MaSaRa

Global warming debate heats up

This issue is driving me nuts.

The UN report released yesterday says "Global warming is "very likely" a human-caused problem that will last for centuries and require concerted international action to reduce its potentially devastating impacts."

Meanwhile, over a thousand scientists have signed a petition stating:
" We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."

So which is it?

Like most issues causing a ton of media spewage, the answer is probably in the middle, but I can't find a site willing to claim the middle ground. Indeed, there are those who are claiming victory now: "The world's scientists have spoken," said Timothy E. Wirth, president of the United Nations Foundation. "It is time now to hear from the world's policymakers. The so-called and long-overstated 'debate' about global warming is now over."

I don't buy it. Greenhouse gases, those that absorb heat in the infrared spectrum, are almost always listed as carbon, methane and anything else man can produce. But water vapor and clouds make up 98% of the greenhouse effect after you remove man-made greenhouse gases. And if you want to look at long term temperatures, really long term, we're actually in a gradually deepening ice age. Weird, huh.

On the other hand we are plainly contributing to an increase in greenhouse gases and that increases global warming. I just have a hard time getting worked up over studies that only look back 200 years or so. It's like sitting on the beach and the first time a wave washes over your toes you run for the high ground because "the tide's coming in!" Big chunks of land have been exposed during ice ages and flooded during warm periods. Texas has oil because it used to be a sea basin. If Waco turns into the Third Coast surf capital, well, that's long term weather for ya.

So the one side says there is no evidence of global catastrophe (and they can be right because global catastrophe is kinda huge) and the other says that man is causing planetary climate change (and they can be right because man is causing really small planetary change).

Would anyone be surprised if it turned on money? Some 25 billion dollars has been spent on studies related to global warming since 1990. If your university hasn't found a way to tap into that, I bet you've seen some pretty big tuition increases. Science follows the money, and that is not necessarily a bad thing. I suspect that scientists on both sides could sit in a room and find ten things to agree on, and politicians from both sides would walk out claiming victory.

Last note: all of this has a smelly whiff of colonialism to it. The developed countries, with nice high standards of living, want to impose some pretty serious economic restraints. On themselves, sure, but also on the third world. I'm fairly certain it is not intended, but there's a real plain statement to Chindia et al: "We got ours. You can get yours, but you can't use the technology we used, it's banned now. So sorry."

posted by quash @ 8:22 AM 0 Comments