Today I'm thinking about global warming. I really hope the new administration takes it seriously. I know that I come from a school that has played a critical part in the discovery and study of global warming, which is why I've asked other scientifically minded people from other universities what their take on global warming is. The science community gives a resounding YES, global warming is not only real, it is anthropogenic. If you look at all the articles published in peer-reviewed journals (which, if you ask me, are the only reliable source), something like 99% of them agree that global warming is not a joke, and it has been exacerbated by humans. But when you look in the media and newspapers, something like half of them are skeptical that global warming is happening at all, much less that it is caused by humans. I wish I had the exact statistics that my professor used in her lecture. The funny (or sad) thing is that there is this terrible disconnect between what science is telling us and what the media is telling us about global warming.
The real problem with global warming is not a scientific question of what's causing it, but a political question of what should we do about it? People who deny that global warming is real generally are against government regulation of business. So they say global warming is a fraud. That way we won't have to regulate anyone. But the thing is, there are multiple solutions to global warming. We can trade carbon credits, for example. That's a very business-savvy idea.
It frustrates me to no end when I listen to people quote Rush Limbaugh or Dr. Laura as their "scientific" resources that anthropogenic global warming is not a reality.
If you'll note the picture, global warming has shot up in the last century to a height even taller than me!
I saw Al Gore speak at UCSD a couple years back on global warming. Whether you like the man or not, I couldn't deny that he was a gifted public speaker. I liked that that his science was sound and that the layperson could understand it. I urge you to check out An Inconvenient Truth. There's also a rockin' exhibit on global warming at the Birch Aquarium. I know there's a big hubbub about it, but really, the debate is all political.
So what's all the controversy about? It's not among scientists, that's for sure.
2 comments:
There was scientific unanimity about global cooling back in the 1970s, you know.
Newsweek, April 28, 1975:
http://denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf
Look up Reid Bryson on wikipedia (He's quoted in this article as a believer at that time in global cooling.) Seems to be a pretty well-respected guy of his era.
Spiderman
Many people who live in colder areas get confused by the term, "global warming," especially if they don't see the effect themselves. Perhaps the more efficient term is "climate change"--although on average, the world is warming up, there are some parts of the world who are being affected by global warming by having their average temperatures go down.
It's not really fair to go back fourty years and say, "hey, they said it was cooling down back then, that means that they must have been right." Firstly, that was fourty years ago--conditions may have changed. Secondly, one of the points of science is that it keeps getting better and more accurate--scientific instruments have improved, measuring techniques have improved, evidence-gathering has improved--and what we are left with is a great preponderance of evidence showing that the global temperature is raising. Entire lakes have evaporated. Within a few years, the Arctic is not going to have any ice during the summer.
What's most unfair about the denial of Global Warming is that the places where Global Warming has already had devastating effects are in poor nations--where we already deny much attention. It is my opinion that if the terrible effects of Global Warming were hitting rich areas first, there would be far fewer deniers.
Post a Comment