6-15-06 Global Warming
In 2002, the National Defense University press published this book.
Chapter 9, entitled "Economic Strategy and Implications of Ice-Free Arctic Seas", deals with global warming from the perspective that "IF" global warming is a real thing, then "THIS" is the impact it will have on globalization.While the implications and directions are discussed, ostensibly, within the context of "if it's true that the Earth is warming up, then this is the impact...", the fact that things discussed in that chapter have been taken very seriously by big ticket investors (in the future of arctic shipping, for instance) in the US, Canada, and Russia tends to belie any public rhetoric that claims Global Warming isn't happening.
Another place to look at the veracity and validity of claims regarding Global Warming is here...
http://www.acia.uaf.edu/
This report is an awful lot of reading, but basically the phenomenon of "global warming" is hardly being debated. Rather, it focuses upon how to deal with it in the coming decades.
Where the real debate centers, it would seem to me, isn't on whether the climate is tending to increase in temperature worldwide (because this has been an ongoing geological fact for at least the past 16,000 years), but rather the idea that the by-products of civilization are somehow speeding this process up.
Generally, I think that one can more easily separate the science from the politics when you "follow the money". As the investment activity picks up, articles such as these become more frequent...
Christian Science Monitor
Seattle Times
Skyscraper City
Macleans
Yukon
...and those links are just a sampling of what you can spend the next few years reading. It's abundantly clear that investors are lining up around the arctic circle in anticipation of the ice melting in the future. In other words, those with the millions and billions to spend, expecting to make a profit, DO trust that the scientific evidence is conclusive.
What we're more generally presented with on the subject of Global Warming isn't necessarily whether it's happening or not. Instead, we're bombarded with the controversy built up around the proposition of whether industrial giants around the world need to cut back, or try to eliminate, various by-products of their business. This controversy descends into more traditional "big business versus anti-big business" politics, and ends up on center stage in the media as a passionate debate.
To put that media circus into better focus, I'd compare it to the war on cigarette smoking. Yes, it's probably much better to not smoke, and for those who don't want to smoke it's better if they can live and work in areas where nobody is allowed to smoke. But the science behind the "second-hand smoke" claim has, in fact, never been done! There has never been any slightest research done to scientifically demonstrate this claim!
But the fallout from the belief that the science was actually done, the end result of all that media circus, can hardly be argued as a "bad thing".
Likewise, the belief that world wide industrial by-products are causing the Earth to grow warmer at a faster pace than this current inter-glacial geological period between ice ages would "naturally" progress. It's not necessarily a "bad thing" to get all this pollution and toxicity reduced as much as possible.
So, yes the Earth is definitely getting warmer, but how fast this is happening and whether pollution is speeding it up are scientifically undemonstrable. The bottom line on the pollutants, however, is why would anyone want to argue that they're not a problem? Well, that's pretty clear, isn't it? Just follow the money.
Chapter 9, entitled "Economic Strategy and Implications of Ice-Free Arctic Seas", deals with global warming from the perspective that "IF" global warming is a real thing, then "THIS" is the impact it will have on globalization.While the implications and directions are discussed, ostensibly, within the context of "if it's true that the Earth is warming up, then this is the impact...", the fact that things discussed in that chapter have been taken very seriously by big ticket investors (in the future of arctic shipping, for instance) in the US, Canada, and Russia tends to belie any public rhetoric that claims Global Warming isn't happening.
Another place to look at the veracity and validity of claims regarding Global Warming is here...
http://www.acia.uaf.edu/
This report is an awful lot of reading, but basically the phenomenon of "global warming" is hardly being debated. Rather, it focuses upon how to deal with it in the coming decades.
Where the real debate centers, it would seem to me, isn't on whether the climate is tending to increase in temperature worldwide (because this has been an ongoing geological fact for at least the past 16,000 years), but rather the idea that the by-products of civilization are somehow speeding this process up.
Generally, I think that one can more easily separate the science from the politics when you "follow the money". As the investment activity picks up, articles such as these become more frequent...
Christian Science Monitor
Seattle Times
Skyscraper City
Macleans
Yukon
...and those links are just a sampling of what you can spend the next few years reading. It's abundantly clear that investors are lining up around the arctic circle in anticipation of the ice melting in the future. In other words, those with the millions and billions to spend, expecting to make a profit, DO trust that the scientific evidence is conclusive.
What we're more generally presented with on the subject of Global Warming isn't necessarily whether it's happening or not. Instead, we're bombarded with the controversy built up around the proposition of whether industrial giants around the world need to cut back, or try to eliminate, various by-products of their business. This controversy descends into more traditional "big business versus anti-big business" politics, and ends up on center stage in the media as a passionate debate.
To put that media circus into better focus, I'd compare it to the war on cigarette smoking. Yes, it's probably much better to not smoke, and for those who don't want to smoke it's better if they can live and work in areas where nobody is allowed to smoke. But the science behind the "second-hand smoke" claim has, in fact, never been done! There has never been any slightest research done to scientifically demonstrate this claim!
But the fallout from the belief that the science was actually done, the end result of all that media circus, can hardly be argued as a "bad thing".
Likewise, the belief that world wide industrial by-products are causing the Earth to grow warmer at a faster pace than this current inter-glacial geological period between ice ages would "naturally" progress. It's not necessarily a "bad thing" to get all this pollution and toxicity reduced as much as possible.
So, yes the Earth is definitely getting warmer, but how fast this is happening and whether pollution is speeding it up are scientifically undemonstrable. The bottom line on the pollutants, however, is why would anyone want to argue that they're not a problem? Well, that's pretty clear, isn't it? Just follow the money.
posted by Jeff Barnard at 10:12 AM
1 Comments:
Jo and I were riding home on our bikes around midnight last night. The air on this little barrier island, or rather the air in this particular part of the world, was a bit agitated and moist. That coupled with the temperature in the subtropics made the atmosphere very kinetic. It has a definite feel that anyone who's lived through a hurricane down here can identify with. Now, we just had Alberto do is little piddle. No big deal down here. I got to thinking, "What if we didn't get hit with any hurricanes this year?" I thought about that for a moment, and then realized that might not be good at all. Let's not get in the way of Mother Gaiea! She's cleaning house. Made me realize that in my worries about Global Warming or Climate Change or whatever, that the best thing I could do would be to stay in the present time, realize there's bound to be some severe reality adjustments on the climate that I'll have to deal with, and that my actions need to be guided by figuring out what's best to aid the survival of the planet, in all it's various dynamics. Nothing new or insightful here - the one thing I hadn't fully noticed before was the need to stay ahead of present time, and not allow my actions to be reactions.
But really, I just wanted to say hello. You'll have my wife (your sister, in case you don't know) in a coupla days. Send her back happy.
Post a Comment
<< Home