Questions

I recently read an interesting article written by game show host Pat Sajak, in which he asks several excellent questions about global warming and climate change. The subject of man-made global warming is nearly impossible to discuss without getting into screaming, raging, and name-calling between the participants, particularly if there are “hard core” environmentalists in the crowd. I consider myself fairly well-read on the subject matter, and I’m still skeptical because there are so many aspects of the issue that really don’t make a lot of sense.

If we are to launch ourselves onto a lifestyle-altering mission to lower the global temperature, what’s the goal? Do we know that one setting on the global thermostat is better than another? If we do, just what is that preferred temperature, and how do we reach it? Oh yeah, once there, how do we maintain it? Will we have to warm things up again if it drops below that preferential point? After all, juggling with the temperature on a global scale is going to be a whole lot different than adjusting the air conditioner setting at home. And just what is the average temperature of the earth anyway? How did we come up with that magic number? There are temperature extremes all over the planet remember, and have been since time immemorial. How do we come up with an average, and how do those normal temperature variations fit in with our desire to slow global warming? Then we get into asking what factors have led to global warming in the past, and how do we know they aren’t the causes of the current warming trend? There is no argument that warming (or cooling) cycles have been a part of earth’s history. Geological records indicate that our planet has routinely cycled from pretty darn cold to a whole lot hotter than we see today. Are we so sure that this cycle is any different?

Another thing that bothers me is the strong effort to shut off any argument with the “obvious” problem of global warming. Anytime a true believer in anything begins his tirade with “Everybody agrees...” or “Everyone knows...”, all my alarm bells start ringing! As a matter of fact, there is a good deal of dissent in the scientific world about the theories of man-made global warming. A large and rapidly growing segment of the scientists who study climatology are questioning many of the basic premises of the “warming is bad” theory. Why should asking serious questions about such an important subject be wrong? Recently one of the world’s top climatologists made comment that most of the signatories of the intergovernmental study on global warming weren’t climatologists or even meteorologists, in fact most of them weren’t scientists at all, but rather were “a mob” of politicians, environmentalists, and more than a few Hollywood celebrities! The Kyoto agreement threatens to cut the ground out from under the world’s industrial nations, severely limiting their industrial ability, and crippling their economies. That is a pretty big deal and will impoverish most of the western nations while leaving the world’s worst polluter (China) completely untouched! We really should have the best information and opinion from the best minds on the subject, rather than a vague “I think” from people who really don’t know what they’re talking about!

And why are there such dramatically different warnings about the effects of man-made global warming? Predictions of 20 or more foot rises in sea levels have given way to talk of only a few inches over the last year or so, and whatever happened to the global cooling threats of only a couple of decades ago? In many cases, all these sea level predictions are less than the historically recorded rises and falls of the last few hundred years. Whatever the case, why are the global warming advocates trying so hard, and apparently with more than a little success, to scare us? Besides, are there potential benefits to global warming? Would a warmer climate in some areas actually improve living conditions? Would such a possible improvement in health, crop production, overall lifestyle and such counterbalance any negative impact? I do know that our local winters were a lot colder fifty years ago, and personally I have no desire to return to those frigid winters and deep snows!

Should the drastic changes in public policy that are currently being called for be based on a “what if?” proposition, just because Al Gore says so? There are some who claim we can’t afford to wait for further studies, and, even if there’s some doubt, we should move on with altering the way we live. Many of their arguments for changing some of our environmental policies are good ideas, but should they also be based on “what it?” Again I’ll ask, what will be the impact on the people of the world if we change the way we live, based purely on man-made global warming concerns? Much of the third world wouldn’t be affected I’m sure, but things are going to be tough on the worlds industrialized nations, along with the newly emerging nations as well. Consider that there are always unintended consequences to all our actions. I for one wouldn’t want to find myself forced to live in a society stuck at a stone age, or even medieval, sustenance level! There are many other implications as well, some good and some bad. What are they? Shouldn’t we be thinking and talking about them now, instead of just trading carbon credits? How do we determine if our efforts are successful? Is the measure of success going to be based on the Earth’s average temperature, or perhaps the sea level? The number of hurricanes each year, average rainfall, or maybe all of these things? Again, do we have a particular goal in mind? If so, what is it, and what happens when we reach it?

How, and why, has the global warming movement gained such momentum? Humanity has faced environmental issues throughout the history of our species, but I don’t remember hearing of one that has gained such “celebrity status” in such a short time. To my mind there seems to be an almost religious fervor about the subject that makes me wonder. I remember all the rhetoric about eggs being an unhealthy food, and that breakfast cereal was poisoning our kids… both claims were proven to be junk science, but both were widely believed at the time. How about the commotion generated by Rachel Carlson’s 1962 book “Silent Spring”? Essentially she forecast the imminent and total collapse of nature due to the overuse of DDT. Agreed, DDT was being badly overused, but banning it altogether wasn’t such a good idea either, as you’ll well know if you’ve ever suffered from mosquito carried malaria.

A steady reduction in the dire predictions about global warming has not led to a reduction in the doomsday rhetoric. Does this perhaps indicate that the movement has become little more than an activist cause rather than scientific reality?