That’s my new Internet Acronym, I just coined it, and you saw it here first. It means; “You Have Got To Be Fucking Kidding Me!” I decided to use it here because of this article.
I grew up in south-east Idaho. Close enough to Yellowstone National Park that I could sleep in on Saturday, feel cabin-feverish and be having lunch at Old Faithful. I have seen Yellowstone so many times that I get bored unless I am taking someone who has never been there and get caught up in their infectious excitement. But it is still close enough to home, where my entire family lives, that headlines regarding Yellowstone catch my eye, whether its about wolves, bans on snowmobiles, or the super-volcano that could erupt any day now killing everyone and causing a massive disruption to the food source for every single thing on the planet, possibly even other planets!!!”
So, when I was reading that article, regarding the recent swarm of earthquakes, my first thought was; “I didn’t feel any earthquakes while I was within a hundred miles of Yellowstone.” Then I thought about the super-volcano eruption, and it’s likelihood, which I think is slim. Of course, this is still part of my immature “it cant happen to me or anyone I care about” syndrome. Then I got to the last paragraph.
Casualties of global warming? Who knows. There’s not much anyone can really do about these, except wait them out.
This is where I uttered the phrase that I am making into a meme. It seems that no matter what is happening, Global Warming or Climate Change is at fault, therefore, it is the humans fault. I have had a number of in-depth conversations with a friend regarding the whole Global Warming / Climate Change debate, and I think it is fair to say that we are on opposite sides of the fence on the issue. Keeping with the analogy, we are close enough to the fence that we can have a conversation about it without shouting. I cede points to him, he cedes points to me, but neither of us has really changed our position. The closest I have come to stepping over the fence is acknowledging that human actions have had an impact on the Climate Change, but I refuse to believe that human actions are the cause of climate change. For his part, the closest he has come is that the cycle is natural, but human actions have caused a “perfect storm” of circumstances where the natural cycle can’t be dealt with by the earth’s ecosystems, because of the added difficulty of dealing with the human activities. I think both of our opinions have merit, but neither of us are scientists devoted to this science.
I tend to look at the whole climate change issue very skeptically, as it has more of the earmarks of an agenda than a science. To explain that belief, perhaps an explanation is in order. To my recollection, this whole movement started with the “Hole in the Ozone” issue long ago. At the time, this was attributed to the CFC’s being released into the atmosphere by the countless cans of consumer products that used a propellant to get liquid out of a can. It was pointed out at the time that a single volcanic eruption emitted more ozone depleting compounds than CFC’s. It was proven in studies that the chemicals from volcanoes did, in fact, destroy ozone in a laboratory environment, but that those chemicals did not reach far enough into the atmosphere to destroy the ozone layer. But then in 1991, two volcanic eruptions happened that showed a significant reduction in the ozone layer, up to 50% in the Antarctic. Then came the further studies that showed that the emissions of volcanoes weren’t the culprit, it was that the volcanic emissions interacted with the CFC’s that humans were dumping in the atmosphere. Volcanoes spewing crap that spread for hundreds of miles didn’t reach the upper atmosphere, but the cans of Aqua-Net required for the big-hair 80′s did. This is the theme that I see reported. Anything that happens naturally, is good. Anything man does is bad. The volcano didn’t do it, it was the volcano interacting with the human made CFC’s.
After the hole in the Ozone Layer, came the greenhouse effect. Again, Man was the guilty party. After the UN passed restrictions regarding ozone depleting chemicals, scientists expected the hole to close up. But wait, there’s more! Now its vehicle emissions that create smog that are causing the greenhouse effect! Now that solar radiation can get through the ozone without causing molecular damage to DNA, its getting trapped by the clouds of pollution, causing temperatures to rise. The Greenhouse Effect was rolled into the Global Warming issue. For a decade, pollutants were to blame for a trend of increasing global temperatures. The scare this time was that temperatures would continue to increase, causing drought and famine worldwide, and this was the cause of the filthy humans driving their filthy cars.
After a decade or so, there were record low temperatures reported across the globe. Skeptics with a political message rather than a scientific one were quick to say that there cant be global warming when temperatures keep dropping. A good portion of the population was being swayed by these arguments, because on the surface, they make sense. I imagine the thought process going something like this: “Here I am in an area historically known to be a region of moderate temperatures, and yet, I am so cold that I am afraid to sit down lest my ass freeze to the surface I plant it on. I have never been so cold in all my life, Global Warming can kiss my ass!”
At this point, proponents of Global Warming changed the name of the “crisis” to Climate Change. I think it was at this point that my skepticism began in earnest. I had never really looked into the science before, but changing the name sounded, to me, like less of a physical science and more of a science of marketing. I think even the most fervent believer in climate change would have to admit that there has been a lot of money spent on this issue, by governments, scientists and corporations. I don’t believe that “pure” science is the motivation behind any of these groups. The governments spend the money because there is a very vocal community that needs to be addressed, some people in that community are actually in the government. Since these people get on the news, and their statements are given merit by a percentage of the public, the Government has to be seen to be “doing something about the Climate Change issue.” To ignore the issue would bring about even louder cries about how the government is in the pockets of big business, who, in the eyes of the activists, are the biggest culprits responsible for climate change.
The scientists, who by their very nature are not stupid, realize that their education in global climatology can get them far more interesting work than telling the people in Squeedunk, Iowa what the weekend forecast is, apply for grants to study Climate Change. These grants pay for the research. But who is doing the research? The scientists who apply for the grants. I am not trying to say that this is just a bunch of greedy eggheads out to get a cushy job, or that they are willing to falsify research in order to give the results that are wanted by the check writers. But I am pretty sure that you have a much larger pool of money being granted to study how Climate Change is happening than there is for disproving it, and those grants pay scientists salaries while they do the study. I am pretty sure that no matter what the results are, pro or con, further study is definitely needed by the scientists.
To me, the interesting part of the debate is how the science seems to be divided along political lines. If you were to ask the average person on the street whether Climate Change was a scientific or political debate, I think the scales would tip in favor of politics. This is the other area where I feel that the actual science is being debased. The pro Climate Change people tend to be Liberals, while the anti’s are Conservative. Or, to use the epithets thrown at each group, the filthy hippies and the money grubbing capitalists. The liberals want a pristine earth, with every tree, flower and animal preserved, even at the expense of human development. Conservatives, usually, tend to see the earth as resources granted to the human race in a modified, quasi religious Manifest Destiny, God made the earth and everything on it for man, so we can use it. The strange thing is that both groups see the race of Man the same way, outside of nature. The conservatives say that man has the right because we are so damn smart, and the liberals say that since we are so damn smart, we should save everything, unspoiled, forever. If we were at our current level of technological sophistication 65 million years ago, the liberals would be demanding that we “do something” to prevent the extinction of the noble dinosaur, while the conservatives would see it as part of the circle of life. Unless dinosaurs were really, really tasty. I cant help but wonder what a Brontosaurus Burger with Tyrannosaurus Bacon would taste like. Which brings up another funny thought… how come all the environmental health nuts that were so up in arms about hunting Buffalo… sorry, North American Bison, outside of Yellowstone in the 80′s are now selling bison meat in health food stores at a premium price?
My opinion is that anytime you have to evaluate science by following the money, it isn’t real science. Anytime you have science being used to further a political agenda or career, (I’m looking right at you, Mr. Gore) it isn’t science. To me science is provable, repeatable fact. The fact is that the earth has been around for four and a half billion years and we have only been on it for a million or so of them. Accurate, global weather records have only exited for maybe a hundred and fifty years. We do not have enough data regarding the life cycle of the planet to make predictions for or against the climate change issue. All data we have is interpreted from other sources, be it geological strata, or ice core samples from Antarctica. And we definitely have not been around long enough to prove any theories by reproduction of circumstances. And the bottom line is, no matter how you look at it, global climate change will have a greater impact on the human race than the earth itself. So lets be honest… we don’t want to save the planet, we want to save ourselves. If another comet hit and wiped out all human life on earth, there would still be surviving life. That life will continue, and according to the Theory of Evolution, with grow, mutate and survive, supplanting the soft, squishy bags of mostly water we call Man as the dominant species on earth. And the earth itself? It will still be here. I will probably be a great vacation spot for the aliens who keep telling friends that its a nice place to visit, but I wouldn’t want to live there.