« Sarah Palin “Fire in My Belly” (Cartoon)
Quote of the Day: What the Controversy Revealed About Ed Schultz and Laura Ingraham »
Regardless of ‘Belief,’ Climate Change is Real (Guest Voice)
Regardless of ‘Belief,’ Climate Change is Real
by Tina Dupuy
According to Oakland, California’s Harold Camping, the Rapture was supposed to hit American Samoa (the location of the International Dateline) at 6 p.m. on Saturday, May 21, 2011. Despite what all the billboards claimed, that would have been 11 p.m. PST on Friday for the west coast. And from there the Rapture was to roll across the globe to 6 p.m.’s everywhere, killing billions along the way.
Needless to say, Camping was wrong. We’re all still here. No unprecedented earthquakes. No chaos. Just an unholy deluge of End Time witticisms on a day like any other.
The notable thing is, according to the Pew Research Center, 41 percent of Americans (including plenty of politicians) believe in the Rapture. They don’t all necessarily believe in a specific date. Just that it will happen and most likely before 2050. So basically, 41 percent of Americans believe sometime in the next 40 years – it’s over.
Which is fine. I don’t care in the slightest what myths people believe. Whether it’s reincarnation, ghosts, chupacabras, yoga or the free market – it’s totally ok with me. Pluralism is a mark of true freedom – of a free society. As Americans we can hold all sorts of beliefs and still at the end of the day (or End of Days) be American.
So if you agree that Camping’s firm date and preparations for Judgment Day were silly – and that having wacky convictions are acceptable in a free country – then you can agree that believing we are in the End Times is fine – as long “End Times” isn’t our environmental policy.
There’s an adage, “Trust God, but lock your doors.” How about, “Believe in the Rapture, but still plan for the future.”
With that being said: Climate change is real.
Weather is to an inch as climate is to a mile. Meaning: Climate is the big picture, and weather is what’s happening on The Weather Channel. Meaning: Winter is not evidence against the Earth’s warming.
Patterns of extreme weather are caused by climate change. And 100-year floods every decade and devastating tornadoes don’t care what you think about Al Gore’s PowerPoint presentations. Unless you own stock in an oil or coal company, still doubting the glaciers are disappearing is denying against your own interest.
The weather doesn’t care if you believe in global warming, don’t believe in global warming or do but don’t think it’s caused by human activity. Weather kills indiscriminately, regardless of opinion.
According to reports, despite any climate change deniers, FEMA is still preparing for more floods and bigger hurricanes. Which, dare I say it, is smart government planning: Listen to scientists.
Because there is no global warming “debate.”
There’s consensus among scientists (people whose job is to study the big picture of climate) – and then there are others who for whatever reason just say “nu-uh.” A debate is when two sides each have a plausible case to present: A Middle East peace plan is a debate; a solution to our unmatched incarceration rate is a debate; a strategy for a more effective education system is a debate.
Global warming denial is like closing your eyes to make your opponent disappear.
Saying there is a debate on global warming is like saying there’s controversy surrounding teal really being a color. And I will be able to use that comparison as long as President Obama does not come out in favor of the color teal…
The debate we should be having right now is what we’re going to do about climate change. What this will mean for our future, and what steps are necessary.
And since the Republicans like to claim to be the adults making tough decisions for our children and grandchildren – let them prove it by being leaders on climate change legislation.
You know – open their eyes.
© Copyright 2011 TinaDupuy.com Tina Dupuy is an award-winning writer and fill-in host at The Young Turks. Tina can be reached at tinadupuy@yahoo.com.??This column is licensed to run on TMV in full.
26 Responses to “Regardless of ‘Belief,’ Climate Change is Real (Guest Voice)”
Testify sister, testify.
I thought the controversy was over man-made climate change.
And here I thought the controversy was on whether to impose massive costs on the US economy in the hope of mitigating man-made climate change.
See Tina, if you want to assert that man-made climate change is a fact, it’s no skin off my nose. If you want to impose massive costs on the US economy to combat it, I now have an interest in it.
The back and forth over the science is silly because, in the end, we know the world is warming, we know it has been warmer in the past, and we think based on our best science that CO2 is a cause (not the cause) of the warming. In my view, people who deny those facts are not thinking clearly but people who say that those facts justify massive costs on the US economy aren’t thinking clearly either.
On this issue, I tend to find myself in a minority between two believe systems, neither of which makes any sense to me. Pointing out the fact that one belief system makes no sense is fine. An evenhanded post would, however, point out the limitations of both belief systems.
But I suspect such a post will not be forthcoming since your last paragraph indicates you subscribe to the second belief system. If the only rational response from your pov is to pass legislation, you are a proponent of the “do something, anything” school which is just as much an irrational belief system as the “nothing is happening” one.
“The weather doesn’t care if you believe in global warming” – T.D.
Exactly. We live in a country where superstition is rampant and science is scorned. Is is any wonder people are so content with their misinformation? Meanwhile real events and real phenomenon continue, whether we choose to believe in them or not. Humans have the capacity to grasp and address the problems we face, but we often choose not to. It’s the classic head in the sand scenario compounded by an inability to understand what is of real value and what isn’t.
Ah yes, the AGW religion continues. I don’t know how the scientists and democrats melted this glacier, but I wouldn’t put anything past em! It’s all just an excuse to tax and spend!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/8538974/Everest-glacier-turning-into-a-lake-due-to-global-warming.html
I could do this all day, but the deniers can look the other direction all day too. Physics and chemistry don’t care about egos and druthers though, something people need to keep in mind.
Actually the costs of mitigating climate change will be much higher if only a portion of it is man made. If only one half of it is man made the required reduction in CO2 to impact warming is doubled. Fortunately there is no indication that there is any natural forcing going on now. In fact AGW interrupted a long term, natural cooling trend.
The question of who pays the costs of climate change is the difficult one. It is telling that the people who tell us to just add this to the generational debt load are the same ones who thought deficits don’t matter just a few years ago.
The irony is that we don’t even do the common sense energy conservation means that would save us money and reduce our balance of payments. We insist on paying more money to emit ever larger amounts of global warming CO2. Our buildings, homes and transportation could be much more efficient.
Once again we see the impact of the fringes in each party controlling the debate. The far left blames America for the global warming and the far right does not beleive it is happening at all. This article provides information that supports global warming and provides support without placing blame. And here liew the problem.
There are many different reasons this is happening. Cars and industry in the USA is just one small piece of the problem. China and India are emitting tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. Then add the fact that millions of acres of rain forest and wordlands all over the world have been distroyed. These forest removed thousands of tons of polution from the are yearly. Last, look at charts of the world temperatures for millions of years and you will find spikes of warming and cooling that occurred will before man ever walked on the earth.
What is needed is logical discussions concening the subject and logical solutions to some of the problems. Right now all we are getting is blame.
The question of who pays the costs of climate change is the difficult one.
Well, not really. Considering everyone with power has collectively yelled “not it!” on the issue, it will be the places with the least power who bear the worst of the burden. Africa’s probably screwed, the poorer areas of Asia, also screwed. Same as it ever was…
Fortunately, that dark cloud has a silver lining…those locations contribute most to the problem of overpopulation.
Poor taste, CO.
Merkin,
It’s not a question of natural forcing but a question of the linearity or lack thereof of the relationship between CO2 and warming. The science is highly imprecise on this point.
Furthermore, if we have overestimated the response of the climate to mitigation efforts, the costs won’t change, the benefits will just be far less than projected.
This is actually the crux of a US only (or US first) mitigation regime. Neither regime will produce the expected outcome but it will have the expected cost. Therein lies the difficulty of mitigation economics.
And roro, not to quibble but Africa and East Asia are not going to bear the costs of mitigation but, in the absence of mitigation, the costs of adaptation will not be equally spread. The will disproportionately fall on the tropics and the Southern Hemisphere because that is where the impact of global warming according to the projections is going to be the greatest.
“The irony is that we don’t even do the common sense energy conservation means that would save us money and reduce our balance of payments.” ~ merkin
Bingo! This goes to the basic inability and/or unwillingness to acknowledge and begin acting on the problem in even the simplest, most logical and relatively painfree way. It’s a head shaker, especially since common sense energy conservation is a no brainer for a host of reasons, not just AGW.
Why can’t the costs of fixing AGW be a benefit to the economy? The space race resulted in new technologies which benefited all. The automobile replaced the horse to the benefit of all.
The Western industrialized countries are mostly responsible for prior CO2 and other gasses. Why not be world leaders and set examples for Brazil, India and China. I don’t have the info, but these three countries are ahead of the US in the change over and new technologies. If we don’t change, these three will be the leaders in alternative energies and the US will be importers, not exporters of new energy.
Sorry, Prof. Just can’t resist a good set- up line.
If china, India and brazil are leading in alt energy sources why does their rate of annual increase in co2 emission from coal exceed the us by a multiple of 10-15?
JSpencer…when did you sell your car and begin traveling everywhere by bicycle?…..or are you again preaching, but not practicing?
Funny how these “end of the world” moments seem to happen within the lifespan of those instilling the fear (and not hundreds of years in the future). 41% of Americans believe the rapture will happen by 2050? I’d wager that 41% of the population alive today will be dead by 2050. Given that the median age is 36.8 and the average lifespan is 75.7 years, and 2050 is 39 years away, I’d actually say a little under 50% of the population alive today will be dead by 2050. For them the rapture will be very real. Fatalists.
Too bad people are more concerned about the rapture and not climate change. Though it’s understandable since we all know in our bones that we will die and the rapture is just a way of thinking of one’s own mortality. Climite change requires a more scientific approach. Something many of today’s Americans aren’t very good at.
CO I didn’t say the Chinese weren’t one the culprits, but please show/verify your claim of Chinese emission being 10X greater than the US. I know that Brazil is a leader ion altenative energies. They also are going slow with drilling, they won’t have a Gulf oil blowout.
From Wiki:
World 29,321,302 100%
1 China[10] 6,534,367.00(2011) 22.30%
2 United States 5,833,381.00(2011) 19.91%
Were about even with China, not 10 to 1. Now per capita we are a bigger problem.
This link from ucsusa show per capita.
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/each-countrys-share-of-co2.html
On a per capita basis: China, Brazil and India are in single digits. The West is double digit.
Wow, casual, that’s twice in one week where racism has been an punchline for you. Do you enjoy kicking kids in wheelchairs too, or is it merely the misfortune of people of color that gets your funny bone a-twitchin’?
If china, India and brazil are leading in alt energy sources why does their rate of annual increase in co2 emission from coal exceed the us by a multiple of 10-15?
You really don’t know the answer to that question? C’mon smarty-pants. Put on yer thinking cap.
And roro, not to quibble but Africa and East Asia are not going to bear the costs of mitigation but, in the absence of mitigation, the costs of adaptation will not be equally spread. The will disproportionately fall on the tropics and the Southern Hemisphere because that is where the impact of global warming according to the projections is going to be the greatest.
No, they’re not going to bear the costs of mitigation, because if the US does not lead the effort — and it looks highly unlikely that we will — then there will very unlikely *be* any mitigation. That was my point.
As far as where the impact will be the greatest, I think it’s pretty odd that you think you know where that will be. If you’re talking straight-up average temperature rise, then you’re likely right. But my guess is that a large part of the impact will be that we cannot adapt quickly enough to the change to revamp what we know about growing food, and we will have widespread famine. That will almost certainly affect poor areas most directly.
My point is that the physical location of the largest swings in temperature will matter less than the socio-economic circumstances to who bears the brunt of any change to come. Adapting to a few extra degrees in the daily temperature is pretty trivial, considering that our species is pretty successful in lots of different climates. It’s going to be other factors that are the most harmful to the human species, and most of those factors can be mitigated by money. Not enough food? Buy more food — the price will be higher, but even the relatively poor in the US rarely want for enough calories. Your villa in Keys under water? Eh, thank goodness you’ve got that little bungalow up in the Rockies, and a care to drive you there. Food concerns and displacement concerns aren’t that tough if you’ve got money.
CO, not sure what you mean by “again”, but can only assume you’re trying to be clever with a cheap shot. Nonetheless, I’ll do you the favor of addressing your question: I’ve been driving cars that get 30 mpg or better since 1975, and various motorcycles longer than that. Since my back surgery I don’t ride bike as much as I used to, but I don’t do any gratuitous joyriding either. I keep my heat lower in the winter than most people would find comfortable, but I dress warm and have insulated my house well. I’ve recycled and reused most materials for decades. When I eat high on the food chain it’s venison from my woods. I made the choice not to have children long ago, and that choice reduces my environmental footprint in a truly major way. Fortunately for my parents I have many nieces and nephews.
Of course there is more I could do, but I do try to practice what I preach. I hope this helps to address your confusion – if only a little bit.
The part of Climate change that I find hard to believe, is not the science, but the politics. It would be good to get rid of our oil dependency, but we’re not yet able to get rid of oil subsidies, much less finish the hefty R&D that it would take to implement alternate solutions. Politics always favors the status quo.
The only group that’s encouraging alternate energy right now are the oil speculators!
rudi–http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/ieo/emissions.html
roro-why do you always assume a racist motivation? I have little to no regard for anyone who brings in children into this world that cannot be properly fed, educated and turned into productive capitalists……..regardless of their race, color or creed.
JSpencer–you got me. Not only do my cars burn a lot more gas than yours, but the boat needs pretty much its own derrick to operate.
[sigh] More lefty-fundamentalist-religious pathos. Sad and sick.
Look inside dude. Look inside.
CO, get a sailboat. They’re more fun and take more skill to operate. If that’s what you already have, then good for you!