Is Global Warming Dead?

Right or wrong, I do have a lot of respect for those like the late Michael Crichton who challenged the scientific community in his CASE FOR SKEPTICISM ON GLOBAL WARMING .

Near the end of his 2005 paper, Mr Crichton describes how, if there is a global climate change problem that may manifest by 2100, surely there will be so many further advances in technology as to render our feeble effort of the current day meaningless. He says "Given all those changes, is there anything Teddy [Roosevelt, then president] could have done in 1900 to help us? And aren't we in his position right now, with regard to 2100?"

A stirring call to inaction!

In fact, President Teddy Roosevelt was confronting a huge and very contentious environmental issue, where the cure was perceived as hugely costly. Cautious and wise people of the day surely said that this issue could be kicked down the road until better methods were available, and meanwhile that business as usually should proceed in order to avoid economic impacts. The problem was the massive loss of American forests, and the cure was the creation of the National Forest system. We have President Roosevelt to thank, today in 2009, for the fact that, due to his efforts over a hundred years ago, we have more forested acres in the US in 2009 than we had in 1909.

.....
The problem was the massive loss of American forests, and the cure was the creation of the National Forest system. We have President Roosevelt to thank, today in 2009, for the fact that, due to his efforts over a hundred years ago, we have more forested acres in the US in 2009 than we had in 1909.

There is a lot that could be said about our National forest system, and one might be that it was designed in part to provide a resource and economic stream, to communities, through harvest (as opposed to the National Park system). While the percentages by region vary somewhat, the data I have access to indicate that the forest land base in the US is essentially the same today as it was circa 1907-1909. This, in itself, is a remarkable statistic when you consider the impact of population growth and all that has come with it. Of course, by 1907, 'we' had removed a few trees for various purposes and had reduced the percent of the countrys' forested land base from 46% to 34%, which is about where it is today.

Still, that's a lot of trees. But I have this gut feeling that even if we and everybody else restored forested land base to preindustrial levels, that this would not be enough to soak up the emmissions of burning all that fossil fuel. Of course, global deforestation will continue, not recede. When the permafrost begins thawing in ernest, climate change (or rather, co2 concentration) will accelerate.

It is quite realistic to consider that Revelstoke may become the new Aspen.

I can't help but wonder if we are missing a huge point here.

If the climatologists are WRONG and WE ACT to reduce CO2 release and move towards renewable energy sources what do we get? We get a cleaner environment and a long lasting, sustainable energy infrastructure for our children use as oil supplies diminish! Doesn't seem like a bad direction to go.

Now consider: What if the climatologists are RIGHT and we do NOTHING... Well, I think you can fill in the blanks...

I can't help but wonder if we are missing a huge point here.

If the climatologists are WRONG and WE ACT to reduce CO2 release and move towards renewable energy sources what do we get?  We get a cleaner environment and a long lasting, sustainable energy infrastructure for our children use as oil supplies diminish!  Doesn't seem like a bad direction to go.

Now consider: What if the climatologists are RIGHT and we do NOTHING...  Well, I think you can fill in the blanks...

Read Thomas Friedman's column in today's NYTimes. He makes exactly this point. In fact, he argues it as an analogy to Dick Cheney's "one-percent doctrine" on fighting terrorism:

"Going Cheney on Climate"

Money quote:

When I see a problem that has even a 1 percent probability of occurring and is “irreversible” and potentially “catastrophic,” I buy insurance. That is what taking climate change seriously is all about.

If we prepare for climate change by building a clean-power economy, but climate change turns out to be a hoax, what would be the result? Well, during a transition period, we would have higher energy prices. But gradually we would be driving battery-powered electric cars and powering more and more of our homes and factories with wind, solar, nuclear and second-generation biofuels. We would be much less dependent on oil dictators who have drawn a bull’s-eye on our backs; our trade deficit would improve; the dollar would strengthen; and the air we breathe would be cleaner. In short, as a country, we would be stronger, more innovative and more energy independent.

But if we don’t prepare, and climate change turns out to be real, life on this planet could become a living hell. And that’s why I’m for doing the Cheney-thing on climate — preparing for 1 percent.

Well as usual I see a different side of this argument.

People in general( I know I do) when they are being asked to change behaviour, pay higher taxes, change their lifestyle etc, want to be sure that the things they are doing this for is true, correct and that their modifications have a high chance of probability of affecting a positive outcome. If not , why do it.

To say we should reduce our carbon footprints, burn less fuel, convert to battery power because of global warming and then have the caveat( although even if Global warming isn't happening it will be good anyway) is a bad argument to get a lot of people to embrace the behavioural and cultural changes required.

Much better the argument  that changing to alternate energy sources will make us more independent and prepare us for the day when the oil runs out, an argument to which I absolutely agree and wish we'd get a move on with.

The fact that this is being called going Cheney on Global warming I find utterly ironic .
This country already paid a huge price by sacrificing some of it's youth for misrepresentations.
As I've already said, I think climate change is happening so I'm not arguing about that.
What I disagree with is the way the message is being manipulated.

Much better the argument  that changing to alternate energy sources will make us more independent and prepare us for the day when the oil runs out, an argument to which I absolutely agree and wish we'd get a move on with.

Thomas Friedman has been making that argument for years. Obviously it hasn't been working, so he tried another approach. That's his job as a columnist. I agree that pretty much anything Dick Cheney says is hogwash, but it I think Friedman makes good points in his latest column.