This is long but I have to say it.
Last night’s speaker at the TAS (Tiadaghton Audubon Society) was a young woman from Germany here in the states to study grassland sparrows out of the Cornell Lab of Ornithology. Her talk was one of the slide show presentations of Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth about climate change as caused by man.
I had promised to behave and did so …mostly. I only interrupted a few times. The bulk of the audience either agreed with all/some of the questionable evidence and predictions being made or just wanted to be polite, so I kept my mouth shut unless something seemed too unreal.
A number of the TAS members (whom I never see at the monthly meetings or on bird walks) had seen the movie and so were able to answer questions posed by the presenter or, as Terry so aptly put it, were able to shout, “AMEN!” at the appropriate times. (Actually it was more likely that they would shout, “Exxon/Mobil!” when the time came to blame some corporation for all the “deniers”, “Skeptics” and “not reputable” scientists out there still combating the True Believers. Yeah, at times it was like a camp revival meeting. Not having seen IT, I felt I missed out on some of the insider’s—I don’t want to say “jokes”, more like angst.
The talk and slide show were well done and I tried not to get upset with the messenger. She was an invited guest, an ornithologist from Germany, a sincere, caring woman—even if she was a fanatical proselytizer for The Cause. (Although, with the group that sat in that room last night, she didn’t have to work hard for converts.)
The talk began with a little introduction to the affects of Climate Change and Global Warming on birds and their habitat. The problems that arise when birds that have linked their migratory and breeding times to the sun light hours suddenly find that their food or other factors are operating on a different schedule due to temperature/moisture level changes brought about by CC & GW. As much of this is pretty well documented in species here in North America and Europe, this portion of the program was, to me, more appropriate to the venue and a historical perspective at the same time. There was some predictions being made about where species might relocate or which ones might find themselves painted into the corner of the extinction room, so to speak. Again these topics were appropriate to the venue and the speaker’s background.
But then she made a statement about the predictions that started my blood to boil. She said something to the effect that they (the scientists studying the birds and creating computer models of their future) can’t really create accurate models because of the number of variables involved. Well, duh! I took a biological modeling course in the early ‘80s (before personal computers would have made it a great deal easier to do my home work!) and as part of that course I worked to build a computer program of white-tail deer populations. I was amazed at the number of variable that had to be considered. And when you thought you had accounted for all the major ones (you usually were safe in ignoring what you viewed as a minor factor) one of the minor factors would turn out NOT to be so minor and would take your model and spin it on its ear. It was a Murphy’s Law of Computer Models. So when she admitted that the models couldn’t account for all the variables…to me that was like saying , “We’re about to build a house but it might be a bit shaky because we haven’t been able to understand how to create a solid foundation yet.” Then she went on to try and build the house of Climate Change As Caused by Man.
She spoke of the melting of the Arctic Ice and the thinness of the polar ice. She showed slides of the Larsen B Ice Shelf collapse in 2002 in which an area of ice the size of Rhode Island broke off and disintegrated within a 35 day period. Larsen B Ice Shelf Collapses in Antarctica) (I thought to myself: The ice shelf is unsupported from below as it floats on the sea. If it extends far enough out it would have to break off eventually. This particular ice shelf has been pushed forward by the accumulating snows in the interior of Antarctica for thousands of years. That it should break off now is certainly serendipitous for those who wish to use this as evidence of Global Warming. Heck, given an infinitely long 2x12, if I were to slowly push it over the edge of a cliff, it would eventually break off at the cliff’s edge.) Then she said the summer temperatures in Greenland were 13 degrees Celsius warmer than average.
That’s when I finally cracked. “Thirteen degrees warmer than what?” She didn’t know, she said, but obviously it was pretty warm. Just look at the melt water in the picture. But she did admit she would have to find out for future presentations. (Someone else in the audience said it didn’t matter since 13 degrees C was a heck of a jump.) I shook my head and shut up again as I realized I might be the only one looking at this data presentation with a non-partisan eye.
She went on to say that the IPCC report that said that said oceans would rise only 1 meter were only taking into account the expansion of water due to temperature rise and that Al Gore’s call for a 6-7 meter rise would occur took into account the melting of all the ice on Greenland, the Arctic and all the mountain glaciers of the Northern Hemisphere, a melting, she said, that was well underway. The presenter went on to say that recent findings of what happens with the melt water on the surface of glaciers as it funnels down through crevasses to the inner and lower parts of the ice where it lubricated the flow of the glacier were alarming. (Funny, I thought to myself. Glaciologists have long known this to be the cause of kames, eskers and other glacial till deposits. Just because it’s now being measured on existing glaciers it’s become “alarming” evidence of Global Warming?)
She showed a graph allegedly showing the rate of melting of glacial ice. But the graph was not presented in such a way as it could be read. The x-axis was rotated toward the viewer about 60 degrees and tilted downward. Just one of the many little tricks used to distort the information the graph may contain.
A map of Florida that is slowly inundated to show what would happen should Greenland melt was put on the screen for its obvious shock value. (No indication of altitudes above sea level was given. You’re supposed to assume it’s the 6-7 meters that Gore predicts.)
She had graphs showing the fluctuation of temperatures for the last 650,000 years and an overlay to show atmospheric CO2. While the two lines were remarkably similar, she admitted that CO2 fluctuations follow those of temperature—except in the latest instance. Here, CO2 rise seems to be preceding temperature rise. It wasn’t quite the “hockey stick” graph but it was pretty close. Then she made two more statements that had me shaking my head and muttering to myself. First, she said it doesn’t matter which comes first, CO2 or temperature. (It sure as hell does if you’re trying to prove cause and effect!) Then she extended the graph of CO2 to the year 2050 based upon our (the world’s) current output, recent growth and computer models. (What? You mean those models that you said had to many variables to be reliable predictors of species movements are now accurate enough to predict temperature rise and Global Change?)
Results of temperature rise were discussed vis-à-vis heat related deaths (using the data from the recent heat wave in Europe that “killed approximately 35,000 people, mostly elderly”) and drought (with special mention of the US southeast and southwest followed by a slide of a raging forest fire). *sigh* The implication being made was that if the flooded coastlines don't get us, we'll all burn or be dehydrated to death.
Opposition? What opposition? Nothing but a bunch of hired hacks.
Then we got into the smearing of any dissenters. (This is where things got a bit like a revival meeting as those that saw Inconvenient Truth became the Greek chorus.) First up was Siegfried Frederick Singer. who does have a bit of an unusual background and invites all sorts of questions if you look no further than this Wikipedia entry. Then the guns were turned upon Exxon and Exxon funded groups and studies. Big Oil seems to be a favorite target whether it’s for producing too many greenhouse gases (even though the speaker railed against coal as the prime source of CO2), not enough heating oil for homes or gasoline for automobiles or high prices for what it does produce. Exxon might as well adopt the Target logo.
Having dismissed the easily named and unsympathetic critics it was time to move on to all the other “non-reputable” scientists. (Unless you’re a backer or an acolyte, you are “non-reputable” for all “reputable scientists believe” that “there is no debate.”) As proof of the position take by “reputable scientists” a slide was put on the screen as the speaker said a study was done of articles in peer reviewed journals (none of which were named) and it was found that every one—EVERY ONE—of the 928 articles studied supported Anthropomorphic Climate Change (aka Global Warming As Caused by Man). Zero percent of the articles looked at thought otherwise. Remarkable! Meanwhile, in “popular journals,” 58% of the 636 articles studied were critical of ACC. Again no names of the “popular” publications were provided. You want to talk about cherry-picking your data! Unbelievable, but there were members of the audience who ate it up! You see, those “popular” articles were by people/groups funded by…wait for it…EXXON! *groan*
Now, for the big finish.
The speaker went on to what we can do to prevent all this death and destruction that lies on our very doorstep. First though she assured us that we have the ability and technology in the developed nations to fend off this scourge. All that is lacking, she said, is the political will. Yes, it will cost money, but we have plenty of it. Look at what happened with hurricane Katrina and New Orleans. It would have cost $14 Billion to rebuild the dikes prior to Katrina, she said. Instead we’re spending $200 Billion to rebuild the city. (Hey, if the water’s going to rise 6-7 meters, maybe we shouldn’t be doing that! And she showed a map of the US with every county in which a Katrina refugee (her word) relocated shaded in gray. It was almost all gray, of course as there was no indication of how many ‘refugees” went to each county. But that’s not important. We can’t, she said, relocate all those folks from low lying coastal areas.)
Back to the money. We have plenty, she said. Just look at the Iraq War and its daily cost. (Of course! Got to get something in here that is anti-war no matter how subtle!)
Okay, what can we do to stop the warming?
The temperature increase must be kept below 2 degrees Celsius. To do that we need to reduce our output of CO2 and other Green House Gases globally by 50% by 2050 and in industrial nations they must be reduced by 90% over the same time frame. (No indication of what this will mean to our life styles at all.) Changes must be made in the way we live at home, in our schools, our churches, our communities, the state, the world.
We must call or government representatives and insist they get on the ball to combat this most important threat.
We need to insulate our homes and make them more energy efficient. Our means of transportation must also be more efficient users of energy and must eventually move away from green house gas emissions as much as possible. Industry too must become more efficient in its use of fuels and reduce its emissions drastically. A pie chart showing our source of energy in PA was flashed on the screen.(Did you know we were one of the worst polluting states in the union? Only Texas and California produce more GHGs. Who’d have thunk it?) Coal is the major source of energy and of CO2. “No new coal fired plants should be built without CO2 sequestration.” (Since the Supreme Court has ruled the EPA can/must regulate CO2 and other green house gases as air pollutants despite being a natural component of the atmosphere, I don’t think that’s a problem anymore.) We must learn to use renewable energy such as hydro, wind and solar just as many towns in Europe are already 100% renewable. Of course, there was no mention of the use of nuclear power. (35% of Pennsylvania’s power comes from nuclear plants.)
You really can’t argue with many of the ideas for conserving energy and reducing pollution, and I think that’s the goal. Since that part of the program sounds so reasonable, everything else must also be reasonable including the call for $50 Billion from each nation per year, to combat climate change. (Of course, the poorer nations can’t possibly afford to do that so the money will have to come from…anyone? Buehler? Yep, the developed “rich” nations.)
Finally, the speaker closed with one of her favorite quotes about how you can’t achieve anything if you don’t try, but even in merely trying you’ve achieved a great deal…or something like that. I was total unfocused as to what it said when I saw who said it: Noam Chomsky. Afterward I thought, “How fitting.”
[As a side note, it was raining when I started typing this up this morning and the temperature was just around 35 degrees at the Aerie. It’s still around 35 degree at 9:30 AM but it’s snowing to beat the band outside and accumulating quite nicely. The weather gurus still insist it isn’t snowing when I check the weather.com site or the TV.]
No comments:
Post a Comment