The problem is that I am old enough to remember a time when similar doom and gloom predictions were being made. Back in the late 70's when I was a teenager living outside Buffalo NY, there had just been one of the worst winters on record and a crippling gas crisis. We had gas rationing, only being able to get gas on odd/even day rotation, predictions that we were running out of oil, and that we were starting to enter another ice age. The President was on TV telling us how our way of life needed to change: cut back, learn to live a simpler life, drive slower, start wearing coats and sweaters indoors. There was a flurry of government regulations, price controls, etc. We did all that the "experts" recommended and it didn't make things any better.
As it turned out, once the government got out of the way, people found their own solutions. Gas prices rose temporarily, making it profitable to find and produce oil in areas and by means previously thought impractical. In the end, instead of running out of oil, we had more sources than ever before and prices were even lower. Instead of wearing sweaters and standing in line for gas, we started making our homes, vehicles, and industry more energy efficient. And after few bad winters, things got better. And as technology improved, the air and water got cleaner.
I lived in Niagara Falls at the time the Love Canal story exploded. It was a local story before it went national. And it was the same thing, the potential consequences are so dire that we can't wait to act. By the time we have scientific proof, it will be too late and widespread death will occur. We spent millions, if not billions, digging up contaminated dirt from one spot, trucking it to another spot, and reburying it. I remember asking my mother at the time as I noticed the orange dirt splashed up on the snowbanks along the routes the trucks took: "Isn't this just spreading everything around?" In the end, once all the proper scientific studies had been conducted, all the hype about Love Canal being a "hotspot of disease" where people were dropping like flies was shown to be false. People living there had no higher likelyhood of any particular disease than anywhere else in the country. But it was too late, the money was spent, peoples lives were ruined, and the public already "knew the truth". And no amount of science produced after the fact was going to change their minds.
I guess I was at just the right age for this experience to have been a real influence. Because of my love of science, I followed the story even after leaving the Falls and after the story stopped getting national headlines. And it got me questioning the media, the government, and the experts. Now, I try to look behind the hype and find the facts.
So what do we do about Global Warming now? Just what we've been doing! We study it further, try to nail down exactly what are the causes, find and fix the errors in the science. We continue to develop less polluting technologies and refine them until they become practical for widespread use. For example, when I built my home, I tried using the early compact fluorescent bulbs in all my fixtures, but they were impractical because they kept turning my TV on and off and changing the channels because they interferred with the remote signals. But as the technology got better, I was able to install them in more places without the unintended bad consequences. We keep trying to help the third world develop their own economies so that they can raise their standard of living to our own more productive one. As they do so, they will be able to afford to replace their current high pollution ways of living with more efficient, low pollution, modern ways of life.
What we don't do is cripple ourselves. You don't implement the Kyoto protocols which penalize the developed nations, who are already generating the least pollution per unit of production than anyone else, while allowing the less developed nations to pollute unchecked. This will just cause production to shift from nations which have controls on pollution to nations which have no controls. That might make sense if your goal is transfer of wealth, but not if your goal is to stop Global Warming.
We also don't impliment arbitrary regulations like CAFE standards. You can't just make up numbers for industry to meet if the technology isn't there to support the goals. Just look at how bad toilets performed after the 1.6 gallon fush limit was started. Only recently have they begun to approach the reliability of the older toilets.
Personally, I am suspicious when I am being told that I have to act NOW, there's not time to think about the issue or check things out. That applies whether it's a car salesman telling me that the price is good for today only, or if it's the President telling me Texas will be uninhabitable in 1000 years if we don't act now. That technique has been used to hide the truth many, many times more often than it has been shown to BE the truth. I'm suspicious, that's all. I don't reject the idea of Global Warming, I just want more information before I agree to take drastic action. If the only response I get to my questions is continued insistance that there's not time to answer them, the more convinced I am that my suspicions are correct and that the salesman is trying to sell me a lemon. But if more detailed and convincing information comes along, I'll gladly check it out and change my mind if it's warranted. After all, it's hot enough here in Texas already!
Josey said:
DonShock:
Obviously you are a skeptic of global warming science, and it doesn't appear from what I see that you are going to change your mind.
So here's an honest question:
How should we respond, given that the vast majority of climate scientists -- with a consensus that continues to grow stronger and stronger after decades of peer-reviewed study -- say we must act IMMEDIATELY to reduce mankind's CO2 emissions if we are to have any chance of avoiding potentially massive destruction to our civilization, to the future of our children and grandchildren and to most higher life forms on this planet?