Honesty will take care of “climate change”
Could it be, we have drifted into thinking we know who are the best candidates for office and then into a useless state of alternating criticisms of the candidates who turn out to be inadequate or just plain wrong headed. What role do we really play in creating good governments (local, state and federal)?
I think it was Ayn Rand who once said, “When you encounter a contradiction, check your premise.” And who was it who said, “Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a new result is the definition of insanity?”
But I think there’s a kind of mitigating factor and that is that our political parties and their candidates have gotten locked into the habit of being dishonest with us. One example of this kind of dishonesty is the “debate” about global warming. The proponents make it seem to be an urgent mission to be undertaken by “responsible us” while the opponents are apparently devoted to arguing “there is no such thing.”
Lets look at these two positions to see if we can determine what’s wrong with both.
First, the Republican Party candidates and their supporters are sticking to the (crazy) idea that the whole thing is a farce because “there’s no such thing” as the long accepted fact that Earth’s atmosphere has been affected by many things “added to it” or “subtracted from it” many times in Earth’s history. This is what scientific investigations of the last 150 have proven so why say it doesn’t exist? But at least some then recant and say they’re really saying that human activity can’t / hasn’t been a factor in creating change.
To that I think it’s safe to say we can believe the measurements which came before the politicization and those measurements of increased greenhouse gases clearly establish this climatic mechanism. And later measurements show the obvious; since industrialization began in the 1800s, the increase in greenhouse gases has paralleled small increases in regional climate temperatures. But the two sides bog down and bog observers down with disputes over the honesty of those later tracking measurements.
For those really interested in Natural Science this isn’t an obstacle. And let me add that “loving Nature” isn’t the same as loving to know how Nature works (or “manifests”). One is a kind of virtue signaling, the other is less social meritocracy and more honest curiosity. But back to the methodologies of the two parties.
The Republican/Conservative skepticism is founded on the discovery that some scientists have fallen for the same ideological crap and really did collude to skew research data. “See they’re all dishonest fools” was the outcry. Simply not true: I said before that the beginning of climate research in modern times was around 1958 which was declared the International Geophysical Year (IGY). This wasn’t an issue then, the data collected in the next ten years is clear of any political influence and I would guess maybe the next 24 years or so right up to 1983 or 1984. And even before 1958, research into Earth’s history began with the discovery of dinosaurs which itself became. the root of wanting to know more about the “Age of Dinosaurs” which lasted nearly 200 million years. There were political parties in the 1800s but they never did touch on the subject of Natural Science until much more recent times. So drawing conclusions by broad generalizations isn’t a valid method of thinking about anything.
On the other hand, the Democrats have been warning the public for years that there is evidence the climate around the world is warming. And they’ve been dutifully reporting the damage that can result from the anticipated amount of warming. (Which they say may add up to another 20º Fahrenheit by 2100
From the UCAR Center for Science Education: “Climate models predict that Earth’s global average temperate will rise in the future. For the next two decades warming of about 0.2° Celsius is projected. If we continue to emit as many, or more, greenhouse gases, this will cause more warming during the 21st Century than we saw in the 20th Century. During the 21st Century, various computer models predict that Earth’s average temperature will rise between 1.8° and 4.0° Celsius (3.2° and 7.2° F). The amount of predicted warming differs depending on the model emissions scenario (how much greenhouse gas emissions it assumes for the future). The amount of predicted warming also differs between different climate models. Climate change is predicted to impact regions differently. For example, temperature increases are expected to be greater on land than over oceans and greater at high latitudes than in the tropics and mid-latitudes.”
From this and the rest of the article we can see all the list affects of global warming. The thing we’re likely to miss is that the version given by those claiming total disaster. They wouldn’t call it “global” is they meant anything less than total disaster. Why can we believe they’re skewing the topic?
We can do so because they both exaggerate and remove contradicting data. And they are believable mostly because very few people have even a smattering of background in this kind of science or any other science. All you have to do is look back at your days in school when, by grade 7–10 students are given course options. Few took the option of attending science classes. In addition, teenagers are well known for taking little interest in sitting through classes or doing homework. During our teen years we’re all, by nature, directing our interest in the fundamentals of mating behaviors. You can’t focus in building a background in science when your more often distracted by what amounts to mass boot camp training in physical attractiveness between males and females.
In the above UCAR excerpt notice this; “If we continue to emit as many, or more, greenhouse gases, this will cause more warming during the 21st Century than we saw in the 20th Century.”
Yes, it’s a true statement but only as far as concerned “the 20th Century.” This leaves out the previous 200 million years and especially skips over the past 200,000 years when humanity first appeared. That time scale and not the last 120 years is the actual determinate of what happens when climate changes over the Earth. Just because humans are causing the recent change does not mean even greater changes have been caused by “natural factors.” Beginning about 200 million years includes the Triassic, Jurassic, Cretaceous and Quaternary periods when temperatures were far above present and predicted levels and when there was no ice to melt to cause higher sea levels. According to more than one expert on life during the Cretaceous, the high carbon dioxide level during those millions of years created an increase in vegetation to where palm tree grew north of 45º latitudes (north and south). That’s halfway to the north and south poles.
The increased vegetation, almost unimaginable under current climate conditions, thus provided the food sources which are credited to increased size of herbivore dinosaurs that reached up to the size of blue whales. And of. course this brought about larger and larger predator species. So there were bus-sized predators preying on plant eaters double that size. Today, increases in temperate climbs would obviously boost agricultural production globally. And because dry land makes up only 30% of the Earth’s surface, dry land would capture more rainfall because snowfall is precipitation too but would be eliminated. Ice and snow are poor substitutes for liquid water when it comes to agriculture’s goals.
These two contradicting claims (doesn’t exist, does exist and is dangerous) do a massive disservice to American voters (and others around the world).
Few people take the time to learn enough to be useful but there are enough people who’ve been interested all of. their lives and it’s our job and intention to clear up the confusion coming from supposedly trust worthy parties. (almost a joke, I know)
Here’s the real story and what can be done about it. First, the Democrats limit the information they feed us to only those which fit their political agenda just like the Republicans do. So looking at the rest of the climate science, it can be assured that the predicted disaster will never happen — even accepting the various projections.
First, the Earth has had warmer climates for about 400 million years in all. It was the shifting continents and their affect on distribution of precipitation on land that made large areas too hot and dry during the Permian Era. The Mesozoic was different; the continents were approaching their current locations. That’s almost 200 million years when climate was warmer and so were greenhouse gases — at least until the very end. The climate cycle was more affected by burgeoning plant life than anything else. If those conditions are reached in the near future: the actual result will be a huge improvement for all living things. Cold limits agriculture and increases energy use and it damages human infrastructure to the tune of billions of dollars every year. So if we try to limit use of fossil fuels, we’ll also “preserve” colder seasons at the higher latitudes. At the present rate, fossil fuels will be gone in a 100 years or so. So replacing that energy source will be necessary no matter what.
We will still have to find ways of handling human waste products and we’ll still have to find better ways of solving pollution but there will be no apocalypse. That claim is used just to stampede voters into voting for Democrat candidates. As for the Republicans’ position: what’s needed is for all businesses to shift to a strategy where power production, chemical production can still be done at a profit.
So by refusing to be stampeded and by continuing an emphasis on privately motivated controls on pollution, we can steer out of trouble and still have a positive outcome on both fronts, the natural science end and the political end. The key ingredient here is our insistence on honesty for everyone and every institution. Continuing to allow dishonesty will kill us all.