I thought I’d write a quick post on the “debate” over global warming. Perhaps the first thing to note here is that there really are very few informed people actually debating. Of scientists covering the issue who publish peer-reviewed papers, there are very few who question the concept that human activity is raising the concentration of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses, which have caused — and will continue to cause — a rise in the temperature at the earth’s surface. I’ve met many of these people personally, e.g., Dr. Ramanathan at Scripps, and they’re enormously convincing.
Out of fairness, here’s a rare dissenter.
I point out three things:
1) As discussed here, the oil companies have spent a fortune creating doubt in the public’s mind about the validity of concern for global warming. With a brazen lack of regard for the truth and a callous indifference to your health and safety that rivals that of the tobacco companies, they’ve funded sham “research” companies whose sole purpose is to build a cloud of uncertainly regarding global warming. There’s no debate about that.
Now is it possible that, again out of fairness, those who stand to profit from global warming mitigation are campaigning in the opposite direction? I suppose so.
2) But even if the global warming hypothesis turns out to be incorrect, no one is saying that it isn’t likely. Is it sane to risk inaction that could result in complete ecological, social, and economic catastrophe?
Here is a video that I think everyone on this planet should watch, that offers cogent reasoning that mankind should take action to deal with the possibility that most climatologists are correct in their theories.
3) Again, even if the global warming hypothesis turns out to be incorrect, even fewer scientists doubt that increased CO2 levels are lowering the pH of the oceans, causing long-term damage to the fragile ecosystems therein.
I would think that this would make it intensely difficult to argue against controlling carbon emissions. But hey, I’ve seen incredible behavior from people where money is concerned before. Why should I think it will suddenly cease now?
Occasionally readers take me to task for glossing over the important concepts of the day, leaving people to research for themselves the terms that I bandy about as if they were household words. Ocean acidification is a good example. Yet I am by no means an expert on this, and so I can do little more than to point readers to any of the hundreds of articles that have been written on the subject. Here, e.g., is the 
I’m hoping that I can get Matthew Simmons to help me with the “peak oil” section of the book I’m writing on Renewable Energy. Though I’ve never met Matt personally, he’s a friend of numerous friends, and I have a good feeling that this will ultimately happen. And to stimulate discussion on the topic, I’ve begun writing posts on a variety of blogs in which the subject is discussed.
Recent Comments