“City Life Anymore…?”

What I find hard to believe is this “global warming denial” that seems more widespread then it should be. Or maybe not as you always need an opposition to further illuminate the majority evidence. And in this case, the majority of the evidence seems to be in favor of global warming. Scientists, or more accurately climatologists, tend to be in consensus over the issue at hand. More than 30 scientific societies and academies of science, including each 1st world country’s leading agency on climate change, agree, or are in a consensus over global warming. The case is highly stacked against those who don’t believe in it.

The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) concludes, “Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.” Now a few myths, of course, have been propagated against the belief in global warming. The famous article published in Science magazine in 2004 stated that between the years of 1993-2003, 928 papers published in peer-reviewed journals supporting the IPCC’s conclusion on global warming, either explicitly or implicitly, and none disagreed with it.

What the minority of these deniers have in common is that they all seem to try and undermine the growing scientific community that advocates more strict environmental regulations (i.e. the Kyoto Protocol). The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OSIM) went as far as to start a petition that stated that, “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.” They were calling for the U.S. government to not sign the Kyoto Protocol. This happened between 1999 and 2001.

But let make a detour into a discussion about technology and the popular belief that technology will save all our problems. Most people say something along these lines because the track record of past technologies seems to be infallible. And, if technologies are successful, most of them take time to develop and thus succeed, time like decades. Think cars, gas heating, electric lighting, computers, and airplanes. Many new technologies also have many side-effects, mainly they create unanticipated new problems. The cost effect of putting these technologies into work in a life-death situation cost much more then typical preventive care (i.e. taking care of the environment now, individually and collectively). This point mirrors preventive care in healthcare. It is far cheaper and cost-beneficial for a person (and the healthcare industry) to take vitamins, eat healthier, exercise more often and most importantly, see doctors for regular check-ups, then it is to wait until you need triple bypass surgery. Think preventive care for an oil company; an oil spill will always cost exponentially more (economically, ecologically, environmentally and morally) then routine care to prevent such a spill. Any oil company will tell you that.

Technology will also allow us to do new things which, again, may or may not be for our good. Most of our current technological problems are due to previous technological problems and so forth. To draw another parallel, think of the “making more money vs. making less money” scenario. Being “wealthy” is commonly seen as respectful, whereas not being “wealthy” is generally not. Well, the rich person also has many more side-effects of being rich, including bills for an over-the-top-house, cars and other toys. These all cost money and more money to take care of. Thus this wealthy person is working 60 hours a week to make more money to help maintain his lifestyle that he or she won’t even be able to enjoy as he or she is stuck at work most of the year. Now the “less wealthy” person is working less, making less money (only enough for things that matter, like insurance and food, for example) yet still enjoying the more leisure time for him or herself and the family, etc. And everyone knows how healthy, mentally and physically, those activities are, as opposed to stress.

Now back to global warming, another myth which is interesting is the one that states that global warming is happening, but that it is not caused by greenhouse gasses, and thus not humans fault. Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide is actually a consequence of climate change, not an effect, it is claimed by some. The latest IPCC report states that chemical analyses of carbon dioxide show the increase in the atmosphere, and an accompanying decrease in oxygen concentrations, are mainly due to the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation. So 10-30% of emissions in the past 20 years are due to land use change, mainly, again, deforestation. The rest of emissions are due to fossil fuel burning. If you’re wondering how the chopping down of our forests contributes to a warmer climate, it is simple. The new, “exposed” land increases the reflectivity of the land surface, which means lower amounts of solar radiation are absorbed. Also, it is important to note that sunspots have occurred more frequently on the sun which can contribute to a warmer Earth, but scientists agree that the affect is minimal compared to manmade affects.

As for the melting of the ice caps, the results are obvious; higher ocean levels. The central valley of California, in which I live, would be flooded via the San Francisco bay, and more acutely, the Stockton delta. The verdict seems to still be out about the melting of the ice caps. No noticeable change has been noted since 1978, but further heating will only lead to the eventual melting of the ice caps.

Though the verdict is not in as far as the melting of the ice caps, the sea water levels are widely believed to have risen 0.1-0.2 centimeters a year over the past 20th century. This has been caused by seawater expansion and gradual meting of the caps. At the rate that warming is occurring, the IPCC predicts that sea levels will rise by 9-88 centimeters by 2100.

What fascinates me is the political debate that surrounds global warming here in the U.S. Republicans tend to no believe it whereas Democrats do tend to believe it. Go figure. Republicans in this country tend to be tied and in support of big business. The acceptance of global warming by out White House and the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol would mean tighter restrictions upon business, and thus, possibly less economic productivity which thus leads to possibly a lesser economic output by a country that sees its economy and the all-mighty dollar as the sole reason for existence. Speaking of big business against environmental restrictions, I remember something I wrote last year or so in response to the video posted on YouTube in response to Al Gore’s film, An Inconvenient Truth. I wrote,

“So I saw Al Gore’s film on global warming the other night, ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ and I have to say it was pretty good. It’s not often when the science community is not polarized, but this time the ones who don’t believe in global warming seem to be a small minority. A real small minority. I won’t go into the specifics of global warming because most people have an idea of what it’s about, but what I worry about is the propaganda against it. It’s funny how important a virtue like ignorance is for the right in this country. But what’s not funny are the poor souls who fall for it; the coercion, the play on religion, the manipulation of the media.

Even though there’s unanimous evidence supporting the theory of global warming, a person always has there doubts. But then I heard about ‘Al Gore’s Penguin Army’ and saw the parody on YouTube. The video is a short spoofing on Gore’s film that is supposed to be by a young 29-year old man from Beverly Hills. An amateur. The Wall Street Journal eventually found out that the film came from “”a computer registered to DCI Group,” a public relations and lobbying firm in Washington, D.C., led exclusively by Republican party officials. DCI has counted corporations such as General Motors and ExxonMobil amongst its clients.”

DCI Group’s response: “We do not disclose the names of our clients, nor do we discuss the work we do on behalf of our clients.” Nice.”

This is an example of big business maliciously against the common belief of global warming. Funding and intimidation also play a big role, I believe, in naysayers against global warming. This link sends you to a few good paragraphs about this topic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy#Funding_for_partisans

To finish, something really makes me wonder. Do conservative voters not believe in global warming only because their representatives say it’s not true? I believe this to be the case. In other words, I believe that the majority of republicans do not believe in global warming only because the Bush administration has not acknowledged it. Not because they have looked at the facts themselves, but only because their representatives have said so. Now this is a scary thought! People putting this much trust into politicians and not thinking twice about the words politicians say. Not thinking about their motives, reasons, nothing. And in response to that last statement, I believe that global warming is occurring at a dangerous rate and human activity is at the center of its progress. I believe this not because I am a climatologist, but because the overwhelming majority of the scientific community (the experts) believes so. A majority of Republicans, and myself, do not have sufficient education in climatology to make an educated decision based on their investigations of climate change. And in any case like this, I believe it is safer, much safer, to take sides with the experts in the matter, and in this case, again, its scientists. In this case, the majority and the experts are both on the same page which doubly stacks the cards against the non-believers. The majority is not always the best group to follow in a debate as the 1996 Oakland Ebonics controversy showed.

Now with the Presidential race a big issue this year, what will happen if the Republican nomination, John McCain is elected into office and becomes our next politician? He believes in global warming, which is in direct contrast to his party (and a major complaint the right have against him). So will conservative voters start believing in global warming if he becomes our next president? I wouldn’t doubt it. As another Republican candidate this year and my geology teacher have said this week, “Leave science up to the scientists.”