Friday, February 12, 2010

Global Weirding


With all the snow and cold this winter, I occasionally hear people talking somewhat derisively about global warming? Global warming? What global warming? I read (ok, listened to) Tom Friedman's book, Hot Flat and Crowded. He said the term Global Weirding is more accurate than merely global warming. Here's what he said (2007):


.. sweet-sounding "global warming" doesn't really capture what's likely to happen. I prefer the term "global weirding," coined by Hunter Lovins, co-founder of the Rocky Mountain Institute, because the rise in average global temperature is going to lead to all sorts of crazy things -- from hotter heat spells and droughts in some places, to colder cold spells and more violent storms, more intense flooding, forest fires and species loss in other places.


Also a well-known fact is that climate change (global warming) causes more frequent and severe snowstorms:

Record snowstorms need two things: temperatures below freezing, and very high humidity. On a planet warmer by a few degrees on average, the Northeast US will still have plenty of days below freezing; the big difference will be warmer seas producing higher levels of moisture in the air — and therefore more severe cold-season storms.


Fact: We can expect more extreme weather

Scientists tell us that climate change has already led to more extreme weather in the United States and we can expect stronger hurricanes, more wildfires, heatwaves and droughts, to name a few. The cost of inaction could reach half a trillion dollars a year.


Fact: The world is warming at a quickening pace

Weather in one region over days or months should not be confused with climate or the patterns of weather over decades and centuries. And the science is clear here: the last decade was the hottest on record. And to put this year’s weather in perspective, January was warmer than average for the continental United States.


Well, there you have it. Frankly, I don't get why there is such heated debate over global warming. I don't think anybody doesn't believe we have a pollution problem. Pollution in the rivers, in the lakes, in the oceans--mountains of it floating around. And the air. Does anyone seriously think that air pollution is not a huge and serious problem? Nobody I know. And then what about our funding of states that want to kill us? Does anybody think that it wouldn't be a great idea if we didn't support our oil addiction by buying it from Saudi Arabia et al? Nobody I know.


Does anybody think blowing up the tops of mountains (resulting in poisoning the water and unlivable conditions for miles around--for people and animals--in Tennessee and West Virginia) is a great way to get coal? Does anybody wonder if it is your next-door neighbor who is making this greedy grab for oil, or if it's huge corporations supporting billion dollar lifestyles and the politicians they buy?


So even if you disbelieve every single scientist that is not working for big oil about the reality of global warming, still you would have no reason not to support efforts to stop burning fossil fuels, and would logically be happy about new research into solar energy, wind energy, recyclable products, and bio fuels. And you would vote in every green candidate for any office you possibly could.


Am I missing something?


4 comments:

  1. You miss very little, love of my life.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I am afraid my sweet Aunt, that you do know quite a few people who don't believe that global warming is a fact, me being one of them. :-) It (global warming) is in my opinion and many others a theory. The absence of truly available data not just "the data" that is abstractly referred to, has always been quite troublesome to me. Many scientists and organizations have repeatedly asked to have access to the "data" and have been told it is lost or unavailable. Science is about replicating data and proof. Science also has many 'theories' waiting to be proven which is wonderful. There is so much yet to discover. Until there is true proof that I can see...I can't leave it to faith. Faith is reserved for the non-science aspects of my life. :-) I do think there is a problem with pollution and that we have a responsibility to be good stewards of the Earth we have been given, but to say man has affected the global climate seems a bit extreme. The Earth goes through cycles just as we and other things in nature experience.

    The article below was timely, it is a Q&A with Phil Jones, former head of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU).
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm

    ReplyDelete
  3. Kristen, thanks for your comment, and I will definitely read the article. But my main point is that, imho, we all believe that pollution and funding of states who hate us is not good. So leave the global warming part of it out--it still should result in the same actions: good stewardship, as you put it, of the earth. But those can't be just empty words that we quote whenever it is convenient as we continue to spew garbage into the world in defense of greed and power. I know that many people don't believe global warming, but that's not necessary to be a green fan.

    ReplyDelete