Some Stuff About “Climate Change” That I’m Just Not Getting
I saw some remarkable stuff on the TV news last night and, I’m not talking about the images of devastation and destruction.
I actually saw Piers Morgan…by the way, a guy I’ve heard many times speak of his journalistic integrity and cite his previous work with the impeccable B.B.C, report that there was three feet of water on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange. Then, Morgan later, talking to his weather guy, asked about the source and the weather guy…says it was from an internet chat/discussion board.
Earlier, on MSNBC (I brought up the previous thing because MSNBC was also, for a time, reporting the Stock Exchange story; did they piggyback Piers or were they monitoring chat rooms for news as well?)…anyway, earlier in the evening I saw a panel discussion on MSNBC that was about whether the effects of Hurricane Sandy would “finally” raise awareness and discussion about “climate change” (always “climate change” now not, “global warming”). As if, only a handful of elite intellectuals were talking about it.
I will say that the first thing is; whether or not climate change is a reality isn’t part of the debate.
You can choose any number of reasons (I’m going to go with a real simple one, the climate is always changing – has always changed) but, for the sake of the discussion…let’s say the climate is changing.
It’s like this; if there is a problem, time and energy are better spent resolving the problem rather that debating if it exists.
So, you have to look at what is causing the problem and how to solve the problem.
To the first part, the well worn ideal is that climate change is man-made. Most of the people I know that talk about climate change hinge their whole platform on this citing “empirical scientific data” which, simply means data that has been acquired from what has been observed. May seem like a minor point but, I think that conceding that there may be conditions that effect our planet on this scale that go well beyond what we are able to scientifically observe seems the more humble option.
I get a sense that people who insist that climate change is man-made, find some comfort in the notion that if we cause it, we can fix it through austerity. This, to me, smacks of a “belief” (or even dogma) than either a scientific thought process or a problem solving one.
Given the seriousness of the issue, you have to entertain one of two other scenarios…
1 – Climate change has been caused by humans but, we the people have screwed it up so bad we can’t simply fix it with austerity.
2 – Climate change, at least in part, has been caused by forces outside of our control.
Either way, there are problems bigger than ones that can be fixed by squiggly light bulbs and hybrid SUVs.
For instance; the majority of the world’s population lives in coastal areas or on major waterways. If the water tables are going to continually rise, do you propose to somehow mobilize billions to higher ground or, let them fend for themselves fighting off the inevitable disease and pestilence?
I never hear this being discussed by the talking heads who want to raise awareness and seriousness of climate change.