Global Warming – A conversation with “J”
A short time ago I was engaged in an e-mail conversation with a friend when the subject of global Warming was raised.
This, essentially, is a portion of that conversation…
Larry,
I’m a huge fan of Al Gore and am a died-in-the-wool Liberal (yeah, cap L), but I have to admit that I’m not “sold” on the evidence that the melting of the ice caps is solely due to human activity. And you’re right, rather than debate the evidence, the dominant side resorts to name calling and dismissive terms like “denialist”.
On the other hand…. there is little doubt in my mind that the world would be a better, safer and healthier place if we would minimize our environmental impact. Population growth is a big part of that, and one need only follow a diesel truck or bus (or in my case, stand near my vehicle’s gas tank with fueling!) to know that burning fossil fuels impacts the air we breath.
Dear “J”,
Global Warming (henceforth GW) is one of those issues that keeps popping up in front of my face. I have only a moderate interest in it. I do, however, detest the distortion that Al Gore and his fellows of the “Lets-All-Hate-Mankind” church seem determined to push upon us.
Let me position myself first.
1-My interest in this is modest
2-I have no solid scientific background in any science pertaining to such issues
3-Of all the knowledge I have acquired in 68 years of life, about .001% of it has been checked or verified BY ME in any scientific way. It is accepted by me on the understanding that those who do the research are careful, honourable scientists who are not, for the most part deliberately lying to me, but who might be honestly mistaken.
4-My personal and financial well-being are not being threatened by GW; I’ll be long gone by the time it gets to be serious.
5-My method of “verifying” claims made by either side (or all sides, if you prefer) is to ask three primary questions….
a)-Does this make sense (in the “common sense” meaning of the word)?
b)-How well does this fit with “knowledge” previously gained by me during my lifetime?
c)-Can I verify, within reason, any one or two of the key claims made by proponents of a position without getting a degree in the science used and setting up my own research lab?
I think you will agree that my method would NOT suit someone who is as “deeply into” something as you are with the subject of ******.
That said, here goes on Global Warming:
I was taught in school, many years ago, that the earth goes through warming and cooling cycles. Ice Ages have resulted during cooling. Little about warming was ever dwelt upon. Yet my “common sense” tells me that for there to have been “Ice Ages” (plural), as opposed to one long Ice Age, there MUST have been periods of time in between those Ice Ages when there was no Ice Age; i.e. warmer periods. Mankind did not even exist during most of these cycles; yet they occurred.
The best information I can locate (again without making myself a fanatic about it) indicates that those who study such things are able to identify at least 6 and perhaps 7 such ice ages, from geologic evidence, in the history of this planet. The most recent one having reached its “mid point” (which reason tells me would probably be its coolest point) about 17,000 years ago. Since that time the earth has slowly, although not always steadily, been experiencing warming.
Mankind has only been able to noticeably contribute to levels of CO2 for about the last 500 years, maximum. Warming, since the last Ice Age, was occurring naturally for 16,500 years PRIOR to mankind having the capability to make any contribution to this whatsoever. I have no reason to believe that this natural warming would not have continued if mankind had not developed the capacity to make a contribution to it.
The numbers that I can find seem to indicate that mankind is, at present, contributing somewhere between 3% to 10% of the CO2 in our atmosphere. The high end numbers (over 5%) seem to more often reflect the “beliefs” of the espouser than to be the result of any solid scientific research.
This is further complicated by the fact that a large number of scientists disagree that CO2 IS a major contributor to GW. They point to other causes and, despite being declaimed as “GW deniers”, have NOT denied the fact that GW exists; they have only said that evidence exists which precludes CO2 production as a major cause of such GW. Common Sense forces me to ask, “Where, for instance, would large quantities of CO2 have originated 17,000 years ago when the planet began to warm up thus ending the last Ice Age? Or, for that matter, during all previous Ice Ages which ended with Global Warming every time?”
I have seen some estimates of just how hot it got during the last warming period which shows that it got to 42C – 45C degrees. This, while very uncomfortable for most people today, IS survivable with proper preparation.
My conclusions:
1-Global Warming is a fact
2-Mankind’s contribution to it is minimal
3-If mankind were to instantly stop its production of “greenhouse gases’, GW would continue unabated
4-Attempting to cease production of CO2 would require the shutdown of almost all modern production and be horrendously expensive
5-Such a ’shutdown’ would have disastrous results on a large portion of the world population
6-The cost of attempting such a shutdown could leave us with insufficient funds to prepare to survive GW
7-We would be wiser to prepare to survive, than to attempt to stop, GW
8-There are political and business interests who see themselves as being able to profit more by attempts to stop GW than by attempts to prepare to survive it.
9-These political and business interests support the alarmist preachings of those such as Al Gore for perfectly valid financial reasons
10- My predictions:
a) Global Warming will continue to occur
b) Humanity WILL, against all reason, try to stop it
c) Humanity will be unsuccessful at stopping it
d) Large numbers of people will probably perish during GW due to lack of proper preparation to survive it
e) Profits are more important to politicians and businesses than the death of billions of people and will be sought regardless of how many will suffer because of this.
So there, Sir J, is my understanding of this subject, in a nutshell. I am comfortable with this position. I admit that it would take some huge amount of concrete ‘evidence of error’ to shake me from it. What I have seen of the Al Gore type propaganda only impresses me as being an eco-religion; and I am an atheist. My reason does not allow me to be a “believer” of any sort and I detect too many partial truths being bandied about by this crowd.
Response from “J”
We are actually in greater agreement than not, Larry.
The only additional perspective that I might offer is that none of this argues against efforts to reduce dependence on fossil fuels, pursue alternative energy sources and seek to develop the most efficient forms of transportation possible. To frame it in your model, I’d suggest these could be part of the policy to prepare to survive GW, rather than fight it. If not, then I’d fall back on an argument that these efforts make sense for a multitude of other socio-political reasons (like keeping our noses and bombs out of the Middle East).
Oooops. Did I just open another can of worms?!
Dear “J”,
It does not surprise me that we should be essentially in agreement. Most of us, who have given this even a small amount of THOUGHT, usually are. It is so unfortunate that people no longer ‘think’ about things, preferring instead to choose someone/something to “believe in” and then referring to their new-found beliefs as their “thoughts”. You frightened me with your reference to Al Gore since I did not know whether it was “tongue-in-cheek” or very serious. I have had people really freak-out on me when I dared to question “God Gore”!!
I cannot tell you how much in agreement with you I am as regards reducing our ecological ”foot-print” AND as regards my country, Canada, getting the hell out of the middle east and letting those folks find their own damn solutions to their own damn problems. No matter if the propaganda were actually true and we were there “to bring democracy” to them (something I seriously doubt), we MUST realize that one CANNOT “give” freedom to another. If one can give it then one can with-hold it or take it away, at will; in which case it cannot be defined as freedom, but merely as “temporary, conditional, liberty”. Those folks must find their own reasons for attaining democracy; or not, – as THEY see fit.
Our “job”, if we have one, is simply to perfect our own brand of democracy for our own citizens and let it stand as an example of what we believe is a good way of doing things. Should we ever manage to do that, and we are a long, long way from doing so, then I have no doubt that others will look it over and decide for themselves whether it would, or would not, suit them. We desperately need to understand that we cannot “bomb someone into a state of democracy”.
This is especially true since, although we seem convinced that they are not smart enough to realize it, when we speak of “freedom” for their nation, what we really mean is, “We will be free to do as we damn well like in your country and you will be free to do as we damn well tell you to do.” The freedom to do as we like includes the freedom to rip off their natural resources which, in the Middle East, means fossil fuels.
I’d like to make it clear that I have little truck with those who appear to think that if we decided tomorrow to switch to alternate, less harmful sources of energy, that it should be up and running by Wednesday of next week – Thursday at the latest……
Switching to such sources of energy will take decades, if not centuries, of massive industrial effort. During this period of “up-dating” we will, in fact, be required to INCREASE drastically our use of present forms of energy with the concomitant INCREASE in pollution such massive use will entail. The “instruments” of those different forms of energy production won’t pop up out of nowhere. They will have to be built in the thousands and millions. The only technology we have available to us for doing that is our present one; the polluting one. We have NO OTHER!
Not only will the present technology need to build the future technology it must ALSO, at the very same time, meet our ever growing societal needs for massive energy output. The people who somehow expect a changeover from ‘dirty’ energy production to ‘clean’ energy production to “just happen”, have more than a few screws loose.
Those who think that it is only the present day producers of ‘dirty’ energy who are “holding things back for reasons of profit”, have not thought things through. The huge profits they will reap by providing the massive amounts of energy that will be needed for the production of the instruments of cleaner power has their tongues hanging out.
They, above all others, know just how close we are to running out of our present non-renewable energy resources. They know that we are in a race against depletion of those resources. They wish to be still in the profitable business of energy production in 10 or 50 or 100 years from now. They know perfectly well that they stand the best chance of being in that position if they are the ones to introduce the energy production methods that will be necessary in the future.
The impression is often given that our present energy producers are ‘forcing’ massive use of their ‘dirty’ products upon an unwilling populace. This is just not so. We, the people, are the ones who demand that our every whim be catered to with regard to our use of energy. We are the ones who “want what we want NOW!” When this means ‘dirty’ energy, the producers of that energy do their job; they provide it to meet our demands. Then they must suffer the self-righteous castigation of those who enjoy the good life provided by such energy. Yup, these self-righteous bastids is US! (What a surprise!!)
But then it is so much easier for us to throw all blame and responsibility on “the oil companies’ or “the coal producers” or “those damn nuclear reactors” than it is for us to reduce our own personal consumption of the energy produced by such means. The good ol’, “It ain’t MY fault” syndrome is alive and well in all those countries where massive energy consumption is the norm.
Wrong. It damn well IS ‘my’ fault. And it is high time “I” took responsibility for it. Time to find ways to reduce my own “personal” consumption of energy.
Time to stop blaming those who supply that which “I” demand.
NOTE: This conversation has been edited to remove irrelevant, personal, and other information, prior to publication as this blog……….. Sez Me!