A Little Science Lesson
4 12 2009
Follow me. We’re going to take a field trip.
We’re going to the Mudflats science lab. See, you didn’t even know there WAS a Mudflats science lab! There are many little rooms in here.
OK, here we are. You’ll notice that our experiment is already set up for you. Here, on our long black-topped lab table we have a twenty gallon fish tank and it’s full of water and some beautiful shimmering fish and green plants, and there’s one of those little ceramic castles. Above the tank is an elaborate and sturdy apparatus that hovers above the tank which is firmly affixed to the table. It appears to be some kind of dropper. The dropper tube is filled with red liquid.
Your job is to write down and keep track of what happens to the water. Ready? (drop) OK, what happened? A drop of red dye falls in the water, making a little swirly trail and then disappears. The water looks the same. So, you write that down.
“Appearance unchanged,” you write.
(drop)
“Appearance unchanged,” you write.
(drop)
“Appearance unchanged,” you write.
(drop)
This goes on for some time until I see you looking into the fish tank and turning your head, and looking from different angles. You seem to think that it may have a very slight pink tinge, but you can’t be sure.
(drop) (drop) (drop)
“Definite pink tinge,” you write.
We hear the knob turn and look up from our work. There’s a visitor to our little experiment. He’s wearing a lab coat and he walks in and asks if he might be able to sit down and observe.
“Sure,” we say. “Pull up a stool.”
(drop)
“Definite pink tinge,” you write.
Visitor - Why did you write “Definite pink tinge?”
You – Because there’s a slight pink tinge to the water.
Visitor – I don’t see it.
You – Well, it’s probably because you didn’t see it how it was before. We’ve been paying very close attention. (You show him your careful record)
(drop) (drop) (drop)
You – So why are we doing this anyway? What’s going to happen?
Me - Well, I hate to tell you this but when the water gets really red, all the fish are going to die. They can’t survive once things get really out of balance.
You – But…I kind of like those fish. (drop) I don’t want them to die.
Visitor – It’s not red. I don’t even think it’s pink. (drop) Don’t worry about it. They’re fine.
You – Well, I think it’s pink and if the drops keep coming (drop) it’s going to get red eventually.
Visitor – There are people who disagree about that. That thing’s been dripping a long time and (drop) nothing has happened. Don’t assume things.
You – Are you telling me that that water is not pink?
As you two have been talking, the water has become a definite undeniable shade of pink.
Visitor – You know, sometimes fish tanks have algae problems. (drop)
You - Algae problems? What makes you think this is algae, when we’re sitting here (drop) watching red dye dripping into this fish tank! If we don’t figure out how to turn this thing off, the fish are going to die.
Visitor – Why are you getting so hysterical? (drop) These things just happen. There are natural cycles of algae blooms, and they are well-documented. Fish die (drop) all the time. They’ve been dying for thousands of years, since the creation of the Earth.
You stare at the visitor for a moment. (drop)
You – So even if there is some kind of fish tank red tide, don’t you think that we ought to be doing something (drop) about the thing we know is making it turn red and go find someone who can help?
Visitor – You’re really unbelievable. You’re going to go running around getting people all freaked out? Why do you want to scare people? Sometimes fish just die, OK? It’s part of the circle of life. Look, see? (He points to one of the little shimmery fish, who is at the top of the tank gulping for air and swimming on its side) I told you so.
You – Are you serious? Look this tank is starting to have some real problems and it may be too late already for that fish. This is crazy. Help me figure out how to stop this!
Visitor – Wow. You are just a complete whack job aren’t you. Or maybe you’re getting paid to write all this stuff down. You’ll be out of a job if you don’t create fish hysteria. Oh, you’re a piece of work aren’t you? Well, I’m sorry but I’ve got to get out of here and get back to work. I’ll leave you to your little “melt down.” He rolls his eyes and makes little air quote signs with his fingers. Call me when you calm down. (He hands you a business card)
You – (looking at the card in disbelief) So you…sell…
Visitor – Red dye. That’s right. Have fun “saving the fish!” (he chuckles and leaves the room muttering “fish-lover” under his breath)
**********************************
If you haven’t figured out my little parable yet, we’re talking climate change. And take one guess who’s on board with Senator Jim Inhofe (R) from Oklahoma, the poster boy for climate change denial? (Jeopardy music) Yup, Sarah Palin. Her latest Facebook rant says that President Obama needs to boycott the international climate conference in Copenhagen. That’s right, we shouldn’t even be talking to people who are trying to solve the problem.
I’ve taken my share of college chemistry classes. I was raised by a chemist, I married one. I get it. And the red-dye salesmen want you to think it’s some kind of really complicated science that you regular people just can’t understand, and there are cycles of thousands of years, and once in the Middle Ages it got warm and bla bla bla. Or should I say (drop drop drop). Because while they are trying to convince you that none of this is our fault, it keeps dripping, and we know that regardless of other factors, what we are doing DOES affect things. And any “scientist” who says otherwise is pretty easily connected to the industries that doesn’t want us to stop dripping.
The latest tactic for those who are trying to convince the public to oppose any meaningful legislation to counter the devastating effects of global warming is now being dubbed “ClimateGate.”
A few weeks ago, hackers broke into the emails of one of the Climate Research Unit of The University of East Anglia, and climate skeptics have been having a field day making mountains out of molehills about what the emails contain.
The new claims are pretty easy to debunk, as has been done HERE. The problem comes when people believe this is a political issue, and listen to irresponsible politicians like James Inhofe, and irresponsible bloggers like Sarah Palin perpetuate the misinformation, because after all is said and done, we are not just talking about goldfish. We are talking about animals, and plants, and people, and the only planet we’ve got.
December 4th, 2009 at 3:47 PM
@ 34 aussiegal77-agree 100%
Palin is a much a Christian as President Obama is a Muslim. Look at the “fruit” in her wake.
“You can detect them by the way they act, just as you can identify a tree by its fruit. You don’t pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles.” Matthew 7:16
@ Chaim – agreed, we are to be stewards of the earth and respect ALL God’s creation. And yes, the revelation quote is at the time of judgment. “Drill baby, drill” is not in anyway biblical, responsible, or sustainable. She doesn’t even understand what humility is.
I have lost the little respect I had left for the Grahams, since she is “pallin” around with them and they think she is genuine. Though truth be told, others have called the Graham’s out as false prophets. She may work for the “Christian Lite” crowd. But those who truly are of the flock can see through her. So many “of the faith” have shown their true colors in recent times. Got to walk-the-walk, not just talk-the-talk.
December 4th, 2009 at 3:52 PM
Chaim, I won’t mention “Where’s your Messiah NOW?” in the voice of Edward G. Robinson. (Just kidding, honest. I couldn’t resist.)
Either way, when evil is destroyed (doesn’t seem very realistic, I know), I will be happy.
December 4th, 2009 at 4:04 PM
hah, humility, she doesn’t even know what shame is. If I done did half the things she’s said and done, I’da have to crawl under a rock and die!
December 4th, 2009 at 4:06 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nnVQ2fROOg
That video has a very sobering look at those hacked CRU emails and the video’s producer actually reads the scientists’ papers. Enjoy
December 4th, 2009 at 4:07 PM
Mona…I love you!
December 4th, 2009 at 4:35 PM
I like her….got a bit carried away
December 4th, 2009 at 4:36 PM
Greetings Mudpuppies,
<a href="http://www.realclimate.org/" Here is a site that is authoritative on climate science and the now infamous Swift-Hack incident at UEA-CRU.
Over 40 years ago when I was still hanging around research universities and rubbing up against a bit of climate science incidentally, responsible people were already aware of global climate change and the obvious fact that human activity was at the very least a significant factor in it.They began to try to figure out how we could measure it, quantify what was changing and where, and illuminate the driving factors.
Over those 40 years literally thousands of scientists, technicians, engineers, statisticians, etc. have been working on this problem. The consensus among those thousands of dedicated, honest workers is that oxidizing 6-20 billion tonnes of fossil carbon into the atmosphere each year is a significant factor in the climate change observed and that the nature of that change is a clear and distinct trend towards warmer global temperatures.
Many commenters have already pointed out not just changes in Alaska and other readily observable sites, but global changes such as the threat to pacific atolls, coral reefs, etc. One global effect of excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere that most people do not know about though is ocean acidification. This is not your mine runoff kind of acidification, the particular culprit here is carbonic acid.
What are the effects? Well we don’t know very much about itand so in terms of the complex ecosystem of the world oceans it is impossible to predict what the effects will be. Moreover it will not be easy to find out what the effects are and will be in the future. That is the way science works, slow, painstaking, self-correcting, systematic elimination of possibilities until the only thing left must be the truth. And ready acceptance that it is never the whole truth.
As a scientist I am accustomed to criticism, it is part of the job description. But crticism that is constructive and with a basis in fact. What we are witnessing now is the political smearing of a whole class of scientists by self interested greed. As a scientist, I think rightly, I resent the very idea that scientific conclusions are a matter of opinion or public debate. Certainly it is a matter for public debate to decide what to do about scientific conclusions, but that is not what is happening.
I’ll stop ranting there but I would like to make one more observation that is I think pertinent here. It refers to the sanctimonious screed someone posted by Palin. What could surpass the arrogance of claiming that you know the mind of god? That god has “spoken” to you, or “opened doors for you”?
I am among the lucky, I am already old and infirm. I will probably be dead within a decade. I will not be witness to nor victim of the horrors that will be visited upon humanity by nature, for the hubris, the willful ignorance and the mendacity and greed that so ruthlessly exploit the many to benefit the few.
December 4th, 2009 at 5:03 PM
O/T – Netroots Nation On-Line Auction – ends 8 December.
https://www.cmarket.com/auction/AuctionHome.action?auctionId=101275066
December 4th, 2009 at 5:03 PM
AKM….wonderful parable. Thanks for sharing you insights and doing it so skillfully.
@ Krubozumo Nyankoye: I believe you when you say that we are witnessing a political smearing of a whole class of scientists based on greed. Those who stand to profit from ignoring this issue are the very ones who are pushing back on it and pouring tons of money to “debunk” it. I always enjoy your posts.
December 4th, 2009 at 5:05 PM
manxmamma she should be put on a small floating piece of ice like some polar bears are and see what she does .
As for people who destroy the earth being left behind,I guess that lets Palin behind since she does not think anyone is harming the earth. LOL
Mo you are right the article about the villages losing to climate change ect is a real tragedy
December 4th, 2009 at 5:07 PM
M. Nayankoe,
That was an amazingly written analysis that is easy to grasp and comprehend the very ‘wrongness’ of the carbon burners. Thank you for sharing your take with a lifetime of study and debate amongst your colleagues.
She, being Sarah, would roll her eyes after the first sentence and quit reading. That’s our Sarah, only in it, to quit it.
I can’t believe this woman still hides behind everything, her children, her parents, her facebook, her ghost-writers. Why does she bother pretending she wants to know your name in a 5 second meeting? Short attention span Sarah only puts 5 second thoughts into anything of substance.
Yes, she is arrogant, and a bit crazy to share with the world how God micromanages her life for her.
December 4th, 2009 at 5:07 PM
She is drunk with power. She sees a few thousand people at her book signing and she somehow thinks she has the world’s ear. Fact is, when people hear her name, they think…joke.
Can she be stuffed back into Pandora’s box?
December 4th, 2009 at 5:09 PM
This should strengthen the post from Krubozumo Nyankoye #36.
This is from Common Dreams, a good website if you’re not familiar with it:
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/12/04-8
December 4th, 2009 at 5:17 PM
S’error Palin’s credentials as a scientist are as solid as are her credentials as a national security expert. Who are we to doubt her words of truth?
December 4th, 2009 at 5:19 PM
Sorry this is OT but this one is gonna stick. Good for you Andree!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/04/palin-gets-another-ethics_n_380688.html
December 4th, 2009 at 5:21 PM
13 Irishgirl Says: December 4th, 2009 at 1:06 PM
I would love to hit ms Palin in the chops with a rather large halibut.
———–
Holy mackeral… fish slapping?!!!!
fresh or frozen?
December 4th, 2009 at 5:27 PM
*nodding in agreement with Mona @ #48*
I’m IN! And I’m reasonably certain I can not only lift a halibut, but I can swing one with enough force to make some loud, slapping noise on the aforementioned forehead.
Great parable AKM. Reminds me so much of sitting with my Grimm’s tales reading them to myself.
December 4th, 2009 at 5:34 PM
Irish, you lurves me an’joo knowszit!
Saur: I’D say frozen, but she seems to enjoy sharing the slime, so….
December 4th, 2009 at 5:44 PM
Mona@67: if you really want a fish with slime, may I suggest a nice fresh sucker from the bottom of the Charles River Basin? One plucked from them muddy waters between the Mass Ave Bridge and the Longfellow.
Or we could pull a flopping carp from near a sewer outlet in the Fens.
We might get arrested for fish abuse, tho.
December 4th, 2009 at 5:45 PM
#39 – OMG. How interesting that he is out of the country. Leaves the mess to the staff instead of taking it. Ick on him for sure. Wonder if the higher ups even know?
December 4th, 2009 at 5:45 PM
Isn’t there a Republican out there strong enough to say that her views really don’t matter? Geesh we need a Republican hero out there that will stand up and say enough is enough- she quit when it got tough. Who cares if she has a fan club- so does Elmo and if he were running against her- I would actually vote red.
December 4th, 2009 at 5:47 PM
AKM: how do you do it? You have family, job, other things and you still come up with such amazing creative articles. Yes, they are very relevant and informative. Your writing is superb. I am in total awe.
And then, the replies – you all are so creative, also, too.
December 4th, 2009 at 5:59 PM
AKM,
I love the biochemistry analogy. Deniers just don’t understand what happens to closed systems that get polluted.
Now take the physicist’s point of view and its even scarier.
All that ice melting represents potential kinetic energy being released into the system. Wind and water currents will behave differently, the weight distribution of the oceans around the world will place stress in different proportions upon the Earth’s crust and mantle as the weight of all that ice shifts from Greenland, Antactica, and Siberia to become the greater weight upon the sea floor. The tides will change, taking slightly longer to ebb and flow, and the stress points all around the world will shift ever so slightly again, and again, and again…..
Spin a top and watch it run well-balanced across the floor. Then tape a small weight upon one side of that top and spin it again, and watch it wobble and the very different trajectory that results.
And I haven’t gone near the physics of our global greenhouse yet.
December 4th, 2009 at 6:29 PM
People with working brains understand the issue, as well as what you write, but you have to remember a very basic thing: this is S’error Palin we are talking about. She doesn’t want to understand anything she doesn’t understand.
December 4th, 2009 at 6:35 PM
As for fish slapping….here is a fun link (way off topic but the halibut smack from Irishgirl deserves this tribute…I only wish the fish was bigger!) I totally understand if this ends up in moderation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhJQp-q1Y1s
December 4th, 2009 at 8:34 PM
I’m all for using AKM’s analogy and combining it with one of Cheney’s ideas as well. Dick used to get ‘ information ‘ out of people with his ‘ techniques ‘…. time to use it on S’error and lets see what she says.
Replace the one drop of water with a bucket of water.
Dick said it think it wasn’t torture… so lets try it out and see how it works.
The only problem is we know she will NEVER say anything intelligent no matter what ‘ technique’ we use on her.
December 4th, 2009 at 9:19 PM
I have a koi pond in my yard and a 600 gallon in my basement with a sick 19″ koi who I’ve raised since a baby. I am sooo sick of drop tests. The best way to fix levels is with natural means. Chemicals is all else fails. Tedious but supposedly not so hard to do in a closed system with regualar water changes but the slightest variation causes stress to fish, it effects their immune system making it easier for bacterial and parasite (internal and external) infection to take over. Ammonia and Nitrite are the silent killers.
Screw with ph and you screw their entire environment. Happening now everywhere obviously and I highly doubt we have enough baking soda to ‘fix’ it for a minute.
December 4th, 2009 at 9:36 PM
1. An outstanding parable.
2. The “fish-slapping dance” is one of my all-time favorites.
3. Only scientific illiterates dispute the general global warming trend. I don’t even think Inhofe (who is, himself, scientifically illiterate) disputes the trend. What the more-or-less-reputable skeptics dispute is the extent to which human activity contributes to the warming trend. There is little doubt that humanity has driven a very rapid (in geological terms) increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration. However, establishing a cause and effect relationship between this increase in CO2 and global warming requires the use of fairly complex computer models. At about this point, the argument goes beyond the scope of “common sense”. The average citizen (even the scientifically literate average citizen) has to rely on the conclusions of the folks who spend their lives investigating the matter. Personally, I am confident that the overall conclusions of the IPCC are authentic — that is, that they represent the consensus of the thousands of participating scientists. I am, to be honest, somewhat less confident of the accuracy of their model predictions, because I have some experience with computer models. On the other hand, the least pessimistic prediction scenario is still bad news (and, BTW, when I express uncertainty about the IPCC models, that also means I think there’s a chance reality could be worse than “worst case”). I believe the Precautionary Principle is unavoidably appropriate here.
4. This “climategate” fooferaw is really unfortunate. The Ostrich Theory folks have, up until now, scored most of their points by highlighting short-term discrepancies between predictions and measurements. They’ve accompanied this with a preposterous narrative about an international conspiracy of climate scientists who promote the false global warming story in order to get government funding. (This is preposterous because the total funding directed to the 2,000 or so IPCC contributors is probably less than the combined annual compensation of the CEO’s of the top five oil companies). Unfortunately, while most of the emails are innocuous or debunkable, there are a few that appear to relate to trying to shape the public debate. These are going to be blown way out of context.
5. I don’t blame the folks at CRU for being concerned about public opinion; but damn, they’re supposed to be smart. Why the heck were they discussing stuff like this on email?
6. As a coda, just imagine what will surface if the AK state government ever manages to provide ex-GINO Palin’s emails. Either “verrry interesting”, or 100% redaction.
December 5th, 2009 at 3:01 AM
Houston had its earliest snowfall ever recorded. What it proves to the deniers is that there is no “global warming!”
Simpletons.
December 5th, 2009 at 9:02 AM
AKM – Did you just call Sarah Palin a blogger? I don’t think she would appreciate that.
)
December 5th, 2009 at 9:12 AM
When your outlet of wisdom for the masses is Facebook: YOU HAVE PROBLEMS.
Great parable!
December 5th, 2009 at 9:37 AM
It’s simply not true that all of the scientists who disagree with the concensus opinion (and who actually have the credentials that qualify them to have an opinion that matters) are on the payroll of the corporate polluters. I agree with Michael Crichton that a scientific concensus is not the same as actual science. He compared the Global Warming concensus to another famous scientific concensus: Eugenics, which claimed that certain races were inherently superior to others. That particular concensus pretty much fell apart after the Nazis used it to determine which segments of the population they should altruisticly “eliminate.”
I personally have no idea whether or not humans are to blame for climate change — nor am I qualified to form a valid or valuable opinion on the subject. The truth is that there are very few people who are qualified, and those people are Climatologists. This discipline is relatively new and really in its infancy in terms of understanding about exactly how, why and when climate shifts occur (it’s extremely complicated, from what I’ve read). Other “scientists” outside of the field of Climatology are no more qualified to form a scientific conclusion about Global Warming than a Dermatologist is to diagnose a brain tumor. Yet, they are part of the concensus.
Regardless of what or who is to blame for the climate change, protecting the environment from known pollutants certainly makes sense. But I seriously worry that the religious fervor of many environmentalists (those who would label me not as a “skeptic” but as a “Denier”) will lead to legislation that 1) Won’t do anything to mitigate or halt Climate Change, and 2) Will decimate the potential of developing nations to claw their way out of poverty.
(Please keep all name-calling and rock-throwing to a minimum.)
December 5th, 2009 at 11:51 PM
Many interesting comments but especially excellent on this subject: Krubozumo #57, BigSlick # 73, and Strangelet # 78. Thanks.
Some “not-so-fun” facts about our little fishbowl called “Earth:”
–Two thousand years ago, only an estimated 231 million humans inhabited the earth
–In 2002, the estimated human population was 6.2 Billion.
http://www.worldmapper.org/display.php?selected=7
–Two thousand years ago, there were no cars or other vehicles.
–Today, there are an estimated 600,000,000 cars in operation in the world….NOT counting trucks, buses etc….and another 50 million plus cars projected to be built in 2009 alone.
http://www.worldometers.info/cars/
–Countless industries around the world are now spewing CO2 and a myriad of other substances into our air and water, especially since the Industrial Revolution.
No way around it…..that’s a pretty big “footprint” made by a single species of animals on this planet in the last 2K years ( particularly in the last 100-150 years).
December 6th, 2009 at 3:50 PM
Ladybirddeb @ 82
No name calling and no rock throwing (respecting the latter I tend to pick them up and examine them closely if the appear interesting).
First off, have you heard of Godwin’s law? I suggest you look it up on wikipedia, although there are probably other sources that are a little more reliable. I would also suggest that you lookup eugenics at the same source. The very first sentence in the entry is: “Eugenics is the study and practice of selective breeding applied to humans, with the aim applied to humans, with the aim of improving the species.”
Second you make a claim about all the scientists that disagree with the concensus opinion not being on the payroll of corporate polluters. You then cite Michael Crichton? While Mr. Crichton did obtain an MD from Harvard he also subscribed to some, shall we say, dubious beliefs. Yet you do not cite a single climate science source for your assertion.
You further claim that only climatologists are qualified to form a “valid and valuable opinion” about whether humans are causing climate change. You then proceed to depricate climatologists with veiled allusions to the science being “new” and in its infancy. This implies to the reader that they are really not qualified. You further mix opinion and the term “scientific conclusion” and draw what I think is a poor analogy between other “scientists” (your quotes in this case) forming a scientific conclusion and a dermatologist diagnosing a brain tumor. If I were a dermatologist consulting with a patient who had a skin rash and that patient suddenly had a siezure would I be wrong to refer them to a neurologist is they had no history of epilepsy?
By the same token, climatology like so many contemporary sciences is not a single thing. In broad terms you could say it is an amalgam of scientific disciplines with the general view of trying to reconstruct past climate since virtually all climate has been in the past. Should there then be no relevancy for glaciologists to making a contrubution to climatology (ice cores form the single longest and most consistent record of past climate going back well over 600,000 years)? Climatology is much older than nuclear physics, does that mean that it might be wrong about how nuclear weapons work? Genetics was unknown until it was re-discovered in the 1920s, less than a hundred years ago, does that mean that we can’t use it to identify new strain of influenza virus?
I want to take a little time to address your personal disclaimer you second paragraph as well because it seems to me to be a little disingenuous. Let’s think about whether or not humans might be a likely cause of climate change with the single assumption that a significant amount of the change climatologists are measuring is due to increased concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. In the US the average carbon each of us causes to be emitted into the atmosphere is 20 tonnes per year. So for 300 million people that would equate to 6 billion tonnes. China has recently surpassed the US in terms of total carbon emissions, so between the US and China alone that is more than 12 billion tonnes per yer. The per capita emissions for the Chinese would be about 6 tonnes per person, so lets take the average of those two numbers 13 tonnes per person for the remaining 5 billion people in the world assuming that Europe and Russia and India and Brazil are somewhat above the average and that most of subshahran Africa and less developed countries in Asia and S. American are a little less, in fact lets just arbitrarily lop off 3 tonnes per capita to make the maths easy and say that the remainder of the global population contributes on average just 10 tonnes per capita. So our grand total is minimally, 62 billion tonnes of carbon added to the atmosphere per year by humans.
Now you might say, well carbon is recycled, plants use CO2 to grow. True, and in the past, before humans began to exploit fossil sources of carbon for fuel, there probably existed an overal dynamic equilibrium with respect to carbon, that is to say, for every tonne of carbon liberated into the atmosphere by the burning of wood, a tonne of carbon was temporarily sequestered in new wood grown. But what we are now burning has been sequestered for millions of years. Moreover, the vast tracts of the earth’s tropics that were blanketed with vast rain forests have been reduced to a few relatively small islands. At the present time, just in N. America, the huge arboreal forests of pine and other conifers are being devastated by bark beetles that survive in ever increasing numbers from year to year to infest and kill more trees because they are not frozen to death during the winters.
So every year we add enormous quantities of carbon that have been sequestered from the atmosphere and at the same time reduce by leaps and bounds the elements in the biosphere that can mitigate the presence of that newly liberated carbon in the atmosphere. You claim you are not qualified to form an opinion. I think you mean you are not qualified to form a scientific conclusion. But perhaps, just perhaps, this little thought process I just outlined will broaden and enhance you view of whether you can indeed form an opinion.
I have to confess your last paragraph is tempting, as a scientist, but also as a person who has spent most of his life living and working in “developing nations”, it is pretty rich to here anyone in the US claiming a concern for their future. Do you have any idea what the gross national product of Liberia is for instance? Sierra Leone? Angola? Peru? In almost every case you could find of a “developing nation” it is less than the cost of maintaining a single brigade of soldiers in Iraq or Afgahnistan for ONE DAY. Moreover you conflate the nebulous term environmentalists with climatologists. Which are you speaking about? They are not the same. It is certainly not true that all environmentalists are climatologists and it is most likely not true that all climatologists are environmentalists, after all, science is a demanding mistress. So your final two pronouncements strike me as not only disingenuous but perhaps even dishonest. After all, we are currently witnessing an epic political campaign to nullify any substantive change in the cost of health care in the US to preserve a for profit system that the remainder of the “developed world” has long since rejected. The evidence that a socially responsible health care system is much cheaper, and much more useful to the people it serves is irrefutable. Yet we have politicians who use spurious rationales such as you present here who are fighting tooth and nail to prevent any change being implmented that might lessen the profits of a few egregiously predatory corporations. So in my humble opinion your expressed fear of legislation that won’t do anything to mitigate or halt climate change is really a complaint about the people who agree with you, that the climate science is too “new” and the climate scientists, are not really in general agreement, for it is they who are prepared and well provided to obstruct and delay any movement towards a positive solution.
And that is exactly what they have done, and will do.
As to your last point about developing nations clawing their way out of poverty, I think you should look first at international finance, and the world bank. Did the razing of the tropical hardwood forest in Liberia make every Liberian rich? Has the rampant exploitation of mineral resources in Peru raised or lowered the overall standard of living? Is the ecosystem of Ecquador better or worse for the largess visited upon them by Chevron?
I have not called you a single name, nor tossed a single rock in your direction, though I have rolled a few formidable boulders up to your door for you to push against with the weak and inconsistent arguments you made in your post. I hope you will think about what I have said here, I hope others will think about it as well, but I am not overly optimistic.
Kindest regards,
December 6th, 2009 at 4:03 PM
Apologies to all mudflatters for the typographic errors and omissions in my previous post. My remoteness leads to time delay difficulties that make it almost impossible for me to review what I have written in an efficient manner.
I hope my mistakes can be smoothed over by your intelligent interpretations.
Cheers,
December 7th, 2009 at 2:21 PM
Krubozumo Nyankoye Very enlightening argument and post and I think a lot would agree with you.
December 7th, 2009 at 3:18 PM
This site provides an analysis of the citation ranking of over 2000 climate scientists that have made a public statement of their views. It is a little arcane but two things are clear. The vast majority of those publishing research on climate in the peer reviewed literature agree that AGW is happening and those who cite that research vastly outnumber those who cite the contrary view.
Where known each individual’s affiliation is also cited.
http://www.eecg.utoronto.ca/~prall/climate/