HARDENED BUNKERS OF ANTI-CLIMATE SCIENCE IDEOLOGY

The environmental crisis--a crisis not only of the Earth, but of ourselves--roils beneath the surface of identity and lifeways, and, perforce, of ideology--economic and political. 


Here a friend says about the crisis what we do not want to acknowledge or even hear: "It speaks to the civilization that humans have formed over recent centuries.  Recognizing that Earth presents limits to human activity opens Pandora's Box of questioning the foundations of economics, transportation, consumer culture, materialism, and much more. It even extends to the fundamental identities that people hold both individually and collectively (as nations, states, businesses, etc.)."


Because the crisis of the Earth is both existential and spiritual (besides ideological, economic, political, etc.), the presentation of facts by scientists will not do the work that needs to be done, because most people do not allow science to speak to their world views. 


And, I am not hopeful that public schooling will do the job, either. Recently I asked teachers in our science department about who teaches about global climate change. Answer: It is very little taught or even mentioned anywhere in the science curriculum. So, denial of the problem due to the "hardened bunkers of ideology," as my friend says--is rampant, even among teachers. 


I suspect changes in public attitudes will come only when global climate changes are undeniably severe in disrupting the status quo of lifeways. By then, irreversible climatic tipping points will have been set in motion. Denial will segue into anger. And, the public will ask why it was not warned. The public does not want to believe or even hear it now; later--too late--it will play the blame game.

GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE MODELS

Personal observations are one form of empirical evidence, but they can obviously be misleading, and when solely relied upon, approach a solipsistic worldview. To wit: All the models of global climate change I have heard about indicate that extremes in weather events will increasingly become the norm. From that, we can expect more extreme storms of all kinds, including snow and ice storms, and extremes in temperature events, including record freezes. All this at the same time as the overall Planet increasingly becomes warmer, particularly at night and at the poles.

What many people forget is that the models are showing that the global climate, in its regional manifestations, will become more erratic and unstable. How this might play out in your area (and mine) remains to be seen. Yes, it is possible that your region could experience a colder winter as your area becomes warmer overall throughout the year. This is why scientists look at the data, and why we should listen to what climate scientists, as a whole, say.


At this point, you should claim the huge amount of data and the thousands of climate scientists are all suspect, even dishonest.


At what point, and at what level of evidence (yes, including taking into account natural climate cycles), will it require for millions of ordinary citizens to understand the science message that is given to us? I really am curious; is it religion or political ideology or a mass media source or worldview that humans are not capable of changing the Planet in a significant way?

CLIMATIC HYSTERIATAINMENT

No need anymore to broach the subject of the hacked emails about supposed lying about climate-change data, because it looks very likely that there was no such lying. The British scientists involved have adequately explained their use of words, such as "tricking" the data to mean the reconciling of databases; i.e., they apparently used the word "trick" to mean "massage" the data, to make them correlatable. Nothing in the hacked emails looks like a smoking gun. If there were, we would certainly have heard more about it from real scientists, not the news-entertainers, who have now fallen silent on the topic, too. (One of their ploys: create doubt without support, then cast about for something else.)

Where's the evidence other than that some British scientists used their odd, idiosyncratic language? In truth, there's a great deal of other, independent, evidence from a variety of studies about global climate change--e.g., re the ice caps--even if there had been some collusion at that single British research center (which, as I said, looks doubtful).

The linked Youtube video of an RT.com telecast is risible. It indicates more what the government of Russia wants to disperse about global climate change than it does about the actual science of global climate change. For, RT.com is "Russia Today," the new, well funded, state-run, state-owned Russian-government news agency of RIA Novosti, whose mission statement reads, "to present the Russian point of view" (I obtained this from RT.com; also see Wikipedia: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT_(TV_network)>), when actually it presents the Russian GOVERNMENT's point of view. It is a cheerleader for the Kremlin, just as FOX Entertainment-"News" and the rabid Michelle Malkin are cheerleaders for the U.S. Republican Party and very conservative American ideology, including being anti-climate-change science (no matter what the science says).

With the recent 10% drop in the American public's belief in the science of global warming, Fox Entertainment-"News" has been successful in this matter, just as it was in creating the hysteria about Pres. Obama's "plan" to propagandize and brainwash America's elementary-school children. Remember that? It certainly was entertaining, in an hysteria-creating sort of way. See a pattern?

Addressing the Malkin article--that there was a conspiracy to suppress a paper by an EPA researcher--here's this article, a fairly recent one, from the NY Times, which obtained those four emails and more, under the Freedom of Information Act, and interviewed the EPA researcher, who, it turns out is not a climate scientist (this frequently is the case): <http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/25/science/earth/25epa.html?_r=1>.

Then, there's last week's (21 Jan. 2010) release of a report by NASA showing, among other things, that 2008 was only slightly cooler than 2005 which was the warmest year on record. It is a disingenuous reading of data to claim that the Planet is cooling when only one year is cooler than a previous year, especially when that year (2005) was the warmest since the 1880s. The trend is continuously upward with only small deviations from the upward trend. Please read the Agence France Press article (<http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/01/22-5>) and/or the NASA article (<http://climate.nasa.gov/news/index.cfm?FuseAction=ShowNews&NewsID=249>).

I will be glad to consider (again) the argument that climate scientists in the 1970s said that the Planet was cooling. That has been adequately denied by the one scientist who supposedly claimed the Planet was cooling (he did not, as he says). You can easily find his statements online. That the Planet was supposedly cooling was based on a sensationalist news article or two written in the general press to grab attention. Climate scientists did not claim the Planet was cooling. That fiction should have been dropped by now.

Present evidence that climate scientists said the Planet was cooling in the 1970s. (Even if they did, it would be of only historical interest.) Present evidence that the Planet is currently cooling (away from the long-term warming trend). Present evidence that counters the consensus, among climate scientists, not just an isolated few, that the Planet is warming and that there's the probability, to a significant degree, that it is due to anthropogenic causes.

This should be a matter of science, not a creation of Fox Entertainment-"News" and Michelle Malkin and Sen. Inhofe. The science is of the utmost importance to civilization. We can, and must, do without the ideologically motivated, hysteria-creating, news-entertainers.

PEAK OIL, DE-GLOBALIZATION, AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD EFFECT

I believe the Chinese have a valid point in their claiming that they have become the world's workshop (capital easily relocates to take advantage of cheaper inputs) and thus pollute. In essence, the US has exported pollution, by shifting industries and jobs overseas (the Chinese, beginning with reforms of Deng Xiaoping, were certainly not forced by us) to save our cities (but not our workers' jobs). And, our cities are, for the most part, cleaner. Our primary air pollutants are no longer caused by electricity-generating power plants and factories but automobiles. Of course, "pollution knows no boundaries," so pollution returns to us in several ways. It's all so short-sighted.

In any case, with peak oil just a very few years away (if you accept the views of some economists), then there must come a process of de-globalization that will change everything. The previous decades-long era of the global shift to a geo-economy will end, and a reversal will commence, including the "neighborhood effect" of industries re-relocating back closer to customers in North America and Europe. This will begin to happen even before peak oil, as oil prices (already at $76 pb) continue to climb as the global economy continues to recover.

But with peak oil (some see as high as $200 pb within six years) we will see the growth of regional economies as the geo-economy declines. This scenario depends on the advent of peak oil. There would necessarily be a great deal of destabilization and turmoil (but opportunity as well)--so get ready.

Otherwise, China will manufacture a very high percentage of all automobiles within ten years as well as continue to be the world's workshop for smaller consumer items, although it is beginning to have such severe environmental problems and incipient labor shortages that production will be hampered, to the advantage of the other emerging economies, such as India.

Seems there are two basic scenarios: Manufacturing continues to locate in China (and India and the other emerging economies: Brazil, Philippines, etc.) or peak oil changes it all.

Regardless, we might have only a very few years (now measurable in only a few dozen months) to hold global atmospheric CO2 under 350 ppm and hold global warming under 2.0C (to perhaps 2.4C) to prevent environmental tipping points from being tripped--the melting of the Arctic ice cap, the thawing of permafrost, and the warming and acidification of the oceans. Each of these is a positive feedback loop, thus the reason they are critical. For example, with increase of global atmospheric CO2, the oceans absorb CO2 and acidify; with oceanic acidification comes the dying off of zooplankton which are CO2 absorbers and O2 emitters.

So, from China as economic powerhouse and global polluter (along with ourselves!) to the globe in peril--we collectively have questions to answer and changes to be made and adjusted to. It WILL be interesting!

AGE OF STUPID

Tonight, in a local theater I attended the live-feed of The Age of Stupid event shown simultaneously in 63 countries. The docudrama film (shown as part of the live-feed) says that a 2.0-2.4 degree Centigrade threshold for rise in global temperature must be held in check because that temperature is the tripping point for further release of greenhouse gases, such as methane from Arctic tundra, etc., which is purported to be the beginning of systemic failure of planetary life-support systems. For example, Himalayan glaciers are on a fast retreat. Those glaciers feed some of the world's largest rivers, vital to about 1.3 billion people. The rivers include the Indus, Ganges, Brahmaputra, Salween, Irrawaddy, Mekong, and Yangzi.

To achieve the goal of slowing the rise in greenhouse gases, there will have to be a firm commitment to changes in lifestyle. To that end, there is a movement to obtain commitment from millions of people to reduce their carbon footprint by 10% in 2010--called the "10-10" pledge. That seems fairly easily doable by people. I'm pledging now.

Tomorrow at the U.N., in NY, there is supposed to be a major statement by Chinese Pres. Hu about China's intentions. This is part of the lead-up to the Copenhagen Conference, in December. This is the international follow-up to the Kyoto Conference, of which Australia and the U.S. did not sign.

I'm not fully understanding why 2015 is considered such an important date, but that year--rushing toward us impossibly fast--is given as the end-year for achieving the prevention of the 2.0-2.4 Centigrade rise. It was stated that it is not science that is holding us back from doing what it will take to save the Planet (for human habitation or at least a recognizable civilization), but the political will, i.e., it is people. I can see a huge fight in the U.S. as it will be presented by some as a hoax and government-takeover of personal freedom. I predict Glenn Beck calling people to DC for a march for personal "freedom" and the "American lifestyle," etc. They'll feature gas-guzzling SUVs and chant "Drill, baby, drill!" and say that it is part of Obama's secret plan to engineer a Hitler-like takeover of government and society. (My own brother, who is a Beck and Fox fan, says he sees signs that Obama is doing just this!) Hold onto your hats, folks, things are going to get even nastier.

Interference with nature? There is no unadulterated nature now; it's a human-written, produced, and directed show. We have created the Anthropocene: the entire Planet as our stage-set. The only question now is what ending will we decide to write for the world. And, which history will be written about our present era: Age of Stupid or the Era of Challenges Met (like humans have never seen before)?

IS GREENLAND MELTING?

Whether Greenland is melting or not is a vital issue for future public policy and future human life on this Planet. Below is a brief discussion.

Recently I navigated to a website http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/12/30/the-ice-in-greenland-is-growing/ (provided by some global-warming deniers) about ice growth in Greenland (it contends that the Greenland ice sheet [GrIS] is actually increasing; and, therefore, global warming is a myth) and found that it is only anecdotal about snow drifts building up around a DEW radar installation--with a photo to prove it! In addition, to buttress its argument, the website provides a map and reference to a research article by Johannessen et al. (2005. "Recent Ice-Sheet Growth in the Interior of Greenland," Science, 310(5750):1013-1016). I went to that article and read that the researchers measured the altitude of the GrIS above 1,500 meters, between 1992 and 2003, and found that it increased in height an average of 6.4 centimeters per year. Below 1,500 meters the average elevation change was minus 2.0 cm/yr. (the thinning margins of the ice sheet), for an average increase of the entire ice sheet of 5.4 cm/yr.

But, the Johannessen et al. research was not carried out to determine volume, it was simply about height above sea level of two separate regions of the GrIS--interior and margins. And, it makes no sense to average a positive and a negative to arrive at average change for the whole ice sheet, when the interior is a far larger expanse than the narrow (but growing) margins.

So, I found a more recent article (Schuenemann et al. 2009. "Synoptic Forcing of Precipitation over Greenland: Climatology for 1961-99," Journal of Hydrometerology 10) which states, "Recent changes of the GrIS include not only a thickening of the interior of the ice sheet [i.e., it is increasing in elevation in the interior, as the Johannessen article above shows] but also a thinning along the edges" [as the Johannessen above also found]. But, importantly, it goes on to state that, "The most recent analyses have shown AN OVERALL NET LOSS OF MASS because of increasing melt and ice discharge" [my emphasis].

From the above, I conclude that the GrIS is increasing in elevation in the interior, while it is thinning and shrinking at the edges, and that OVERALL there is a decrease in mass. This is the (hugely significant) problem: the Greenland ice sheet is melting overall.

Furthermore, the melting of the GrIS, say Schuenemann et al., "has very likely contributed to the rise in sea level" due to its "capacity to influence global climate..." in several ways.

I thank those deniers for the continuing challenge to find for myself the science of global climate change. I also thank them for the continuing confirmation that there are interests who present anecdotal evidence (e.g. snow drifts building up around a radar site) and link it to research that does not support what the anecdotal evidence purports to say (e.g. the Johannessen et al. article above).

Once again, I feel confident about what science is telling us about global climate change. But, I continue to wonder about the deniers. Why not stay with the science, instead of promoting an anti-science? Believe me, if science begins to tell me that global climate change is not happening, or that the end result might be a global cooling (which is possible, if there is a tipping point with the Greenland ice-sheet melt setting off a reduction of the North Atlantic haline circulation)--or whatever science tells us--then I will believe what the CONSENSUS of scientists tells us.

Why not? To do otherwise is to take an ideological stance that will continue to confuse the public about what science says is happening and will delay critical changes that humanity will have to make if it is to survive. The issue of whether Greenland is melting is one of the critical issues that we must leave to science and not to ideology. It is crucial that we believe the science. It is folly to do otherwise.

HEAR OUT THE FRINGE

Global warming deniers could well make their case that there is no truth to anthropogenic causes of global climate change, and even that CO2 has no climate effects, without claiming that phony science is creating a phony crisis (global climate change) that would destroy industrialization.

Here are my thoughts: First, even if CO2 were not found as a force agent, the processes that produce CO2 also co-produce other harmful byproducts, such as NOx, CO, and sulphur compounds, all of which are harmful either to humans and/or to water bodies, and thus aquatic life. Not to mention particulates that are injurious to human lungs. Thus, preventing production and harmful effects of CO2 (although some global-warming deniers deny this, too) would, in any case, mitigate other deleterious effects.

Mitigating production of all harmful byproducts of industrialization does not necessarily destroy industrialization, as it would change it for the good. Therefore, I believe the summative statement--the mitigation of production and harmful effects of CO2 would destroy industrialization--is extreme.

For someone who has been a near-continous student throughout his sexagenarian life, now working on degree number eight (four Master's and now PhD Geography), admittedly means little in climate debates, especially when I am outside my usual areas of interest. I grant you that I must rely on secondary literature. But, can global-warming deniers convince me that they understand primary scientific literature any better than I?

One last comment: I am probably more open-minded than most people you might run across in the climate change debates. As a teacher, I take seriously my obligations to understand all sides of a discussion--and then take a stand. So far, until the majority of scientists change their views (and, yes, you can be assured that Kuhn and his treatise about scientific revolutions was high on the reading list of more than one of my Master's), there is no compelling reason why I should change mine. I shall, though, continue to hear out the fringe.

CLIMATE OBSCURANTISTS

To label someone as "obscurantist," someone who simply goes along with the position of the overwhelming majority of climate scientists, is odd. I am not a climate scientist, so my stance does not veil, shade, or hide anything; instead, it promotes what most climate scientists say. That would be a strange sort of obscurantism, indeed: to believe and promote and bring into light what most authorities believe.

What mystifies me is the project that some people have to promote the claims of only a very few climate scientists; and, to promote nonauthoritative interpretations of research, including the interpretations of U.S. Sen. James Inhofe's office. To wit: Why place a slant on the statements of a NASA scientist, and discount them? It is worth repeating this passage from a recent statement by a NASA scientist:
"Natural, large-scale climate patterns like the PDO [Pacific Decadal Oscillation] and El Niño-La Niña are superimposed on global warming..." And, "These natural climate phenomena can sometimes hide global warming caused by human activities." This is a NASA climate scientist speaking.

The climate scientist in the article says that PDO can hide the effects of global warming. But some say this statement is a gesture of deference toward other scientists, such as James Hansen (who was recently collared by NASA). But, to provide the statement of the NASA climate scientist and then to say he was equivocating--this is an instance of veiling, shading, of obscurantism.

WHAT GLOBAL-WARMING DENIERS SHOULD DO

Global-warming deniers would do us all a service by desisting from repeating what media were saying decades ago. That some in the media, in the 1970s, were popularizing the idea of an impending expansion of the ice sheets is not relevant now. Global-warming deniers make the point that since some in the media were "wrong" then, they are "wrong" now. That historical argument is not relevant to what climate science says today.

A more accurate term is global "climate change," since some parts of the Planet are warming and others are cooling; some parts are drying and others are becoming wetter. The point is that global climate is in flux.

Yes, there is a minority of climate scientists who theorize that rapid global warming will cause an extremely rapid cooling, especially in Europe. This is based on Greenland ice-core analyses which show an extreme cooling--the 8.2ka event--when the thermohaline circulation of the North Atlantic was disrupted by the melting of the Laurentine ice sheets, thus subsequently causing a rapid advance of polar ice sheets. This is what the film "The Day after Tomorrow" based its hyperbole on. But, this is a side issue about a possible result of anthropogenic altering of global climate.

I can imagine deniers saying that humans did not cause the 8.2ka cooling event. This is true, but it does not disprove anthropogenic influence NOW. And, please, just because professor Willie Soon publishes in refereed journals does not mean that the rest of climate scientists (and the media) are involved in a great climate hoax. As a climate professor friend of mine told me, "Lee, global warming is real; humans are causing it; and you should keep teaching it." And, I will, unless he and the majority of climate scientists change their evaluation of planetary climate change.

What global-warming deniers should do, instead, is convince us that MOST climate scientists are global climate-change skeptics. This is, of course, not true. Until the deniers can demonstrate this, why should we believe what MOST--actually, the overwhelming majority--climate scientists say. And, there is no need for deniers to offer the claims of the discredited Oregon (?) group of scientists. Deniers can try to chip away at what the majority of climate scientists are saying, but until THEY, the climate scientists, change their minds, then it is prudent for humanity to take to heart their warnings.

Why should climate-change deniers devote themselves to go against the majority of climate scientists? I must conclude that it is because of some kind of politico-ideological faith. Positing an argument based on a Kuhnian scientific revolution will not work, either. Again, if a majority of climate scientists say it is time to throw out the current paradigm, then I'll be with them. So, far, though, the evidence is mounting for global climate change caused anthropogenically.

CO2-AS-TRIGGERING-EVENT: A COUNTERARGUMENT

Here's my counterargument to claims that increases in global CO2 do not "cause" global warming. A straw argument claims that scientists say that rises in global atmospheric CO2 precede global warming events. Climate scientists do NOT claim that, as says the section below that I copied from a recent review article in New Scientist.

The article says that increases in CO2 sometimes lagged behind the beginning of warming events as many as 800 years during past episodes. But this is no argument for claims that CO2 is NOT a greenhouse gas nor that current warming is NOT due to anthropogenic causes. Perhaps the problem is semantic: that between "trigger" and "cause." Build-up of CO2 is not the trigger, but it is a driver of atmospheric warming.

The article: Climate myths. Brahic, Catherine, Chandler, David L., Le Page, Michael, McKenna, Phil, Pearce, Fred, New Scientist, 5/19/2007, Vol. 194, Issue 2604.

From the article: "With so much at stake, the last thing we need is for the real issues to be obscured by discredited arguments and wild theories. We must act now to avoid the worst effects. So for those who are not sure what to believe, here's our guide to climate myths and misconceptions. [...] Decide for yourself."

"Myth: Carbon dioxide levels only rose after the start of warm periods, so CO2 does not cause warming. [...] [I]t appears the lags might sometimes have been 800 years or more. [...]These lags show that rising CO2 did not trigger the initial warming at the end of these ice ages--but then, no one claims it did. They do not undermine the idea that more CO2 in the atmosphere warms the planet."

The climate-change scenario is complex and models have not reached full potential. But, claiming that because increases in CO2 levels do not precede warming events and that there have been triggering events such as ones due to Milankovitch cycles (periodic changes in sun radiation) does not fully explain rises in warming, especially the recent one that we are now in.

Here is how the scientists in New Scientist begin: "Our planet's climate is anything but simple. It depends on the interplay of many factors, from massive events in the sun to microscopic creatures in the oceans. Yet a clear picture has emerged, supported by an overwhelming amount of evidence: the world is warming, this warming is due to increasing levels of greenhouse gases caused by human activity, and if emissions continue unabated the warming will too, with ever more serious consequences."

As a physical geographer, who is a climate scientist and my mentor on this subject, said to me last year: "Global warming is real; anthropogenic causes are real; and you should feel it your duty to teach it."

And, I do.

INJECTING CHAOS--PHYSICAL AND SOCIAL

I was mentally preparing to walk into my school after our three-day Mardi Gras holiday and announce to anyone who would listen that I had been exposed to some legitimate research that shows that CO2 has no influence on global climate change.

After all, some have concluded that this is what the scientists found whose study is summarized in ScienceDaily (linked below). I went to the linked article. It says nothing about CO2. I then sought out Anastasios Tsonis, the lead investigator, by going to his Webpage and looking at his articles there. He is a mathematical climate scientist who studies climate cycles statistics and chaos (and refers to global warming as a fact). There is nothing there about CO2 not being a factor. He mentions nothing about external inputs to the system, except to conclude in one of his articles--quote: "Global warming has resulted in an increase in randomness in the system"--that as the climate warms, there is greater random, instead of synchronized, chaos in the system. This is hardly a denunciation of anthropogenic global climate change.

If you click on this link http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070801175711.htm,
it takes you to the ScienceDaily Webpage which summarizes the Tsonis et al. article. Notice that in the left margin, under "References," there is a link titled, "Consensus of scientists regarding global warming." This might be interesting to you, as it shows there is a consensus.

Again, in order to understand our current situation and not inject any personal bias into my teaching, I have sought out research that supposedly debunks current views about global climate change. The Tsonis et al. article is legitimate research by lgitimate researchers. It does not do what some claim it does. They have made a conclusion that the researchers themselves have not done.

I'll return to school in a few days and again feel justified in siding with what nearly all climate scientists say: Human-caused inputs to the system are wreaking havoc (increasing randomness) to the system. It's going to become interesting in the coming years. I'll keep an eye on science to see what it says.

I'm forming a social theory which says that as the Planet's normal physical cycles become more disrupted from outside inputs (read anthropogenicity), there will occur concomitant social disruption, including to civic culture, part of which includes valuing the only experts we have on climate--real climate scientists. In the meantime, we will have to expect and contend with those who externally inject random chaos into the public's views on global climate change.

WHY BELIEVE GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE?

As a high-school teacher of geography, I teach about global climate change (as the scientists label it). But, the way I see my role as an educator, as one who sees the need for intellectual honesty, propels me to continually revisit why I believe as I do, the bases for those beliefs, and on the other hand the arguments of opposing views. For these reasons, I read material about and by climate-change deniers. I remain unconvinced.

Here is one thought. As a non-scientist, I see no reason to disbelieve what the overwhelming majority of climate scientists believe to be true. If you argue that the sociology of scientific paradigms shows that through time scientific paradigms become ripe for eventual overthrow, as posited by Kuhn, you would be voicing the accepted view of science. But this does not mean EVERY paradigm is destined for the dustbin of history. True, science itself is always in flux--that’s the nature of science: continually testing evidence and forming testable hypotheses. All paradigms are modified through continuing scientific investigation. So, many of the specifics of current climate science will certainly become modified. But as of now, practically every bona fide climate scientist supports the view that some significant percentage of present climate change is anthropogenic.

That’s good enough for me. Yes, you can muster a few climate scientists who oppose the prevailing views, but would you agree with me that they are no more than a handful compared to hundreds and probably thousands on the other side? True, they could all be wrong and the dominant paradigm re global climate change could be erroneous. However, it seems prudent to me to base my beliefs, and some aspects of my life, on the prevailing views, and to support policy makers who are following the prevailing science, and not follow the so very few climate change naysayers.

Two summers back, while at Texas State, I picked up a climatology journal and read about a meta-analysis of climatology research that found that there was NOT A SINGLE study published by climatologists in peer-reviewed climatology journals that refuted that global warming/global climate change is occurring and that anthropogenic causes are not real.

It is my duty, I feel, to believe as almost all the experts do. That seems prudent and even essential.

EARTH SURVIVES; CIVILIZATION COLLAPSES?

Re the view that humans are making the Earth less habitable for HUMANS (and many other creatures).

This is my jeremiad: The Earth itself will survive, of course, but in an altered state. The question then becomes what will happen to possibly billions of humans in coming decades, as the U.N. projects in its middle projection that the Earth will have 9.1 billion humans by 2050, an increase of 2.5 billion over today. For example, with global climate change, what will ensue--what rapid human changes will need to made--if the agricultural zones of the central Plains in the U.S. shift northward hundreds of miles toward and into Canada? How many trillions of dollars would be needed to make that adjustment, an adjustment to an area that is one of the principal breadbaskets of the world?

Yes, the world is always in flux and climate is no exception. Scientists believe we are in an interglacial period, but the overwhelming consensus is that the current rapid changes are anthropogenic (human-caused) in origin.

Not abusing the Earth? Mountaintop removal in the coalfields of Appalachia where I worked as a strip-mine inspector; the mass of plastic the size of Texas floating in the Pacific Ocean; the great majority of rivers in China that are terribly polluted--I'd say these are just a few examples of the human destruction of life-systems of Earth.

Sure, global climate change might benefit the five countries bordering the Arctic Ocean, as it is now projected that the Arctic Ocean will be completely ice-free by 2070, and those countries could explore for what might be 25% of the world's reserves of oil and gas. At the same time, of course, the rise in the eustatic level (sea level) would also cause some massive readjustments along coastlines of the planet, where so many people (including me) now live.

One huge change looming just over the horizon is the approach of peak oil, when the production of petroleum that has for so long been increasing, reaches the point of decreasing production. Even though at that tipping point there would still be a great deal of oil in the pipeline, prices would begin a rapid spiral upwards. Sure, there would be lots of oil, but priced beyond what our economy could easily use. Again, massive changes would ensue, too fast to adjust to without gargantuan disruption to life as we are used to living it.

Yes, Earth will survive, but what is the fate of life as we know it? Jerrod Diamond, a historical geographer at UCLA, writing in Collapse, his study of the causes of collapse of past civilizations, outlined several reasons for civilizational failure. They include civilizations who saw the collapse coming, but were not able to make necessary changes in time. I think this is where we are at this point: seeing, but not believing enough, or partly paralyzed into inaction. We'll see. Unless we forthrightly begin practicing in our public policies the precautionary principle, then we react too late to the changes. It WILL be interesting.