloeclimate Dummies (or Tea Partiers): complete with
charts, over the Epoch, last ice age, 400,000, and 500 mya!
Hydrology data and interpretation:
Global Warming and the Hydrologic Cycle
Global Warming and the. Hydrologic Cycle: How are the
Occurrence of Floods,. Droughts, and Storms Likely to Change? Full
Marshall Institute paper
Arctic hydrology during global warming at the
Palaeocene/Eocene thermal maximum
[iii] Maxime
Bernier has a long history as a climate change denier
[iv] And Now
to Discuss Those Hacked Emails
(since most of you and the media haven't actually
read them, this is what's in them)
.png)
