Not to keep you in suspense, let's get two things out of the way right now:
Q) Is the Earth getting warmer?
A) Probably.
Q) Is this man-made?
A) Most likely not - in a measurable way, anyway.
The New Religion
Many conservative pundits have referred to Global Warming (notice I made it a proper noun) as a new liberal religion. If you take the typical elements of religion - deity, sin, prophets, end-times, sacrifice, and salvation- and juxtapose that with the Global Warming movement, you have a very, very interesting comparison.
Deity
Many pagan religions worshiped a pantheistic array of nature gods, or at least gods associated with some aspect of nature. As monotheism took hold, "nature worship" faded. Global Warming seems almost an effort to combine the worship of one deity with the worship of nature. In this case, the being to which we all owe homage is the Earth.
Sin
Lucifer's sin was pride, as was Adam's. This led to the fall - first of Satan, then of man. For Global Warming-ites, pollution is the original sin. Pollution is a sin against the deity (Earth), the same as pride is a sin against God. And we all know what a sinful society leads to . . .
End Times
This is something common to most modern religions, and some ancient ones as well - belief that our time will come to an end in a great climax. For the Warmites, the end times are no less cataclysmic than Armageddon - floods, fires, natural disasters, etc. The difference is, rather than being brought about by the ethereal clash of good and evil, it is brought about by our disregard of the Earth. Incidentally, back in the 80's (before their conversion), many Warmites thought this cataclysm would be the result of Reagan's nukes. Little did they know it would really be because of Cheney's Haliburton!
Sacrifice
Forgo your evil ways, you sinners. You guzzlers of gas, users of disposal diapers, and non-car poolers. Put down your incandescent bulbs and pay $8,000 more for a hybrid. Only through the purchase of indulgences, er, carbon credits may you achieve redemption and enlightenment.
Prophets
Isiah. Elisha. Al Gore.
Salvation
If we all roll back our lifestyles (save the elites - see #3 in prophets section), melt our SUVs into unicycles (one-wheel crushes much less vegetation than do two), and cook our hot dogs with Ed Begley Jr.-brand solar ovens, then may we achieve ultimate enlightenment - the temperature may not skyrocket 1.1 degrees over the next 100 years. Peace will reign everlasting.
On a related note, has anyone consulted the Eskimos about this? I doubt very seriously they would have much gripe with a little warmer climate. I'll be they're not Warmites.
What really is happening?
I won't deny that data seems to indicate a slight warming trend over the past several years. I hesitate to call this "global" warming, as temperatures have not increased over the whole Earth. In fact, some evidence points to a slight cooling trend in Antarctica.
"But wait," you're saying (you can tell you are saying this because I'm using quotations), "isn't that Antarctica place where that ozone hole is?"
Why yes, allegedly our same polluting ways that have caused global warming have resulted in a "hole" in the ozone layer over Antarctica. I've admittedly never understood why, on the one continent where NO ONE REALLY LIVES is the one that got the hole. Anyway, that's a digression. The big question is - why have temperatures not increased at the South Pole.
I refer you to the most interesting and plausible theory I've heard on this matter, in a book called The Chilling Stars. My apologies to the authors if my layman's understanding doesn't translate exactly right, but here's the crux of the theory. The authors do believe that the temperature of the Earth is, generally, getting warmer. Additionally, they do not outright discount the proposition that some percentage of this could be contributed to the "greenhouse effect," and some percentage of that could be man made. However, they do reject the notion that global warming, as we understand it, is a man made issue.
Basically, the sun, which goes through various cycles of activity, has been going through a period of "hyperactivity" over approximately the past 50 years. The hyperactivity isn't necessarily hotter or brighter, but is "more active." (Consult your local astrophysicist for a more detailed explanation.) The result of this hyperactivity is a reaction with certain particles in our atmosphere that, through a process I don't pretend to understand, results in less cloud formation. Basically, when the sun goes through a period a hyperactivity, the Earth as a whole has less cloud cover.
From space, cloud tops are bright white, and highly reflective. They serve to bounce sunlight back into space. The hyperactivity of the sun results in less cloud cover, less cloud cover results in a greater quantity of sunlight reaching the Earth, resulting in a warming of the planet.
Now back to Antarctica. Why isn't this trend true for the South Pole? Because the ice covering the southern continent is the one terrestrial area that has essentially the same reflective properties (bright, white) as the cloud tops. Simplistic? Maybe. Which also means it is probably close to correct.
Climate Change - Live It, Love It
The photo to the left is from an area now in the deep Sahara Desert. The pre-historic glyphs represent neolithic man taking a dip. Yes, swimming in the Sahara. That's because, once upon a time, the Sahara was green and lush. And, cosmologically speaking, it wasn't that long ago, either.In 8000 B.C., the only man-made carbon emissions came from exhaling. However, that is about the time that the climate changed, and the Sahara entered into a period of expanding desert. It is still growing today, but who's to say that won't be reversed at some point in the future.
All of this to say that, contrary to the belief that climate change is the greatest issue facing the planet today, climate change is actually a natural, cyclical part of the living planet. And who is to say that the climate we have today is the best it could be, anyway.
The facts are that, even during the brief period of human civilization, the earth has undergone several warming and cooling trends. Even if narrow the period to the post-classical era, we find a few remarkable examples of this.
Following the fall of Rome, the West plunged into what was basically a regressive (or at least not progressive) age. Yes, there were times when this was not true (England under Alfred, or the beginning of the Carolingian dynasty on the Continent), but in generally speaking, the moniker "Dark Ages" does fit. So what led to the more prosperous society we witnessed at the beginning of the second millennium and certainly during the Renaissance? There is good indication that it was climate change - Global Warming!
Leading up to the year A.D. 1000, evidence suggests that the Earth's climate warmed slightly. In Europe, this resulted in greater agricultural yields. Fields with greater yields meant more net calorie production per acre, which meant that less people were required to work the land to produce an ample, or surplus, of food for the population. Liberation from a subsistence society meant more individuals having the opportunity to pursue trades and crafts. It is no coincidence that the rise of guilds in Medieval Europe coincided closely with warmer weather. More specialized trades and crafts meant more construction and greater commerce, which generally improves life all the way around.
Consider that when Leif Erikson reached the coast of Newfoundland, the area was so abundant with grapes that the name given was Vinland. During this same period, a major EXPORT of the British Isles was wine. I don't think you find too many good English Merlots today.
Evidence also suggests that a cooling trend began after a couple of centuries. Some scientists theorize that effects of this cooling trend may have contributed to the catastrophic spread of the Black Death and the demise of almost half the population of Europe. Another warming trend is associated with the 15th and 16th centuries, a time which witnessed the great re-birth of Western society, and the beginning of the Age of Discovery.
All of this to say, if the climate is getting warmer, then it might not be a bad thing. As I said before, I don't think the Eskimos would mind a few more "balmy" days out of the year.
This is Free Market Issue
As is a re-occurring theme in this blog, I believe that the answer to pollution (forget climate change) will be the free market, not another bloated, inefficient, regressive government program. Mandatory mileage standards or carbon emissions caps would have little to no result on natural climatic variations, and would prove detrimental to the American industrial complex. This would also do little to curb the real issue, our dependence on foreign oil.
The first order of business, plain and simple, is that we need to drill in ANWR and in the Gulf Coast. It is our oil, and we should use it. I do not have a problem with offering tax credits for the development of renewable fuel sources. Regardless of what many would have you believe, conservative thought is not "pro-pollution." Just because I don't believe empirical evidence demonstrates global warming is man made do I think it is a good idea to continue to put gunk in the air and water. Even more to the point, I am sick and tired of desert potentates having such a powerful influence over our economy. Drill and refine our own oil, and we will need less of theirs. Find a cost effective, renewable source of energy, and we're not hostages anymore.
From the standpoint of providing electricity, it would seem that nuclear is the way to go. All the fear mongering aside, nuclear is clean, relatively inexpensive, and highly effective. For our transportation systems, I think believing that hybrids and electrics will ever become a preferred method of transit is a pipe dream. Combustible fuel is necessary, but we need a cleaner, more easily renewable source. Corn-based ethanol is not the answer, and that's a whole other post. However, I think the biggest point here is that, at some point, the free market will solve this problem. Someone will figure out a better, faster, cheaper way to get us where we need to go, and that will ultimately solve our "addiction to oil," both of the foreign and domestic flavors.
Back to my Point
If the climate is, indeed, becoming slightly warmer, is that a bad thing? It has happened in the past, and will happen again in the future. In fact, history indicates that warming trends have actually been beneficial to humanity. If it gets warmer, we just have to adapt. And there's the dirty little secret the Warmites don't want you to know - we're not destroyers of nature, we're part of it.
No comments:
Post a Comment