The Sad Truth About Global Warming

[Rhykker]

The Sad Truth About Global Warming

The opinions expressed in this news editorial are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of The Escapist.

It's been a week full of promising headlines in the world of science and technology. An Israeli startup showed off a prototype Tom Wheeler's hints at new net neutrality policy [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/139383-StoreDot-Smartphone-Battery-Samsung-Galaxy-S5] - while certainly deserving of scrutiny and suspicion - at the very least show that our voices of protest have been heard. But one headline has cast a pall over the good news by calling back to an all-too-familiar topic: global warming.

According to a new MIT study, volcanoes can be cutting the rate at which our planet's average temperature is rising in half [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/139472-Climate-Change-Volcanoes-May-Be-Slowing-Global-Warming]. While this may seem counterintuitive at first, since volcanoes release gasses and spew out steaming hot molten rock, some also inject particles high up into the stratosphere. This results in an increase in cloud cover, which causes more of the Sun's light to be bounced back into space rather than absorbed by the Earth's surface, resulting in a cooling effect.

This isn't breaking any new ground. I conducted similar research during my studies; using data from historical and recent volcanic eruptions, I built a model intended to quantitatively predict the global cooling effect of volcanic eruptions - past and future. And while my results concluded that volcanic activity has significant and varied impacts on global temperature, MIT's more in-depth research took things a step further and attributed the post-2000 slowing of the rate of global warming to volcanic activity.

So why did I say this headline has cast a pall? No, it's not because of the overlap with my own research. If there was a new study that should be riling me up, it would be the one that claims that meteorites were byproducts of planetary formation rather than building blocks [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/139488-MIT-Meteorites-Come-From-Planets-Study-Space] - a claim that could potentially invalidate my main field of research. No, the reason this headline is of the Debbie Downer variety is because there seems to be no other topic in the realm of science that incites as much negativity as global warming - so much so that even my deliberate usage of the term global warming rather than climate change has upset a number of you reading this.

When science is held hostage to public opinion and politics, we harken back to a dark time in our history - a time of witch trials and geocentric worldviews. Years ago, one of my professors - an accomplished scientist - lamented the climate (ahem) in global warming research. The government's historical attitude toward the matter can be very roughly divided into the pre-Al Gore era of, "Blablabla we can't hear you," and the post-Inconvenient Truth era of, "Okay, we believe you; now fix it!" While the latter may seem like a victory, it was a pyrrhic one - in accepting that climate change was occurring, government funding shifted away from further investigating potential causes and toward finding solutions.

The consequence? My professor, and other similar researchers who wanted to continue investigating climate change in order to see if something other than humanity was the main cause for the recent warming, could no longer find funding. The government had stamped the file "case closed" - which is about the worst thing that can happen in science, a field in which scrutinizing previous knowledge is paramount.

So to continue his research, my professor had to sell his soul to the Devil - or at least, that's what many would say. Who was willing to fund his research? Big Oil, who had a vested interest in disproving anthropogenic climate change. And because Big Oil was funding his research, my professor was demonized by the public and made a pariah in the scientific community - all because he wanted to question the prevailing opinions.

This is the sad truth about global warming: regardless of your stance on the matter, it reveals something terribly ugly about human nature - how quick we are to judge, condemn, vilify, mock, and insult those who don't share our views. Some of the greatest breakthroughs and innovations in human history have come from those who challenge the status quo, yet we continue to vociferously shout down dissenting voices.

Of course, there's a lot more at play in the global warming discussion - politics and capitalism, namely - which leads me to what I find saddest of all: that we need the threat of impending doom as a motivator to pollute less. Whether or not you believe that humanity is the leading cause of global warming, I think we can all agree that being kinder to our environment is in our best interest. But the myopic views of governments and corporations bent on holding power and money care too much for their immediate bottom-line to do the right, forward-thinking thing - they would rather invest in themselves than in humanity. This is the root cause of all the alarmism, all the frustration, the anger, the arguing, the vitriol surrounding global warming. And every time climate change hits the headlines, we are reminded of this sad truth.



Check out last week's science & tech news editorial wrap-up: Why Space Porn Is Important to Science [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/139394-How-Space-Porn-Ties-Together-Mars-SpaceX-Hubble-and-Kepler?utm_source=latest&utm_medium=index_carousel&utm_campaign=all].

[http://www.escapistmagazine.com/science-and-tech/]

Permalink

 

[crimson5pheonix]

I've said it before and I'll say it again, tribalism is the worst thing to happen in a debate. Being 100% certain on a future event or even a current event is the only wrong stance to take.

 

[Josh123914]

Very sad that these findings are warped or misled to accommodate a certain groups' vested interests, sorry about your professor.....

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

I've said it before and I'll say it again, tribalism is the worst thing to happen in a debate. Being 100% certain on a future event or even a current event is the only wrong stance to take.

Unfortunately, we are a very tribalistic species which hates any sort of uncertainty, even inventing deities to explain basic physical phenomenon we don't understand.

Welcome to the human condition.

 

[Tarfeather]

It's nice to see an article by someone who knows what they're talking about. Keep it up.

 

[geizr]

The ugly truth of human beings is when we develop a vested interest in a particular statement, claim, or idea being true. At that point, we become blind to reality because it becomes necessary that the statement, claim, or idea in question remain true so that we do not feel that we have wasted our investment in it. My guess would be that our fear of death and loss makes us not want to feel that our lives were somehow wasted in a useless, valueless, or meaningless endeavor. So, we cling, blindly, to the error in order to force a sense of meaning or value in the action and shut out all information or indications to the contrary. But, this just seems to be a selfishness or self-centered view in that we can not let go of our own self-important and just accept life and reality for what it is, including our own meager position within the grand scheme of it all. We fail to realize that having such centrality is unnecessary to happiness, that we can just "be", accept the world for what it is, and learn to just move on, despite any losses that may be incurred. That's just life.

As a physics major, I've come to learn that being a scientist means that you have to be ready and prepared to wake-up one morning and discover that everything you thought was true is proven, irrefutably, to be incorrect, and you have to be able to accept the fact and rebuild your entire framework of understanding with the new information. Even further, you have to, in some ways, be looking forward to the day of such an event happening. You may maintain a healthy skepticism to not just immediately accept the contradictory information, but you don't rebel against it once it proves itself. You integrate it as a new understanding of reality and existence, discarding any and all previous contradictory understanding, no matter how vested you may be in it. At least, that's the ideal that I've come to believe for myself.

 

[NuclearKangaroo]

When science is held hostage to public opinion and politics, we harken back to a dark time in our history - a time of witch trials and geocentric worldviews. Years ago, one of my professors - an accomplished scientist - lamented the climate (ahem) in global warming research. The government's historical attitude toward the matter can be very roughly divided into the pre-Al Gore era of, "Blablabla we can't hear you," and the post-Inconvenient Truth era of, "Okay, we believe you; now fix it!" While the latter may seem like a victory, it was a pyrrhic one - in accepting that climate change was occurring, government funding shifted away from further investigating potential causes and toward finding solutions.

this sounds alarming, you got some more sources to confirm this is the trend right now?

Of course, there's a lot more at play in the global warming discussion - politics and capitalism, namely - which leads me to what I find saddest of all: that we need the threat of impending doom as a motivator to pollute less. Whether or not you believe that humanity is the leading cause of global warming, I think we can all agree that being kinder to our environment is in our best interest. But the myopic views of governments and corporations bent on holding power and money care too much for their immediate bottom-line to do the right, forward-thinking thing - they would rather invest in themselves than in humanity.

i understand what you are saying but heres the thing, life rarely has one correct answer for all your problems, you think as corporations as if they were made entirely of guys in suit holding a cigar in their hands and laughing maniacally each time a tree dies

there are many normals folks like you and me working at corporations and the moment you tell a corporation they must reduce their operations, those are the guys that are getting the boot, its hard to think about building a better world for your grandchildren when you cant even feed your kids right now

and then theres this other problem, many countries in the world, such as mine, depend on Oil exports to survive, Oil, if i recall correctly, represents 90% of our exports, is the one thing that has kept this show running for the last 80 years

now youd be right to assume my country is full of idiots who havent put any effort into doing something besides exporting oil, i wont deny that, but the fact remains, any hit to the oil market affects us and affect every country in a similar situation, is it right to sacrifice the livelihood of millions of people to save the planet? could you tell entire countries they have no right to prosper because the planet demands it?

the global warming issue isnt really that clear cut, its not the greed of old men whats destroying the world, but the desperate attempts to survive of millions of people

 

[immortalfrieza]

As history has shown humanity as the whole will never do anything about a problem until it's so big we can't ignore it anymore and climate change is just another example. Those few who do want to do something right away will never get the support they need and thus never actually fix the problem before that point. Once we DO get together to do something about it we always end up solving the problem pretty damned quickly, but always in ways that result in further problems down the road.

This is the human race in a nutshell and unless we can change the nature of humanity as a whole in the deepest level not just in a superficial manner it always will be.

When science is held hostage to public opinion and politics, we harken back to a dark time in our history - a time of witch trials and geocentric worldviews. Years ago, one of my professors - an accomplished scientist - lamented the climate (ahem) in global warming research. The government's historical attitude toward the matter can be very roughly divided into the pre-Al Gore era of, "Blablabla we can't hear you," and the post-Inconvenient Truth era of, "Okay, we believe you; now fix it!" While the latter may seem like a victory, it was a pyrrhic one - in accepting that climate change was occurring, government funding shifted away from further investigating potential causes and toward finding solutions.

So? You can't find a solution to a problem without knowing what caused it, so the two end up being the exact same thing in the end.

 

[K12]

I think this is another one of those areas of science where "what's in it for us" becomes the first question the public (and by extension the government) ask about it.

Science for the sake of "only" knowledge gets sneered at by people far too often.

 

[Ark of the Covetor]

So to continue his research, my professor had to sell his soul to the Devil - or at least, that's what many would say. Who was willing to fund his research? Big Oil, who had a vested interest in disproving anthropogenic climate change. And because Big Oil was funding his research, my professor was demonized by the public and made a pariah in the scientific community - all because he wanted to question the prevailing opinions.

Yeah, I'm not buying that. Was he "demonized" and "made a pariah" because "he wanted to question the prevailing opinions", or because he was willing to accept funding from vested interests who have a proven track record of "paying for results" in order to do so? I'm betting it was the latter.

To illustrate why criticism was entirely justifiable, lets consider Jimmy. Jimmy is a hypothetical scientist who questions the prevailing opinion that smoking is a direct cause of lung cancer. Now, lets say that Jimmy is struggling to find funding for his research, given the reams of evidence which directly support the proposition that he questions - I think it would be perfectly valid to criticise Jimmy in very strong terms indeed if he decided to remedy his funding problems by going on the payroll of the fucking tobacco industry.

 

[Rowan93]

So to continue his research, my professor had to sell his soul to the Devil - or at least, that's what many would say. Who was willing to fund his research? Big Oil, who had a vested interest in disproving anthropogenic climate change. And because Big Oil was funding his research, my professor was demonized by the public and made a pariah in the scientific community - all because he wanted to question the prevailing opinions.

Yeah, I'm not buying that. Was he "demonized" and "made a pariah" because "he wanted to question the prevailing opinions", or because he was willing to accept funding from vested interests who have a proven track record of "paying for results" in order to do so? I'm betting it was the latter.

To illustrate why criticism was entirely justifiable, lets consider Jimmy. Jimmy is a hypothetical scientist who questions the prevailing opinion that smoking is a direct cause of lung cancer. Now, lets say that Jimmy is struggling to find funding for his research, given the reams of evidence which directly support the proposition that he questions - I think it would be perfectly valid to criticise Jimmy in very strong terms indeed if he decided to remedy his funding problems by going on the payroll of the fucking tobacco industry.

I don't understand how that's supposed to be any less reasonable than the first one, it still sounds fine to me. He's already trying for a particular result, and that's not exactly unusual in science, what difference will having the only people who will pay him to do what he wants to do be the people paying for it make? Our solution to the problem of biased sciences and biases in science is peer review, not ostracising biased scientists until all of academia consists of about five perfectly rational enlightened beings.

 

[Zato-1]

so much so that even my deliberate usage of the term global warming rather than climate change has upset a number of you reading this.

I actually become upset whenever people use the term "climate change" instead of "global warming". Global Warming is the more concise, accurate term as far as I can see; it conveys the idea succinctly, without a lot of room for misinterpretation. The planet is heating up. Why is it heating up? Good, complex question, but there's no real doubt that human activity is a contributing factor. How much is it heating up? Another good question, but I won't open that can of worms in this forum post. Still, the term "Global Warming" succeeds in getting the main point across.

And then there's Climate Change. From an academic point of view it may be a valid term, but for laymen, it is disastrous in its ambiguity. Were there more tornadoes in the Atlantic last year? Climate Change! Are there fewer tornadoes in the Atlantic this year? Climate Change! Is the average surface temperature in the planet going up? Climate Change! Is the average surface temperature going down? Climate Change! Did last year have lower rainfall totals than average? Climate Change! And if this year has greater rainfall totals than average? Climate Change!

Climate Change alarmists can (and do) point to literally any variation in weather patterns as "evidence" that the world is going to end unless we give up all of our decision-making power to their environmentalist gods. It's the term "Climate Change" that upsets me.

 

[Scow2]

So to continue his research, my professor had to sell his soul to the Devil - or at least, that's what many would say. Who was willing to fund his research? Big Oil, who had a vested interest in disproving anthropogenic climate change. And because Big Oil was funding his research, my professor was demonized by the public and made a pariah in the scientific community - all because he wanted to question the prevailing opinions.

Yeah, I'm not buying that. Was he "demonized" and "made a pariah" because "he wanted to question the prevailing opinions", or because he was willing to accept funding from vested interests who have a proven track record of "paying for results" in order to do so? I'm betting it was the latter.

To illustrate why criticism was entirely justifiable, lets consider Jimmy. Jimmy is a hypothetical scientist who questions the prevailing opinion that smoking is a direct cause of lung cancer. Now, lets say that Jimmy is struggling to find funding for his research, given the reams of evidence which directly support the proposition that he questions - I think it would be perfectly valid to criticise Jimmy in very strong terms indeed if he decided to remedy his funding problems by going on the payroll of the fucking tobacco industry.

As long as he follows proper scientific rigor with his studies, it doesn't matter where the funding comes from. Bad rigor shows in a study, as long as the results are peer-reviewed and submitted properly. As it is, most of the current funding for climate change has a vested interest in advancing the political agenda of the National Democratic Part of the U.S. and lining Al Gore's pockets.

If Jimmy, on the payroll from Big Tobacco, performs rigorous scientific trials of the effects of smoked tobacco on human lungs and the results hold up to peer scrutiny of the studies, you are out of line for 'criticizing him in strong terms indeed', because you're being a partisan asshole who puts personal grudges and tribalistic beliefs over scientific methodology and study.

so much so that even my deliberate usage of the term global warming rather than climate change has upset a number of you reading this.

I actually become upset whenever people use the term "climate change" instead of "global warming". Global Warming is the more concise, accurate term as far as I can see; it conveys the idea succinctly, without a lot of room for misinterpretation. The planet is heating up. Why is it heating up? Good, complex question, but there's no real doubt that human activity is a contributing factor. How much is it heating up? Another good question, but I won't open that can of worms in this forum post. Still, the term "Global Warming" succeeds in getting the main point across.

And then there's Climate Change. From an academic point of view it may be a valid term, but for laymen, it is disastrous in its ambiguity. Were there more tornadoes in the Atlantic last year? Climate Change! Are there fewer tornadoes in the Atlantic this year? Climate Change! Is the average surface temperature in the planet going up? Climate Change! Is the average surface temperature going down? Climate Change! Did last year have lower rainfall totals than average? Climate Change! And if this year has greater rainfall totals than average? Climate Change!

Climate Change alarmists can (and do) point to literally any variation in weather patterns as "evidence" that the world is going to end unless we give up all of our decision-making power to their environmentalist gods. It's the term "Climate Change" that upsets me.

Climate Change is used because "Global Warming" implies the entire planet is uniformly warming up, and thus areas where the climate is actually changing toward colder temperatures immediately 'invalidates' the claims of Global Warming - "If the world's heating up, why has each year set more record-low temperatures than the last?!"

 

[NinjaDeathSlap]

So to continue his research, my professor had to sell his soul to the Devil - or at least, that's what many would say. Who was willing to fund his research? Big Oil, who had a vested interest in disproving anthropogenic climate change. And because Big Oil was funding his research, my professor was demonized by the public and made a pariah in the scientific community - all because he wanted to question the prevailing opinions.

Yeah, I'm not buying that. Was he "demonized" and "made a pariah" because "he wanted to question the prevailing opinions", or because he was willing to accept funding from vested interests who have a proven track record of "paying for results" in order to do so? I'm betting it was the latter.

To illustrate why criticism was entirely justifiable, lets consider Jimmy. Jimmy is a hypothetical scientist who questions the prevailing opinion that smoking is a direct cause of lung cancer. Now, lets say that Jimmy is struggling to find funding for his research, given the reams of evidence which directly support the proposition that he questions - I think it would be perfectly valid to criticise Jimmy in very strong terms indeed if he decided to remedy his funding problems by going on the payroll of the fucking tobacco industry.

Is that not at least part of why peer-reviewing exists though? To ensure that no matter where the money came from, the science remains sound? Vested interests can try and pay for results all they like, but if their agendas result in a flawed method, the scientific community is going to know it, and they're going to call it out. Beyond that, it's just a question of how much attention the rest of us pay to what's being said.

 

[Razhem]

I'm in the camp that believes that the whole global warming things is overly exaggerated to insane degrees for political and monetary gains.

Leaving that aside, it always kind of baffles me why the global warming craze seemed to be necessary when there was already a nice big fat list for why we should have been reducing contamination anyway. I've visited Mexico city, I've seen the halo of shit that fills the air when you see the city from afar and I know how much of a kick to the balls it is to the system to the point that it was recommended some days to use masks. And this is without going into the "hey, you just fucked up a whole ecosystem!" aspect of it which you can choke on how many examples of that we have that cause irreversible damage.

 

[FogHornG36]

I still remember when i was a kid and they always told me before the year 2000 the ice caps would be totally melted.

 

[DEAD34345]

While the latter may seem like a victory, it was a pyrrhic one - in accepting that climate change was occurring, government funding shifted away from further investigating potential causes and toward finding solutions.

I'm sorry, but what? A pyrrhic victory? Investigating the potential causes of global warming is a good thing generally, but when the choice is between funding that and funding actual solutions to climate change the correct decision is pretty obvious. We should spend our effort on fixing the problem first, rather than just figuring out what to blame.

 

[Rhykker]

While the latter may seem like a victory, it was a pyrrhic one - in accepting that climate change was occurring, government funding shifted away from further investigating potential causes and toward finding solutions.

I'm sorry, but what? A pyrrhic victory? Investigating the potential causes of global warming is a good thing generally, but when the choice is between funding that and funding actual solutions to climate change the correct decision is pretty obvious. We should spend our effort on fixing the problem first, rather than just figuring out what to blame.

If a boat is sinking, do you only bail water, or do you try to find the leak?