Sooner or Later, Global Warming

Heartland Institute, the same people who think tobacco is not harmful and who apparently do not believe in evolution are now using evolutionary “evidence” (and other assertions) to claim that human activity does not cause global warming (perhaps it’s a normal oscillation of the sun).

When I want reliable information on a subject, I look to how the source handles facts, and when I run across a statement such as: “Most scientists do not believe human activities threaten to disrupt the Earth’s climate” (and several similar statements quoted in Wikipedia the source of which has apparently been removed from the web) — ZAP — crossed him off my list. Perhaps that is his opinion, but it can not be a documented fact because there is no way he could know.

Or perhaps Wikipedia is wrong, so let’s look further. Heartland’s evidence is presented at a conference that includes speakers on climatology, paleoclimatology, politics and economics. I think economics may be the key word here.

And why does all of this irritate me? After all, they might conceivably be right. Stranger things have happened.  Not many, but  – – –

It irritates me because we — we who are doing all this — we are biological organisms feeding upon the earth, and so I wonder why it is that we so seldom hear BIOLOGISTS invited to discuss the impact of biological organisms upon the earth ecosystem? We ask climatologists, economists, physicists, politicians and the man on the street, none of whom really understands how ecosystems function.  But biologists seem to be excluded from the general conversation. I wonder why that is? (Disclaimer – I am a biologist.)   So maybe that is the real reason I am irritated.

But really — why?  The power question so often involves the word why.

Do you suppose they are trying to deflect our efforts away from their turf?

The most common way to do this is to argue about the wrong question, so let’s think about the assertion they are trying to debunk — that human activity is causing global warming. Politically and economically, that is the wrong question. It’s not important to the icebergs or the polar bears (or other biological organisms, that is us) whether or not global warming is a normal oscillation. The political and economic question is — what should we do about it.  So clearly whatever we should do about it in some way threatens their power base.  What could that be?

Are they trying to draw our attention away from the FACT that there is a limit to the amount of available carbon energy that we can mine? And they don’t want to let go of their monopoly?   Or are they afraid to talk about the problem of overpopulation?

Too many people; not enough oil.  Facts.  No matter what causes global warming, sooner or later we will have to deal with these facts.  The sooner we deal, the more power we have to deal with.

Power – Today or Tomorrow?

The blog follows the news; I’m still planning to look a little closer at global warming, but in the meantime —

The evidence just keeps bubbling up that it’s usually better to go for the long-term power, and consider all the possible outcomes of one’s behavior, rather than live by the “15 minutes of fame is good enough” philosophy.  Behaviors have consequences.

And I am not so sad if lawyers who break the law are held accountable, but even if they are not — consequences.