wenBLOG

I’ve made a decision - global warming does exist.

I came to this conclusion after a long-term review of the currently available popular science (and non-science) and a consideration of what the future holds for my daughter’s generation and that of her future descendants. I’ve listened to the rhetoric on all sides of the debate: Al Gore and his ‘tree-hugging’ minions, Rush Limbaugh and his cabal of ‘know-nothings’, scientists that say the world is coming to an end due to the increase in cow flatulence and researchers that say this is little more than an upturn in the never-ending cycle of the rise and fall of our planet’s thermometer.

Frankly I think they’re all full of shit.

But beneath that pile of statistical excrement that these experts and less-thans use to justify their positions, there is some truth (well maybe with the exception of the flatulence guy…) to the concept that we are impacting the Earth’s atmosphere. I’ve always kind of accepted the fact that mankind is leaving an interruptive footprint on the geo/bio landscape, and it’s hard for me to fathom that pollution in the air and water killing things like fish and birds is OK for global sustainability.

And with that as my premise, that’s how I got to where I am today.

I watched Al Gore’s movie, An Inconvenient Truth, and was impressed. It’s not often that you find a politician who really understands an issue as deeply as Gore does environmental science. I watched it though with the full recognition that Gore is a politician. He may have changed careers - now he’s a businessman and activist. Yet, there is no doubt that he is still a politician, and like any politician he uses hyperbole and exaggeration to sell his position.

I read the New York Times’ piece this week that attempts to debunk the hysteria associated with Gore’s message. The article cited scientists and researchers who have found inaccuracies in the Gore film and I even watched some TV interviews with one of the debunkers - Don J. Easterbrook, an emeritus professor at Western Washington University (no offense to Professor Easterbrook and the school’s many students and alumni, but Western Washington University? - it’s not exactly the first place I’d look for a renowned researcher). While Easterbrook made some valid arguments, the thing that caught my attention was the following during an interview with Tucker Carlson on MsNBC:

CARLSON: …Correct me if I‘m wrong, that there is a consensus that the Earth, for some reason, is getting warmer, but there is not an absolute consensus as to why. Is that correct?

EASTERBROOK: That‘s very true. Everyone agrees that the Earth has warmed up in the last century, and the big contention is whether or not it has been caused by man made CO2 or not. And that contention is not congruent with geological facts in the case. So that is why there is some doubt, and as far as a consensus is concerned, you have to realize that the IPCC report, which was published in about February, was made by 143 geologists, not by the hundreds of thousands of scientists around the world.

So there is no consensus, in the sense that nobody has polled the world scientists.

Easterbrook’s reliance on the UN’s IPCC report and it’s 143 geologists vs. the “hundreds of thousands of scientists” that seem to have at least tacitly endorsed (by not disagreeing) Gore’s position is what troubles me. When it comes to the interpretation of empirical data, I’m going with the majority.

Regardless of who’s more right, both Gore and the IPCC agree that global warming is occurring - it’s just a matter of why and to what extent it’s impact will have on the planet. Whether sea level will rise 17 feet according to Gore, or 17 inches according to the IPCC is academic (something tells me that like everything else it’s probably somewhere in the middle), but the fact that it is occurring is not academic.

So today I write this post in the hope that we can we stop arguing about the amount of the impact, and instead turn our attention to solving the problem. There was an interesting piece on the AP wires and in today’s Plain Dealer that discusses some (albeit far-out) ideas on addressing the problem. British billionaire Richard Branson’s offer of a reward for feasible solutions is also a step in the right direction.

In the end, I think it will be simple economics that fuels the necessity to deal with the realities of global warming. Our society has always moved forward thanks to the invisible hand of economic need. As oil prices rise and changes in weather patterns negatively impact people, the motivation for change will be irresistible. Smart entrepreneurs have already begun to look for a way to solve the problem and make a buck at the same time.

I only hope that they’re smart enough to do it soon.