Response to Emily on Global Warming
I meant to write this post a loooong time ago, but I never got around to it. Emily wrote an opinion about global warming that I totally disagree with and is clearly just from lack of research on the topic. Actually, when I first read it …it was like I was reading a slightly edited version of one of the many kinds of creationists arguing against evolution. Luckily, in the mean time Ian Bushfield responded to it for me.
I am by no means a stereotypical environmentalist who knows global warming is a *serious* problem just because I want to get environmentalism into policy… But I’ve read a lot about global warming, listened to debates and done a lot of schooling around the topic … and it happens to be one of the very few areas of stereotypical environmentalism that I agree with. Here is Ian’s reply which was short, sweet and to the point.
Everything you say has been thoroughly debunked repeatedly before.
There IS a consensus among real climate scientists (notice how, like in the evolution/creation debate, engineers are the major opposition “scientists” to the established facts).
The 1970s global cooling myth is a result of a Newsweek article not a scientific journal or consensus among scientists. In fact, articles being published were 44-7 in favour of warming over cooling hypotheses.
Also, if you were concerned about the CRU hacked data, analysis of the emails results in no real “gotcha” moments, and does nothing to discredit the mountains of evidence that exist. At most the emails demonstrate that scientists remain human with all the associated flaws (jealousy, anger, frustration, etc.) that result from continued attack by self-proclaimed sceptics.
Finally, most of the “scepticism” movement is heavily funded by the oil industry similar to how the tobacco industry funded PR against the notion of cigarettes causing cancer or how evangelical religions fund PR against evolution.
2000-2009 was the warmest decade on record and despite what high school chemistry teachers believe (similar to under-trained biology teachers) we are very likely to have caused it. The greenhouse effect is real (or else the planet would be 30 C colder than it is), and putting more carbon into the atmosphere that is normally buried under ground is bound to have an effect.
Scientists do share some of the blame for bad PR and not communicating their findings properly, but nevertheless, the data is in, and it’s time for action. I really did like Jon’s piece at the National Post about why he thinks people are keen to be doubters of the science on this piece, give it a read if you haven’t yet.
There is a lot of really good and easy to understand literature out there about global warming and “Limits to Growth”… It makes economic, mathematical and logical sense that something like global warming is happening and that we need to respond to it so we can be more readily prepared for the future.
Claiming that the science is too hard to understand and therefore it is best to just be agnostic is intellectually lazy. Scientists have devoted their lives to this topic, and have come to the same consensus - global warming is happening. The scientists have done the science for you AND done a good job of framing it for people who aren’t scientists for those willing to put the effort into learning about it.
I understand that some people want to go against the grain and be a skeptic about stuff… but being a skeptic about global warming at this point…is like being a skeptic of evolution. Only skeptics of global warming are VERY dangerous and will result in a lot of possible death and suffering in the potentially near future.
