Who would have guess it? I am now very skeptical that global warming our planet is experiencing is occurring because of the amount of greenhouse gases we put in the atmosphere.
Back in college, I was a meteorology major for my first year. Our professors, one in particular, warned us that the CO2 we are putting into the atmosphere will warm the Earth and eventually cause global problems by warming the earth by only a few degrees. Also, during the past 6 or 7 years I have heard a lot of news about scientists, politicians and countries all over the world warning of the coming doomsday. Is this an agenda of the "New World Order" for more global govermental control? Or is it a way to make money off of scared people? Or is everyone just misinformed? It's probably a combination of all three.
Well, yes the earth is warming but is it because of human activity? Nobody knows for certain. Even the author isn't 100% sure it is not. It is however necessary to debate the topic given the risk of negligence if the problem does happen to be from man-made activities.
The book, Climate Confusion by Roy W. Spencer, makes some good points. The first one really convinced me that global warming is not from man-made CO2 or Methane.
Point #1: The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is only 0.038% (about 0.027% pre-industrial), which is about 380 molecules for every 1,000,000 molecules in the atmosphere. Other greenhouse gases such as Methane are even lower. Since CO2 is such a small percentage of our atmosphere, the author argues that it can't have much effect. I agree. Water Vapor is the most potent greenhouse gas and is a lot more prevalent in the atmosphere. It's funny, you don't see scientists thinking of ways to reduce the water vapor in the air...without it, there would be no rain; )
Point #2: Many scientists now can easily receive funding (stay employed) by researching man-made global warming. If you are a scientist skeptical of man-made global warming, you are ostracized and can find little funding.
Point #3: Sometimes trying to help a problem will create another problem. For example: The banning of DDT is responsible for up to a million deaths a year in Africa. DDT can be used to combat malaria.
Point #4: Future predictions are based on models. The climate is extremely complex and modeling this system accurately is a difficult task. Look at how often weather reports are wrong when only predicting into the next week.
Point #5: Rising numbers of reports and devastation from storms could be due to increased population. More people live in the midwest, therefore, there is more probability that a tornado will be reported. More people live on the coasts, therefore, more devastation and lives will be lost to flooding and hurricanes.
I was always a little skeptical of man-made global warming but now I'm just a little more convinced that it's just hype. Scaring people makes money. Whether its about the climate or about terrorism.
Overall, it was a good book. The author definitely has a bias and I believe puts a little too much faith that economics will solve our problems but I recommend you read it to gain a different perspective.
So what do I believe now? I'm not sure. The earth is warming. Many of the skeptics claim this is because the sun is sending more radiation to us due to a normal period of heightened activity. However, I'm not sure I believe that considering that the sun's radiation is in a decreasing period yet we're still warming. We should not rule out the fact that other man-made activities could be attributing to the warming we are seeing. Could expanding cities (urban heat island) and deforestation be having an affect? I still think the Earth and its species are vulnerable to human activities. What we are doing is not natural, therefore, it can have an effect on something whether it is on a local or global scale. I have breathed and seen the pollution in China. There are always consequences to our actions.
I still consider myself an aspiring environmentalist. It has never been a global warming issue for me. My reasons for wanting to protect the environment are mainly due to localized pollution problems (air quality, water pollution, etc) and for economic reasons due to the depletion of non-renewable resources. I believe that sustainable/renewable energy and products are necessary to keep our economy stable. I also believe that living with less will preserve our resources, allow us to be more efficient and let us lead happier lives. Our wasteful and over consuming nature does not lead to an ideal society.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
You, hopefully, misquoted the author on point #3. DDT cannot be used to combat MALARIA. However, DDT usage can be used to combat mosquito infestations, and Anopheles mosquitoes are the most common hosts of Plasmodium, the parasite which causes malaria. By stating the DDT can combat malaria, one may mistakenly assume that using DDT can help to treat malarial outbreaks, which is not the case. I wonder if the author has statistics regarding the number of deaths/sickness prevented by the U.S. ban on DDT usage? "Up to a million deaths" is not a factual piece of information. Have you yet read Silent Spring? You should do so. While I understand your metaphor, I believe your usage of DDT and malaria as said metaphor is not appropriate. For example, banning DDT does not lead to problems, a lack of proper mosquito population control does. DDT is a man-made chemical, regardless of it's effects on the temperature regulation of our planet, that leads to poisoning of our crops and water supplies, and kills animals and fish. If the author researcher more adequately, I'm sure he would have seen that the total number of deaths has decreased since the ban, but maybe he only chose to count humans living in Africa near stagnant bodies of water. While I appreciate a book review, "another perspective" should first come from a baseline.
Ok, DDT is used as a "preventative measure" to combat malaria. Not directly in the sense that it cures people who have already gotten malaria. I thought that was assumed given the general knowledge of what DDT was used for.
There's some stuff on wikipedia that references a million deaths a year from malaria:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDT#DDT_use_against_malaria
Of course there's problems with DDT because it is a chemical. I'm not saying I'm for the use of DDT. I was merely using it as an example that policy decisions can lead to other problems. Look at the increase of the price of corn which is most likely a result of using biofuels. Or the environmental implications of mining NiMH for hybrid batteries. Or the economic problems that result from governments printing more money. I'm just sick of the media, the government and special interest trying to scare people in order to quickly pass through legislation that is not properly critiqued or debated.
Like the review and the subsequent comment by Kate. The problem with this topic is that you can talk to one person/read one book and be completely convinced we are the problem. Go and talk to someone else/read his book and you think the Earth is just punishing itself, regardless of mankind's doings. Bottom line (which you addressed), what we are doing to the Earth cannot be good for it. For example (albeit a stretch), if a child has a fever, you don't spoonfeed him shampoo and then say, "Well, he was sick anyhow, so giving him that made no difference." While the shampoo may not kill or even harm him at all, it was not making matters better.
I understand what you MEANT by your DDT comment; however, some people might not even know what DDT is. Just saying. Also, you do realize that wikipedia can be revised by 12 year olds, right? If you spout a fact, I think you'd have more credibility if it was from a peer-reviewed journal. Also, I'm stating that "at least a million" is not a fact because it is not a number, just like "starting at $1.99" isn't a price, it is an attention grabber. Yes, at one point a million people may have died in a year. However, that number may account for deaths due to malarial outbreaks occurrences, not just due to a mosquito bite itself, like an orphan dying due to neglect from a dead mother, etc. I'm not getting this information from a source, but I do know that if there isn't an exact number, the volume in a pseudo-scientific study can be inflated by related but not direct deaths.
Post a Comment