The Skeptic’s Rationale For Taking Global Climate Change Seriously
I realize there are many out there (my own state’s governor included) who are yet not convinced that global climate change is a result of human activity. I respect their opinion, but I feel that even the skeptics have sufficient reason to act.
What’s not in dispute is that more than 90% of people in the know (scientists, doctors, etc.) are saying that we need to act fast or face devastating consequences.
Think about it: you’re standing in the middle of a dark road and see two lights in the distance. 90% of the people around you (some holding binoculars) are calling you to get out of the way or risk being hit by a speeding bus. Do you look for indisputable proof? By the time it comes, it may be too late.
Get to safety first, and seek vindication later.
Aspen trees afflicted with SAD (Sudden Aspen Decline,)
attributed by some scientists to global warming.
Category: Images, Rants and Raves, Thoughts and Musings
Hey Guy,
I’m on board with all you said, except the first section “I respect their opinion”. I certainly respect anyone’s right to an opinion, but I can’t respect an opinion rooted in nothing more than opposition, which I think is where much of the kind of stance you’re referring to comes from, IMO. Some people won’t agree with, say, your stance on anything, because it might mean (to them) they agree with you on everything – and I’ve no respect for that at all. I do respect you for respecting their opinion, though.
Cheers
Carl
I am wondering…Have the aspens trees done this before? How can they be sure it has anything to do with Global Warming. Has any proof been shown about this? What about a disease in the trees?
Up here in Northern Utah last year there were reports of the Aspen trees dying off…but yesterday I passed through Green Mountain and there was a huge patch of Aspen trees full of gold colors and had all their leaves.
Since this obviously isn’t nation wide, have they attributed the dye off to a disease that targets specifically the aspen trees?
Of course most nay sayers would raise the possibility that it might be two cars coming at you, both with only one light working, and hence you should stand where you are!
Global warming is only one aspect of the damage being done. Even if the case for CO2 as a greenhouse gas wasn’t scientifically supported (though it is of course) there are still plenty of reasons to reduce emissions – ocean acidification, reducing dependence upon fossil fuels so our economies wont be collapse as they run out and protecting biodiversity.
Unfortunately the best solutions are ones that are hard for most to swallow. Reducing our use of unnecessary luxuries is bad for the economy and it’s always easier to blame other countries and reducing our unsustainable population growth offends religious and cultural sensibilities so nobody even dares to suggest it.
Hey Guy –
Didn’t you know that car just appears to be closing in because of the faulty binoculars those 90% are using?
Great analogy Guy. It really is too bad some of those people that just like to be “posers” (opposition to something so blatantly dangerous) don’t play in the street more often…
That said, I’m with Carl – I respect you respecting others:)
I’ve a feeling that this missive is partly due to my response at NPN to your ‘SAD’ image. It’s not a case of ‘global warming denial’ for me. I happen to agree with Euan that reducing carbon emissions is good for the planet, humanity and the rest of the earth’s species, whether humankind is responisble for a changing climate or not.
What I have a problem with are headlines that read (and which you quoted in your link to the ‘L.A. Times’ story) “Global Warming Blamed for Aspen Die-Off Across the West”. Yet not once in the over two dozen paragraphs in the story was the term ‘global warming’ used. The point is that nobody really KNOWS why this is happening, although theories abound.
If this story had used the headline which now appears under the image above (…attributed by some scientists to global warming), I would not have been concerned in the least and most certainly would not have contributed my 2 cents to that particular thread.
It pains me to write these words because I respect your art (and especially your words) so very much. And this probably crosses the ‘socially correct’ boundaries that many have when it comes to questioning authority (or at least highly respected artists). So be it.
Thank you for allowing me the chance to state my case here.
John, thank you for the response and please believe me the post was not directed at you or prompted by your response on NPN. I’m just trying to raise awareness. Also know that I deeply respect anyone who questions authority and doesn’t take things at face value. I have done so myself my entire adult life.
You will also note I did not use bombastic headlines in either post (and in fact there’s a post below criticizing one case of them) nor am I trying to state as fact anything I don’t actually know.
I do know that change is happening. I do know what the overwhelming consensus is in the scientific community. I just fear that by the time we know, there may not be much we can do about it (perhaps it’s already too late).
This may come as a surprise to many, but I don’t consider myself an environmentalist in the traditional sense. I can accept that weather change and species extinction are part of the natural cycles and progressions of the natural world. I guess I’m an egotist in the sense that I want to ensure we do everything within our power to allow others who will follow in our footsteps the same opportunities and experiences we ourselves were fortunate to have.
Time will prove the science right or wrong. If we sit idly by in the face of mounting evidence though, we are guilty either way.
Carl, I think it’s often too easy and too tempting to paint these divisive issues in terms of “us vs. them”. Sometimes it’s good to make a conscious effort to distinguish between “disagree” and “disrespect.” They are different things that may require overcoming powerful instinct to keep separate.
Guy
One problem with the whole global warming issue is that it’s been politicized and much of the science is questionable. Some of the claims being made are flat-out hyperbole; when people like Al Gore are predicting the end of civilization as we know it in a matter of decades, it’s hard to take them seriously; if global warming were such a clear-cut issue, why the need to exaggerate and sensationalize? The models being to used to predict what will happen have the biases and assumptions of their creators built in, and if you look at the accuracy of the past predictions the track record is not very good. Go back 10 years and see how many of the predictions were right (hint: global temp hasn’t gone up the past 10 years). Go back a few decades further, and some of these folks were predicting a coming ice age.
You say there’s a 90% consensus in the scientific community, but I don’t believe that. Open debate has been shut down. Anybody who questions the science behind global warming is attacked and ridiculed, therefore many don’t speak up even though there are legitimate points to be made and questions that don’t yet have conclusive answers. The global warming advocates don’t want to defend their assertions against scientific scrutiny, they’d rather just attack the messenger.
We may be in a warming trend, and mankind may be contributing to it in some part. But there’s no hard science to conclude that it’s entirely or even mostly man-made. And if you do believe this is a man-made problem, there are no realistic solutions for ‘fixing’ it short of eliminating a few billion people from the planet.
My biggest complaint about the global warming issue is over-exposure in news and media. When was the last time you saw a mainstream news story on the environment that wasn’t about global warming and carbon emissions? Whatever happened to issues like pollution, habitat protection, or preserving wilderness for its own sake? Are all these issue suddenly unimportant?