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.

3 Responses

  1. Let me start off by saying I think I’m going to agree and disagree with you.

    I think Global Warming is something human activity promotes/generates and is our responsibility to fix. I also think evolution is real and someone saying it isn’t would make me question their POV to at least some extent.

    Though there is the possibility a great majority of people who study biology are liars and involved in a great conspiracy to promote falsehoods I tend to thin this possibility has only a remote chance of being true…. a very remote chance.

    That all said, I can see why people would talk to someone who studies the economy or the climate about Global Warming before they talk to a biologist. Fossil fuels are mostly burned by things that are not organic. I have yet too see an organic car or coal power plant. Both are part of the economy so it makes sense to talk to an economist and both are very likely to emit global warming gasses when they operate so makes sense to talk to a climatologist.

    Moreover, most (if any) human beings don’t have a biological need for coal power plants.

    Not to pick on your chosen career focus (or as any slight to you), but I can see why reasonable people wouldn’t talk to biologists right off the bat about global warming.

    I think the people you referred to are probably part of a propaganda mill of some kind.

    However, I think the any connection between made between global warming and concerns about overpopulation is likely to be deeply flawed.

    As I said before, I don’t see a biological need for much of what we burn fossil fuels for.

    There can be 2 groups of people, 1 without coal burning power plants and 1 with. Global Warming problems can reasonably be attributed to 1 group (with coal burning power plants) but not the other (without them). Even if the group without said power plants is larger than the other.

    This means that Global Warming may be due to the number of coal burning power plants, but not the number of humans (which is what overpopulation concerns focus on).

  2. Thank you for your comments Nathaniel. I hope you are right, but the way I see it coal (oil, etc.) are not the only source of our problems. For example, to keep the living balance of oxygen and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere we need plants (green plants), and I’m working now on a blog about that problem. Humans also need plants for food and firewood — and lately for fuel for all those cars. The problem is to maintain a proper balance of all these things while at the same time providing a reasonable lifestyle (reasonable, of course, not excessive) all around the earth.

  3. Thank you, and good luck on your blog about green plants.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: