FOR SEVERAL YEARS NOW I HAVE BEEN ENDEAVORING to make my pitch for sanity in our handling of the issues related to global warming. I have a huge stockpile of pieces, many hundreds, dominated by the opinions and the research — much of that the very basic research of the most qualified climate scientists in the land. In my pieces, I have shared a small portion of that. Given the crucial importance of the issue, I will undoubtedly persist. But I think that I will move away, at least for a moment, from careful study and report, and relieve some of the emotional load that results from reading the nonsense posing as informed skepticism, or that (locally) fancies that derogating me and the voluminous material I have presented constitutes a legitimate attack upon the science of warming.
Are there scientists who doubt the magnitude of the danger? Yes. But there are very few among these who are remotely as well informed about the science of climate change as those they question. (Remember the figure previously quoted: 97 percent of the most highly qualified climate scientists are convinced of the danger.) I have found it fascinating that among these few — and they tend somehow to always get hooked up with the Heartland Institute — there are those who also questioned the dangers of smoking, a prior crusade of that benighted but well-funded organization.
For the quality and fervor of the Heartland Institute in its battle to preserve civilization from rabid climate scientists, I quote just one headline from May 2012: “Heartland Institute Compares Climate Change Theorists To Unabomber,” by Martin Michaels.
In the land of Heartland, warming theory is a scam for scarfing up research dollars. This set of fantasies rests upon the proposition that all of science is for sale; that there is big money in proofs, or speculations, about the dangers of warming, for scientists on the make — which includes virtually the entire enterprise!
This, of course, as compared with the selflessness and idealism of the corporate world — and of Heartland, which feeds upon the support of that world.
This notion that the whole enterprise is for sale, insulting to fundamental science and scientists, is as reprehensible as it is incredibly stupid. Is there any possibility that global warming is not as serious a problem as has been presented by those scientists best qualified by the nature and depth of their research to provide opinion? Yes, that is a possibility. A faint possibility, perhaps a one-in-a-hundred-thousand chance that somewhere in this huge body of scientific research and report, some hidden reality has been overlooked that alters the odds.
The bedrock question will fundamentally be — absolutely must be — do we want to bet the future of the race, the health of hundreds of millions over innumerable generations, on the proposition that science has got it all wrong?
If so, why? What is our gain from taking this kind of risk? And it is in the answer to this question that we cut to the heart of our problem and the central issue. The gain is in the profit margins of a large number of huge corporations, connected directly or indirectly to fossil fuels — to oil, to gas, to coal. It is both that simple and, simultaneously, that complex, because our civilization has been built upon these sources of energy.
Here is the bedrock reality. The overwhelming majority of scientists most qualified to theorize on this subject are convinced that we are faced with a fundamental, extremely serious and very far-reaching problem and danger. And when we say “far-reaching” we are talking a very, very long time into the future, a future that must be faced by our descendents even unto the 20th generation — and likely far beyond!
If you have fundamental scientific reason to question or challenge my conclusions, by all means present it. But for the sake of reality please stay away from these cheap, shallow shots whose only content is some repetition of the notion that I am peddling unproved nonsense, that I am engaged in some political game or that I am out of touch with reality.
I have been around a while. Never in a fairly long existence have I witnessed such a complete domination of an extraordinarily crucial issue by so self-serving an aggregation of corporate interests. That is a fundamental reality.
That said, I will close by quoting at length from the clearly alarming report of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, just released: “Five Key Takeaways From the Frightening IPCC Climate Change Report,” by John Light:
“The United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued its latest report … focuses on how climate change will affect human society in coming years, painting a picture of a world destabilized by a rapidly changing environment. While many of the events it details are familiar to those who follow the research on climate change, taken together in the 2,600-page report assembled by more than 300 scientists, they’re almost overwhelming to consider.
“‘Throughout the 21st century, climate-change impacts are projected to slow down economic growth, make poverty reduction more difficult, further erode food security, and prolong existing and create new poverty traps, the latter particularly in urban areas and emerging hot spots of hunger,’ the report declared.
“The longer we dither about taking action, it warns, the worse the impacts of climate change will be.”
Here are five takeaways from the report as published by Nation of Change.
“1. The food supply is in trouble — ‘Nobody on this planet is going to be untouched by the impacts of climate change,’ Rajendra K. Pachauri, chairman of the IPCC, said at a news conference presenting the report. Climate change has already affected the global food supply; crop yields for wheat, for example, are beginning to decline even as the human population continues to grow.
“2. The poor will be hit hardest, but the rich will feel it too — As with most natural disasters and food shortages, the poor will be hit hardest. But the rich will also feel it. ‘A warmer world will push food prices higher, trigger “hotspots of hunger” among the world’s poorest people, and put the crunch on Western delights like fine wine and robust coffee,’ Seth Borenstein reports for the AP. ‘Food prices are likely to go up somewhere in a wide range of 3 percent to 84 percent by 2050 just because of climate change, the report said.’
“3. The world will become less stable — A dwindling food supply coupled with an increase in natural disasters will exacerbate tensions in already tense areas ‘by amplifying well-documented drivers of these conflicts such as poverty and economic shocks,’ the report says. This could mean more or worse regional conflicts and civil wars, like what has unfolded in recent years in drought-stricken Syria, with national security implications for the U.S. (For more on those risks, take a look at the Center for Climate and Security’s blog.)
“4. Wealthy countries are minimizing their responsibility — The World Bank estimated that poor countries would need as much as $100 billion per year to offset the effects of climate change. Yet, as Justin Gillis reports for The New York Times, wealthy countries, including the U.S., tried to have that figure stricken from the 48-page executive summary that most readers and the press would peruse before turning to the full report. Gillis writes, ‘The edit came after several rich countries, including the United States, raised questions about the language, according to several people who were in the room at the time but did not wish to be identified because the negotiations were private. … Many rich countries argue that $100 billion a year is an unrealistic demand; it would essentially require them to double their budgets for foreign aid, at a time of economic distress at home. That argument has fed a rising sense of outrage among the leaders of poor countries, who feel their people are paying the price for decades of profligate Western consumption.’
“5. The next big chance to do something is later this year — It’s possible to stave off the worst effects of climate change now if countries move quickly to cut emissions, the report says. World leaders will have that chance when they meet this autumn in New York City for the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which will be completed in 2015. As part of the UN’s effort to push international leaders to do something about climate change, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon has challenged attendees to bring ‘bold pledges’ and to ‘(i)nnovate, scale-up, cooperate and deliver concrete action that will close the emissions gap and put us on track for an ambitious legal agreement.’”
With this, I (momentarily!) rest my case.
Jerome Page is a Benicia resident.
Sharing is caring!
Mr. Page now that you have {momentarily } rest your case, I have a question for you. Where do you stand on the Valero Three Rail Project {Crude by Rail}?
Quotes in italics are from the original piece:
”the nonsense posing as informed skepticism…” The author later invites comments from those who disagree with him, if the desire for this is sincere and not merely superficial, why does the author choose to peremptorily attack some of the information which may be used?
”or that (locally) fancies that derogating me.” Compared to the insults, coarse language, and voluminous personal attacks used by those who in general support the author against those who do not, this comment is especially thin skinned. As one of attackers once said: “If you can’t take the heat…”
. ”(Remember the figure previously quoted: 97 percent of the most highly qualified climate scientists are convinced of the danger)” This tired and overused claim is made without attribution to the source, as if the claim is firmly embedded as being unassailable, based on a serious analysis of world-wide climatologists. That simply is not the case. I am actually surprised that overhyped statistic is still being used by the author, whose work has usually been quite excellent.
”This notion that the whole enterprise is for sale, insulting to fundamental science and scientists, is as reprehensible as it is incredibly stupid. “ Yet making the same claim in reverse against those who disagree is not falling into the same trap?
“a future that must be faced by our descendents even unto the 20th generation — and likely far beyond!”In previous pieces the author has referred often to saving the planet for “our grandchildren”, a noble cause indeed, as surely the peril faced must be imminent, 75-100 years away. Now it appears that 500-600 years away is the target date for planetary demise. One has to wonder what caused this change in schedule?
”please stay away from these cheap, shallow shots whose only content is some repetition of the notion that I am peddling unproved nonsense,” Would that the door swung both ways and the supporters of the author would do the same.
I appreciate Mr. Page and his passion for the subject of climate change. But as a person involved with geological science and one who requires solid empirical data in order to embrace an issue, I simply and profoundly disagree with Mr. Page.
First, anyone can spend five minutes on the Internet and read multiple well sourced and documented articles arguing both sides. Simply put, if there is irregular climate change in action (the climate is constantly changing – always) AND if the irregularity is caused by human action, the debate is far from settled. True science posts no proof. There are models used, hypothesis posed, conclusions drawn, but thus far no consensus.
Second, Mr. Page leans his data heavily on th UN. All political statements aside, the UN is NOT a reliable source for scientific conclusions. Because the UN is a political entity, most of its study conclusions are primarily political.
Third, if there is global warming, many studies show that this form of climate change will, in fact, INCREASE agricultural output. Food supplies are most affected by human stupidity, not climate.
Finally, it should be noted there is a largely political aspect to the climate change advocacy. One will note that the “Climate Changers” are largely of the statist bent and there solutions normally include state control of energy, food production, and industrial regulation. Only govern,ent control can solve the alleged situation. Hence the UN, frequently sourced by Mr. Page, embraces climate change as a primary objective. The UN largely supports statist measures globally.
Again, I appreciate Mr. Page and his strong and thoughtful advocacy. I simply disagree respectfully with his conclusions.
Excellent comments Matter.
Lets assume that global warming is real and it is to some degree caused by human activities as so many people seem to accept. What should we do about it? Reduce our use of non-renewable resources? Sure, we are doing that already. Maybe we could speed it up a bit, but it is a tough call to balance the economic impact of such a move. Plant more trees? Sure, lets do it. What else? Some scientists have suggested extreme measures attempting to directly modify the temperature on a global scale. Are we really smart enough to do that? The unintended consequences could be catastrophic. Not to mention, trying to get all the governments of the world to agree on such a plan would be impossible. So it seems we are already doing some of the safe, prudent and economically feasible actions already and perhaps at this point we should continue on the path we are on while investing in education and technological to help find new solutions.
Beyond the Geology majors and the climate denial crowd—
Thank you, Mr. Page, for your tireless energy and excellent research on this subject matter.
More information (below) for Mr. Page and the wider community to consider…
“Dear Humanity, Time Is Running Out
Next and final chapter in IPCC climate change assessment will say window is fast closing for society to respond to worst impacts of fast-warming planet”
“What this next chapter will highlight is that for all the alarming warnings generated by the scientific community and confirmed by the IPCC’s comprehensive analysis of that science, is that world government’s and the powerful private sector have done next to nothing to meet the challenge now before humanity.”
“Scientists confirm that we must take urgent steps to avoid triggering catastrophic climate change and its irreversible impacts on humans and ecosystems. Real solutions to the climate crisis are already available. We need community-based energy solutions, energy efficiency and reduced consumption levels, not dangerous energy sources like fossil fuels or nuclear power,” said Inga Roemer of Friends of the Earth Germany / BUND.”
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2014/04/07-0
Nothing to say but just keeps on talking.
His technique is to grab the nuttiest stuff from the craziest websites and just post it and then move on to the next thing without a pause.
Don’t try to talk sense, it’s a waste of your time…
“” Don’t try to talk sense, it’s a waste of your time…: ”
Sounds familiar.
Beyond the Geology majors and the climate denial crowd—
Thank you, Mr. Page, for your tireless energy and excellent research on this subject matter.
More powerful information (below) for Mr. Page and the wider community to contemplate…
“Science and Global Warming”
“I had previously reviewed peer-reviewed scientific articles from 2013 with the topics, or keyword phrases, “global warming” and “global climate change,”
“Combining this result with my earlier studies (see here and here), over several years I have reviewed 25,182 scientific articles in peer-reviewed journals. Only 26, about 1 in 1,000, in my judgment reject anthropogenic global warming. I describe my methodology here.”
“Instead of coalescing around a rival theory to anthropogenic global warming, the rejecting articles offer a hodgepodge of alternatives, none of which has caught on. The dissenting articles are rarely cited, even by other dissenters. A groundswell this is not. The 26 rejecting articles have had no discernible influence on science”
What can we conclude?
1. There a mountain of scientific evidence in favor of anthropogenic global warming and no convincing evidence against it.
2. Those who deny anthropogenic global warming have no alternative theory to explain the observed rise in atmospheric CO2 and global temperature.
These two facts together mean that the so-called debate over global warming is an illusion, a hoax conjured up by a handful of apostate scientists and a misguided and sometimes colluding media, aided and abetted by funding from fossil fuel companies and right wing foundations.
On the one side, we have a mountain of scientific evidence, on the other, ideology and arm-waving. On that basis, we are endangering our grand-children’s future and pushing humanity toward the destruction of civilization.
http://www.jamespowell.org/
I will deny both your conclusions. There is a very distinct disconnect between CO2 generation and temperatures. In fact most models making such a linkage have proven to be enormously inaccurate.
Temperature variations have been empirically linked to … Solar output! What a shock.
Finally your “mountain of evidence” and your hypothesis that no other evidence refutes shows you only visit certain web sites. There are “mountains of evidence” on both sides of the issue. Therefore, the subject is quite open to debate.
I do believe Will AKA { Local Citizen Research Reporter} you have been exposed. I have always maintained that and now someone who does know a little about this issue destroyed you Will.
Will stated: Those who deny anthropogenic global warming have no alternative theory to explain the observed rise in atmospheric CO2 and global temperature.
Let’s direct that comment back at those who support MCGW:
”Those who support anthropogenic global warming recognize that there is no alternative theory to explain the observed rise in atmospheric CO2 and global temperatures.
In order for the above restated comment to be true, the only allowed explanation for global temperature variations would be the addition of CO2 to the atmosphere by mankind to account for increases in global temperatures.
Now, carry that to the logical conclusions. If the addition of CO2 to the atmosphere directly results in global warming, with no other factors being allowed, then we must acknowledge two things:
1) Global temperatures have remained constant for tens of thousands of years.
2) There have been no periods where atmospheric temperatures have cooled beyond a very narrow band.
Both statements one and two are false. If those statements are false the original premise must be called into question.
Yet some proponents of MCGW assert that dissenters should be charged with crimes against humanity.
Dennis:
The comment was not directed at you. Somehow it was misdirected.
Ciao, Bob
As I said… incoherent.
Just keeps scooping up the nuttiest stuff on the web and throwing it at the wall.
Don’t waste your time responding… he’ll just move on to some other nutty thing from the web. Sad but true….