Contributors

Tuesday, April 10, 2012

The Reasonable Middle Ground on Climate Change

It has become Republican dogma that climate change isn't happening. That it's impossible for puny humans to change the climate of this huge planet. That God wouldn't let it happen because, as James Inhofe says, he made a promise to Noah.

The press, afraid of being accused of siding with liberals, still gives conservative climate change deniers a fair hearing, often referring to climate change as a "controversial theory." The idea is that they have to give equal credence to both "sides" of the debate to be fair.

The problem is that the press has fallen into the Republican trap and let the conservatives define a false equivalence between the hard evidence of all serious climate scientists on one side, and a few hand-waving cranks funded by oil companies who say "we couldn't possibly hurt a planet this big" on the other.

The reality is that acknowledging anthropogenic climate change is the reasonable middle ground. Climate change deniers are on the rightmost extreme, and radical anti-humanists are the leftmost extreme. I was reminded of this by an essay that appeared in the Huffington Post. In it, Peter Jay Brown wrote:
We humans are merely passengers on the spaceship Earth. We produce nothing important for a healthy planet, but certainly spare no expense at taking what we need and then some. We are the ultimate planetary narcissists.
Guys like Brown are just as wrong as Inhofe. They whine when wind turbines kill a few birds. They romanticize nature, implying that animals are somehow nobler than men. The truth is, animals behave like the brutes they are. When random fluctuations in environmental conditions happen to favor one species they drastically over-reproduce and lay waste to the land and other species. Just like we do. The difference is that they're not self-aware and can't stop to think about what they're doing before it's too late. We are. And we need to take responsibility for the problems that we're causing. Now.

As the only intelligent tool-using species on the planet, we have become the owners and operators of planet Earth by default. Short of total thermonuclear war, any ecological damage we inflict on the planet will probably only result in our own demise, and not the end of all life on Earth. Life has flourished with high concentrations of CO2 in the past, and would likely flourish again, albeit after migrations and die-offs of certain species. The biggest effects of anthropogenic climate change will likely be inland droughts and flooding of coastal cities, starvation, widespread plagues, world-wide wars over declining agricultural, water and energy resources, and the decline and collapse of human civilization as we go the way of the dinosaurs.


If a comet chucked out of the Oort cloud takes a bead on Earth, only a technologically advanced space-faring human race will be able to prevent the destruction of this lovely blue planet. Countering a repeat of the Siberian Traps would be much harder, but in the long run the human race is the Earth's only hope of saving the planet from total destruction. 

One could argue that the Earth evolved humans as protection against the larger threats that it was vulnerable to in the past. It is thus our responsibility to further develop our technology to a point where we can save the Earth — and ourselves — from certain doom.

But the truth is, right now we are hurting the planet — and ourselves — with our excesses. The 2000-2009 decade was the warmest on record, and this past March was the warmest in history. Tornadoes struck Arkansas, Tennessee and Mississippi in January. They hit Nebraska, Kansas, Missouri, Indiana and Tennessee in February. In March and April tornadoes hammered the nation's midsection again, and Texas too.

Inhofe's invocation of God's promise to Noah is especially striking because Inhofe so completely missed the point. Noah didn't sit around waiting for God to build his ark. Noah built it because a flood was coming.

Climate change — including floods — is coming. The seven billion humans burning billions upon billions of tons of coal, gas and oil are mostly to blame for that change. We can't just sit around and expect God to clean up our mess.

18 comments:

Markadelphia said...

Ah, that sweet elixir of panic mongering. Hard to resist, isn't it? You start out by saying what's going to happen and then you pull back a little and say who really knows. What are you going to do if none of what you are predicting comes to pass? Similar to the Armageddon, religious folks, I predict that you will continue to panic monger as long as reality continues to disprove your basic ideology.

Mark Ward said...

So we have fake Markadelphias now, hmm?

I'm glad that Nikto brought up the issue of false equivalencies. The right have become masters at this. Pastor Ed told me the other day that supporting a woman's right to choose is the same thing as supporting slavery.

It's the same thing with climate change. It's definitely happening and it's likely man made. People need to start dealing with it.

juris imprudent said...

Ah, how smoothly you elide from Global Warming to Climate Change, as though there is no difference. Yet we are still headed for catastrophe all because of evil SUV driving fat white men.

Same old millenarian nonsense.

Mark Ward said...

I take comfort in the fact that even in the face of a mountain of evidence to the contrary, your sheer will to not admit fault and to continue to paint a fictional portrait of climate scientists remains steadfast and true.

juris imprudent said...

Hey, fucking dumbshitstain. Yes you.

I have told you again and again, that there is no question the climate changes. It does NOT require man for that to happen. That was why the AGW hypothesis was questionable. I've worked with modeling and simulation - and it is a field in which GIGO can run rampant even with the best of intentions. Not that you question authority - as long as it comes from the right team.

Pardon me while I laugh my ass off at all end-of-the-world bullshit. You are just as credible as that nutcase preacher that predicted the end of the world last May - then recalculated for November.

-just dave said...

Man says to farmer, "Darn strange weather this year."
Farmer replies, "Son, I've been farming for over 30 years and the weather has been 'normal' in only one of them."

Mark Ward said...

I've worked with modeling and simulation - and it is a field in which GIGO can run rampant even with the best of intentions. Not that you question authority - as long as it comes from the right team.

So, let's be clear about this. YOU are an authority on climatology and all of those folks that say that our climate change is accelerating due to carbon emissions are not authorities because they are on the wrong team. Is that accurate?

dave, there's no liberal plot behind climate change. And why is it that taking responsibility for one's actions only applies to poor people spooning off the government and not, you know, science?

Richard Head said...

http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/interior-snow-blustery-conditi/63896

It has NEVER been cold in April before! Global Warming!

juris imprudent said...

So, let's be clear about this.

It is strange - whenever you say that, you immediately follow it with something I didn't say. You really are a fucking idiot, aren't you?

Climate science doesn't predict the end of the world - climate hucksters do. Just like crazy preachers and old winos on street corners. Sad enough statement about the human condition that there are people that do this - sadder still are the people that believe them.

Mark Ward said...

It is strange - whenever you say that, you immediately follow it with something I didn't say.

Well, I'm happy to be wrong. BTW, how many times have you ever said that on here?:)

Climate science doesn't predict the end of the world - climate hucksters do.

No, they don't. That's "In The Bubble" thinking. The world is going to be just fine. The problem is how hospitable it's going to be for us human folk. The real concerns are issues of international security.

Sigmund said...

You are obviously happy to be wrong. That explains why you are so good at it.

juris imprudent said...

Well, I'm happy to be wrong.

Funny, that's what you said last time too. Apparently learning from your mistakes is something you've never gotten the hang of. Pity.

Mark Ward said...

But juris, you seem to be operating under the impression that I'm wrong all the time. And that you are right all of the time. Neither is true.

juris imprudent said...

But juris, you seem to be operating under the impression that I'm wrong all the time.

When it comes to characterizing what I am saying, that is a good 90% of the time. Every now and then you actually get something right. Why you can't or won't do that more often is a mystery.

6Kings said...

Mystery somewhat explained.

Key point: "Much of the time, liberals’ views of conservative positions and values are simply a caricature that bear little resemblance to what conservatives actually think and, more importantly, why they think it."

That explains some of it but not the continued use of caricatures not resembling reality after being told otherwise. Almost like talking to a rock!

But juris, you seem to be operating under the impression that I'm wrong all the time.

Lot's of facts with no intelligent use of them. Check.

Mark Ward said...

Key point: "Much of the time, liberals’ views of conservative positions and values are simply a caricature that bear little resemblance to what conservatives actually think and, more importantly, why they think it."

Yet the conservative view of liberals is always accurate...yeah...

The more likely scenario here is that liberals are very accurate and the stubborn 8 year olds don't want to admit it.

Lot's of facts with no intelligent use of them. Check.

Lots of facts...that you don't like so they must be stupid.

Again, when are liberals right? Give me a percentage, fellas. I just want to see how truly critical and dispassionate both of you are.

juris imprudent said...

The more likely scenario...

M prefers his imagination to what Prof Haidt's research concluded. I guess that makes M a denier. Haidt could be wrong M - but you can't demonstrate that with your approach (which is pretty much exactly what you accuse the other side of doing). I'm sure there are critiques of this work on the 'net - why don't you look instead of pulling one of your stock responses out?

Again, when are liberals right?

Depends on the liberal. Mead is reliably perceptive and open-minded, and able to accurately characterize conservative positions; Chait is reliably the opposite. You personally lean to Chait - long on liberal moralizing (and demonizing) and very short on actual understanding/analyzing.

That's why I commonly remind you that if you want to preach, just be honest about what you are doing.

Dr. Froncknsteen said...

Regarding tornadoes, Nikto, I suggest checking out NOAA before you start your "we're doomed to hellfire and damnation if we don't actions to repent now" fearmongering. Tornadoes happen in every month of the year, including
December and January. 30% of tornadoes in Texas happen in April! ZOMG! Take a look at the numbers of strong to violent tornadoes over the past 60 years. Notice anything, O Markto and Nikto?

If you're going to monge some fear to us peasants, it would work a little better if you didn't assume your audience consists of illiterate yokels who aren't wise to the ways of rhetoric and sophistry.