Lake Mead and Me or: Why Climate Change Doesn’t Heat Me
My maternal grandmother was born in a town which, like so many in my home state, no longer exists. Kaolin existed near the Muddy River, a small tributary of the Colorado River. The Muddy River was pioneered by Mormons in 1865, mostly abandoned in 1871, and resettled in the 1880s. (Henry Eyring mentioned the abandonment of the Muddy River in his 1989 conference talk “Remembrance and Gratitude“. David Bednar’s mother was born in St. Thomas, also on the Muddy, three years before my grandmother.) Between 1936 and 1938, the Colorado rose 700 feet and submerged the foundations of Kaolin and the roofs of St. Thomas. The river rose because the highest dam in America was built and created a 200 square mile lake behind it. What was the benefit of flooding my grandmother’s birthplace? Twenty-eight million acre-feet of water storage that irrigates 1.4 million acres of farmland in California, Arizona and Mexico and provides municipal water to 16 million people. Also, four billion kilowatt-hours of electricity annually. Lake Mead also provided a particularly personal benefit to me. A road was needed along the north shore to replace the old flooded route, but not too badly, because it wasn’t until 1965 that it was built. Thus my father came to town with the road crew and met my mother.
There are two apartments that my family was the last to live in before they were demolished. The first time, I was six, and as bulldozers knocked down the buildings near ours, I hoped there wouldn’t be any confusion that would cause our building to be destroyed before we moved out of it. I suppose there was something really wrong with those buildings, because in a county whose population boomed from 300,000 to nearly two million, nothing has yet been built on the site. The second time, I was thirty-four, and new construction began immediately.
Several Mormon-themed web sites have run posts around the concept that Latter-day Saints should be particularly concerned about changes in the global climate. Let me outline a reason why I, due to being a Latter-day Saint, am not much concerned: Joseph Smith was born in Vermont. In his tenth year, his father moved his family to Palmyra, New York after climate related crop failures. Four years after that, the Smith family moved to Manchester, in the same county. After organization of the church, Kirtland, Ohio became a gathering place for the saints, and not long after they had begun settling there, Jackson County, Missouri was identified as Zion and many of the church’s members moved there. Mobs drove the saints from Jackson County, and dissension disrupted the stake in Kirtland, and so most members ended up in more northern counties of Missouri in places such as Far West and Adam-Ondi-Ahman. Mobs drove the saints from those counties as well, and they founded a new city, Nauvoo, on the Mississippi River. In Illinois, mobs killed Joseph Smith and again drove the saints from their homes. Brigham Young led the saints to a new home in the northern part of Mexico, but by the time they reached it, the United States had acquired the territory. From its new center in Salt Lake City, the Latter-day Saints spread out to occupy every nook of the surrounding territory they could and some which, at the time, they couldn’t; see the first paragraph above. Today, Utah is home to about a sixth of the church’s membership. Missionaries first went abroad to England, and for a time, that was where most of the church’s membership could be found. Other missionaries went to Pacific islands and were so effective that large portions of some small nations there are members of the church. Missions to Scandinavian nations produced large numbers of converts who migrated to the Great Basin and added their mark to the Latter-day Saints. Even though the European nations produced most of the converts through the church’s first century, relatively few come into the church there today. For the last few decades, most converts have joined the church in Latin American nations, most of which had no missionaries or branches even half a century ago.
My point in the particular way I reviewed the last couple centuries is that stability has not been a characteristic of the church’s progress. Sometimes conditions have been undesirable; the church adapts and moves on and advances. When people worry over change in the future, I wonder how static they think the past has been. Last week the Washington Post ran a front page story on the shifting coastline of the Cheasapeake Bay. Over the last century, the ground was dropped a half-foot as part of the geologic aftermath of the last ice age. This natural process that humanity seems to be weathering well enough is somehow pointed to as evidence of how awful it will be if, in addition, sea levels rise at two or three times this rate over the next century.
The New York Times on Wednesday ran a set of articles in the business section on The Energy Challenge: coal plants aren’t sequestering carbon dioxide; European governments are proposing emission reductions; Australians are changing light bulbs. An essay the day before in their science section, though, shows just how deep The Energy Challenge runs: mammals, being warm-blooded creatures, consume ten times the energy that similarly sized reptiles do. I really hope that piece depressed some combustion abolitionists as they pondered the bad news that thanks to thermal homeostasis, they can’t just lie on a rock waiting for the sun to warm them, but instead have to get out of bed and make breakfast. We’re not lizards. We’re not wild mammals. In terms of our vastly expanded productivity, we’re not even our pre-industrial ancestors. The impact of climate change over the course of the 21st Century will be a very small thing compared with the changes that the 19th Century witnessed.
I suppose that Canada doesn’t count as “abroad”, eh?
I was attempting a degree of concision in reciting 200 years of history, in some places at the expense of precision. Canada is the first foreign country where American missionaries preached, but I’m not sure if crossing Lake Ontario counts as “abroad”.
John M, I join you in being completely unconcerned about climate change. I have read a tremendous amount about the subject and find the current hype ridiculous, to be quite frank.
The scientific record shows the world was warmer during Jesus’ day than it is now. There was a mini ice age 300 to 400 years ago. Thomas Jefferson wrote that in about 1700 snow lasted in Virginia until May or June but by his day it was all gone by April. Now the snow only lasts a few days after the snowstorm. Remember the picture of George Washington crossing the Delaware? There were big blocks of ice near Trenton, and that doesn’t happen anymore. Clearly, the earth is getting warmer, just as it did 2000 years ago.
John M, you’re a brave man to take on this subject. The global warming fundamentalists will certainly be out in force. Take courage, my friend!
Sorry about these incoherent blocks of comments. Our wonderful software is blocking me from posting. I’ll try to make it coherent in the future. I actually had this nice, long comment that made some sense. No time to fix it now. Sorry.
Geoff B,
One could argue it is exactly the hype that will lead mankind to adapting, moving on and advancing in the face of turmoil and upheaval.
If a rise of a degree or two Celsius means a substantial reduction in the length of the ski season at Alta or in a change in the quality of the snow (for example, a rainstorm in late February), that alone is reason to do all we can to reverse that warming. Can we get a microclimate going in Little Cottonwood Canyon?
The melting of the polar ice caps, orange groves in Greenland, Al Gore filled with even hotter air than now–who cares??
Mark, that actually is a big worry of mine. (No joke)
Sadly the retreating glaciers in Glacier National Park has also significantly changed the places I used to love going. I have fond memories of a trip where we rappelled down into a crevasse and spent the afternoon climbing out. (The ice was quite overhung)
Guys, climate change is inevitable regardless of what we humans do. The earth is getting slightly warmer. There is nothing we can do about it, just as there was nothing the Romans could do about it 2000 years ago and there was nothing the Elizabethans could do to prevent the mini ice age of that period.
I am a conservationist conservative, so I’m very concerned about the environment in the grander scale. From a national security perspective, if we can encourage alternate sources of energy (solar, wind, ethanol, etc), that’s a great thing. But please remember those things only work when the market is there. The greatest force will always be the free market. If you want to effect change, you must find ways to use the market to bring about change. So, for example, even greater tax breaks for solar, etc. are a great idea. Solar power in China, for example, is now developed enough that cells can power small houses. With enough tax breaks, we could start doing that here, and that would be a wonderful thing.
Just one small example: I have a large empty roof on my house and an empty deck that the former occupants used for sun-bathing (I am melanin-challenged, so no sun-bathing for me). That deck and roof are just crying out to be filled with solar cells. In Miami, this is a great thing because the power always goes out after a hurricane, and being solar powered is 100 times better than being generator-powered. But I have run the numbers and it would take me 12 years to pay for a solar system, and by then most solar systems get clogged up and stop working. If I could get tax breaks to off-set the cost, I would do it in a heartbeat.
My main concern with the hype is its effect on economic growth, which will, in the end, bring greater prosperity and less pollution. So, the crazy schemes (ie Kyoto) that would slow economic growth are, in the end, counter-productive.
To fix the ski area problem, just send Al Gore there to lecture on Global Warming. It’s called the “Gore Effect.”
http://instapundit.com/archives2/2007/01/post_1787.php
and remember to think of the cildren!!!!!
http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZTY1MzMxNGQ2YzIxMDM5YjJhZjU5YmY5ODlmMmUyYzA=
On a more serious note, the debate over what to do about global warming has more to do with gaining political power than saving the environment. Many of those telling “us” we need to sacrifice consume more energy in a week with their private jets and multi-million dollar mansions than any of “us” do in a year. There are some sensible and positive ways to combat warming, but generally those are ignored in favor of programs designed to give more power to those already in charge.
Guys, climate change is inevitable regardless of what we humans do.
While that’s a true statement to a point, the degree of climate change is very, very much up to humans. But given the past 150 years significant climate change is probably undoable. However it can get much worse. The problem is that the effects have a sufficient lag that those most able to do something probably won’t, given the realities of how our political systems work. Not to mention India and China’s modernization.
On a more serious note, the debate over what to do about global warming has more to do with gaining political power than saving the environment. Many of those telling “us” we need to sacrifice consume more energy in a week with their private jets and multi-million dollar mansions than any of “us” do in a year.
The fact some proponents are horrible hypocrites says nothing about the problem. It is a real serious problem that we need to come to grips with. Personally I wouldn’t mind at all a huge tax on private jets.
Clark, you know that even the Kyoto protocols would have, in the best case, lowered global temperatures by a fraction of a centigrade C. There’s not much we humans can do except make political points and try to win Oscars for hyped-up movies with exaggerated “facts” that try to make us look like we’re really “concerned.”
If we must try to do something, let’s, as I said, try to use market forces, which can truly have an effect on things over time.
I read your post a second time to try to make the connection between your position and the possibility that your views were “due” to your LDSness. I have difficulty understanding why Mormons aren’t more concerned about environmentalism and I was wondering if you could take another stab at making the connection explicit for me.
Now there are things I do that are against what I believe (I am overweight but believe that God wants me to be wise in caring for my physical body, etc., etc.), and that is part of temporal existence; we have to choose what “heats” us up.
For me environmental sustainability is about stewardship that we learn about so explicitly in the endowment. So I understand saying, there are so many more things I have to worry about so I can’t get too heated up about global warming, but I would like to understand how it is your LDSness that lets you off the hook.
[my political aside is that given the hype and the over-politicization, as and American rather than a Mormon, it seems in our best interest to ride the wave. In an global information economy it might not be important that it is not that serious, just that it is thought to be serious. So if the US jumps on board and develops the technology to placate the doomsayers, then we can sell that technology to the nations that are following in our polluting/consumptive/unsustainable development. Whatever the reliability of global warming data (and the relevance of the interpretation attached to it), the economics seems reliable enough to act upon.]
The fact some proponents are horrible hypocrites says nothing about the problem. It is a real serious problem that we need to come to grips with.
I think you’re missing my point. It is, of course, a serious problem. Perhaps I wasn’t clear on that. The problem is, those who we seem to have ceded moral authority to on this issue do not, as their hypocrisy shows, actually have the best interests of the environment in mind. They’re mostly concerned about getting/gaining political power.
Kyoto is joke that is all about punishment. It will at best, as Geoff mentioned, lower the temp by a fraction of a degree over several decades. Not much there.
Not one of the most popular political policies out on the table and being treated seriously by politicians, pundits and publishers is really worth much (IMHO). I have come across what seem to me more reasonable solutions, but they’re also solutions that don’t give extra power to those already in charge.
here is one (along with some discussion of it as well):
http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/18175/page3/
http://instapundit.com/archives2/002639.php
http://nomayo.mu.nu/archives/216044.php
{the last one has a great quote I agree with: “Global warming is about control. It is about one group of people acquiring the power to tell the rest of us how to live our lives. An idea that prevents the climate from warming without that transfer of political power is dead on arrival.”}
So, I’m not saying that some advocates are hypocrites and therefore there’s no problem - I’m saying most high profile advocates on this issue are hypocrites and their hypocrisy reveals another motive entirely.
I’ve basically believed this for almost a decade, after I read the scare mongering tome The Coming Global Superstorm back in 1999, a book which basically has the thesis: “turn all control of the economy over to us NOW or we’re all doomed.” After I finished the book, I realized the policies were all about power (and social ism), not stewardship over the earth.
Now, I will say, not being much of a scientist, that I may just be reading it all wrong. But as a rhetorician, the rhetoric turns me off, as most of the rhetoric flowing around the issue really is more about power and doomsday scenarios than workable solutions.
Ivan,
There was a really interesting interview done on NPR’s Talk of the Nation - Science Friday with the director of the documentary “Flock of Dodos.”
The documentary covers the Pennsylvania evolution trial that pitted Intelligent Design people against the Evolution people. The director makes the point, as a believer in evolution, that the scientists do an absolutely wretched job of making their case to the American people. Whereas the creationists and ID folks have all their talking points in order. The science simply is not being made accessible to the public.
Quandmeme, I’ll try that second stab you asked for. The concern people have with climate change is displacement: crops that grow best at a particular latitude now will need to be cultivated somewhere else; people living in some places won’t be able to stay where they are; beloved natural features like certain glaciers may not always be there. That tomorrow won’t be like today worries many. The history of the Latter-day Saints shows strongly that today isn’t like yesterday, either, and while the changes were often not desirable (being run out of Zion, for instance), the church continued and even prospered under whatever new conditions existed.
A river rose 700 feet to flood my grandmother’s birthplace so that valuable resources (water and electricity) could benefit millions of people. Allowing coastlines throughout the world to rise a foot or two seems to me a price worth paying that all of mankind may enjoy the benefits of combustion, especially when that change is compared with the changes that are an inevitable part of living anyhow. In terms of stewardships, to not do so may be comparable to the servant who buried his talent for fear of losing what he had in his care.
When we read of the charge to Adam “to dress, and to keep” the Garden of Eden, I don’t think the stewardship was to maintain everything the way it was. (What need of Adam for that?) It sounds to my ears more like the charge to a homesteader to improve his half-section if he wants to retain it.
Seth R. -
That does seem to be a problem. It’s like the stem cell debate, which basically goes like this:
Stem Cell opponent: I have ethical concerns.
Scientist: Trust us, we know what we’re doing. We’re scientists.
Not exactly the way to win the public over to stem cell research.
Basically, the cries of “we only have ten years to save the planet!!!” that are going around seemed designed to scare the public into supporting environmental proposals, but instead are more likely to make the public ignore them they way they ignore those guys with “THE END IS NEAR” signs.
I don’t know Ivan.
It’s likely to have that effect on you… and me to some extent.
But never underestimate the power of a good populist slogan campaign.
It really depends on whose talking heads end up discredited first.
John (#17),
A small modification to your statement might be in order. It would be better to say that “one concern people have with climate change is displacement.” And in some ways, your comparisons have some validity. But you have to admit that allowing your grandmother’s birthplace to be flooded and raising the coastlines a foot or two have one radical difference: magnitude. By this I mean the number of people, and other organisms that could very potentially be displaced (either physically or economically).
Of course, as Quandmeme mentioned, all the talk about displacement cannot overcome the issue of stewardship. Yes, Adam wasn’t commanded to leave the garden unchanging. But he was commanded to dress it and care for it. Caring for the earth doesn’t mean that we ignore the very real effects that we have on it. It doesn’t mean that we defensively fight against prudent, logical changes in our own behavior for the good of the Earth. Now, to use the Chesapeake Bay example in more detail; if the coastline rises even 7 to 10 inches there, the real problem won’t be displacement of the people who can no longer live there (either because their dwellings are now flooded or their livelihood — crabbing, for example, is no longer possible), but ecosystem destruction. Yes, humanity could probably get by without the Maryland Blue Crabs that would go extinct because of too many new species introduced into the bay through rising and warming temperatures. People could learn to eat other foods. Crabbers could (possibly) find some other way to earn a living. But the crabs would still be gone. And that, to me, is poor stewardship.
You have every right to be turned off by the vocal rhetoric of those seeking to use climate change for political power. I think Ivan is, in some ways, spot on in his analysis of the hypocrisy of many of those who have taken up the banner of global warming. But just because some are mis-using this issue for their own selfish gains doesn’t give anyone the right to selfishly abandon our charge to be proper stewards over what God has given us. To use perhaps a better analogy, a parent who continues to smoke in a closed car with his children inside is still being a poor parent even if he disagrees with the political rhetoric of the most recent anti-smoking laws.
N.G., thanks for expressing your concerns here. I agree with you that raising the coastlines worldwide a foot is a much larger thing than the impact of a single dam. On the other hand, the benefits of worldwide combustion use are also much bigger, so I think my example still has some merit.
I think the ecological concerns for habitat loss are still a matter of displacement for the most part. Animals and plant species are mobile. Your example with the blue crab is a good one for me to remember, though. Some creatures have a niche, and if that disappears rapidly, so does the creature.
The Congress that passed the Homestead Act, and President Lincoln who signed it, would be puzzled at your increasing the amount of land that could be proved up from 160 acres (a quarter section) to a half section.
That being said, there’s a whole lot about our modern society that would puzzle them even more.
On another issue: it’s amusing to see the notes in the press (or at least in the online press) about Al Gore’s place just outside Nashville, which reportedly used electricity last year at a rate more than 10 times that of the average household. But Big Al could just use that to justify his arguments: the highest use was in August, when the 20,000 square feet cottage needed a lot of air conditioning. If only the high temperature that month had been 75, he could have kept the power use way down!
Ah, but the Enlarged Homestead Act of 1909 doubled the amount of land that could be proved to 320 acres. Here’s a patent that was filed on a half-section in Colorado:
http://www.glorecords.blm.gov/PatentSearch/Detail.asp?Accession=34832&Index=5&QryID=57651.73&DetailTab=1
http://www.buffalocommons.org/docs/smenu1/homestead.html
montanakids.com/db_engine/presentations/presentation.asp?pid=329
Geoff: (#13) “Clark, you know that even the Kyoto protocols would have, in the best case, lowered global temperatures by a fraction of a centigrade C. There’s not much we humans can do”
I strongly disagree. Kyoto is a rather low point. As I recall we need something like 60 Kyotos to achieve a good halt - and even then we’d still have effects for decades. However that doesn’t mean we couldn’t achieve that. We have the capability just not the political will.
Now I’m enough of a cynic to believe we’ll never have the will. (Witness Canada which isn’t doing well despite accepting Global Warming far more than most Americans) However to say there’s nothing we can do is simply wrong. And that’s neglecting technology. I think the Bush administration could have done a lot more on that front.
Ivan (#15), there’s no doubt that all change involves people jockying for power. That’s true of anything. Witness what 9/11 brought us. However the fact the powerful (and many raging against the machine) see this as about power doesn’t mean there isn’t a truth behind it all. As they say, when you’re a hammer everything looks like a nail. If you look only at power-relations that’s all you’ll see.
John: (#17) Allowing coastlines throughout the world to rise a foot or two seems to me a price worth paying that all of mankind may enjoy the benefits of combustion, especially when that change is compared with the changes that are an inevitable part of living anyhow. In terms of stewardships, to not do so may be comparable to the servant who buried his talent for fear of losing what he had in his care.
The problem is that those who will be forced to move are the poorest. Americans, by and large, will be able to adjust. Look at our worst disasters of 9/11 and New Orleans and how quickly we adjusted. Although even here the poor suffered the most. Now take into consideration the effects on Asia and the increase draught in Africa. And those are those least able to adjust and who already are in abject poverty.
Certainly Adam’s stewardship does mean the repetition of the same (as some environmentalists demand). However with rapid extinction and this suffering that is hardly shared by all it seems were not fulfilling our stewardship in the least. Rather the benefits will be gained by the rich and the poor will suffer. While I’m pretty critical of placing the blame for the poor’s status on the rich (it’s typically wrong) in this case it is quite right.
Worst yet this is going to lead to further political destabilization.
As to rapid extinction. While I’m sure God doesn’t demand everything stay the same, I’m sure he wouldn’t be happy if 90% of what he planted was dead. It’s hard to see that as stewardship.
Ivan: (#18) Basically, the cries of “we only have ten years to save the planet!!!” that are going around seemed designed to scare the public into supporting environmental proposals, but instead are more likely to make the public ignore them they way they ignore those guys with “THE END IS NEAR” signs.
I agree 100%. The media isn’t helping either by focusing in on anecdotal evidence. But it’s constantly amazing to me how so many scientists don’t realize how much of their effort is counter-productive. Not just on stem cells, but on evolution, on global warming, and much else. There is a real disconnect.
Maybe things will be more honest under the new Democratic Congress, but the track record of the Republican congress on energy issues has been one of deception and appearances, rather than substance.
In 2005, a tax credit for purchasing hybrid cars was passed, with a credit of up to $3,150 for a Toyota Prius, for example. Looked good, and sounded like tax breaks were encouraging such green purchasing behaviour.
The catch is, few people qualified for this credit, because of the fine print. It turns out that you can’t get the full credit unless your regular tax obligation exceeds your Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) obligation by at least that amount. But pretty much the only folks who can afford a hybrid car costing more than $20,000 are the very same dual-income upper-middle-class folks who get trapped in the AMT.
So the government gets the glory of passsing the tax break without having to actually shell out the dollars.
(Of course, taxpayers earning more than $750,000 get the full credit, because of the way the AMT works.)
On Ivan’s point about the would-be overlords grasping for power, the NY Times published an editorial advocating the HPV vaccine that is amazingly tone deaf for a product of professional writers. “Others complain that a mandate will pre-empt parental rights to make health decisions, but all vaccine mandates do that, to protect the children and those they might infect. The strongest arguments against moving ahead quickly tend to be practical and financial.” In other words: “Get with the program, dullards. We’ve already pre-empted some of your rights and the only question as to when we’ll stop is how our budget works out.” Those vying for power are just as likely to use a real problem to do that as a phony problem; however, that can work the other way around as well.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/26/opinion/26mon1.html
Clark, your view on climate change seems to be solidfying, as well it might as more information comes in. What impact do you expect and with how much certainty do you expect it? What has made the matter less ambiguous for you?
I expect that we’ll find that the polar caps and Greenland ice will melt faster than we expect. There will be huge impacts. For one the long sought after Northwest Passage will open in Canada leading to significant differences in trading routes. (Bye-bye Panama Canal in terms of usage) However this will also lead to significant pollution in the north.
I expect extinctions, which already are pretty huge the last 60 years to sky-rocket even more. Especially among fish stocks.
I really expect Africa to get a lot worse.
While I think we’re going to suffer some big economic rollercoasters ultimately the US, Canada, and EU will do OK. However I think eventually a lot of folks living on the Gulf Coast will have to move. But we’re so ridiculously rich that I don’t think it’ll be a big issue. So it’ll be costly for us, but the developed world simply can adapt quite well.
The big questions are in Asia. What will China do? I haven’t a clue. Some people are really worried about China becoming the new juggernaut however there are a lot of big instabilities in their country - especially their banking system. They’re trying to modernize quickly but the vast majority of their country lives in ridiculous poverty and conditions. Further the environmental damage in their country is really getting out of hand.
I tend to think stopping global warming is a lost cause. (So in that I agree with Geoff - I just think we could do something had we the will) However we can slow it down somewhat. The big things that have to happen are the shift to the hydrogen economy which is simply taking a lot longer than expected. Then we have to get more programs in effect to prepare for the big agricultural shifts. Far too much of the US depends on foreign foods. I’d like to see some programs to diversify that a bit.
Oh, as to what’s made the matter less ambiguous. Mainly reading and having most of my complaints met. As you know I was a big skeptic in the 90’s. But I think there have been a lot of measurements made, especially the last 5 years, that establish things. Further I look at all the rejoinders to critics of global warming by scientists in the field and the responses are pretty solid. It looks more and more like the ID debate to me.
As to the HPV vaccine, I think it silly to demand vaccines to parents, even though I think every parent ought be vaccinated. As you know if enough parents don’t vaccinate that has effects to the community. The evidence is though that 1/4 to 1/3 of all women have the virus. It causes a pretty horrible form of cancer that can be nearly eradicated by a simple vaccine. So I don’t see this as power merely some people trying to be good in a perhaps short sighted way.
Clark and others may be interested in this National Geographic story: it appears that Mars is warming also. Again, not much we humans can do about global warming.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html
Geoff, I might note that this does not say anything about the level of warming on earth, which even the authors of that paper agree has a human cause. To argue for human caused warming is not to discount cycles in the sun.
Clark, you may want to read these articles:
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=2f4cc62e-5b0d-4b59-8705-fc28f14da388
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/technology/technology.html?in_article_id=440049&in_page_id=1965
See this
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/10/con-allegre-ma-non-troppo/
on Claude Allègre.
This could be titled “why annegb is right not to worry.” I’ve felt guilty lately because I’m not that concerned that my children and grandchildren will have to deal with climate changes. I worry about a lot of other things more.
But, you know, we’ve been in a drought for a long time here in southern Utah. Finally this winter, we had a real winter. Spring is starting to dawn here. It feels right.
I can’t explain it very well, but it makes people nervous when things don’t happen like they’re supposed to. We enjoy the fall season, the cooling and the softening of the light, and wait for winter, which doesn’t happen. It puts one off balance.
This year, even though people complain about the snow, they are not nerve wracked. And spring feels even more wonderful.
I think I’ve just talked myself into worrying about global warming. I wish people would just stop worrying, because I’m a nervous wreck as it is. I do not need one more thing to worry about.
The warmer the better! the entire global warming thing is a ridiculous notion that some people think needs to be addressed for what reason? The polar ice caps may melt and flood us away? In what generation, ours? Probably not, and then even if they do melt, what could we do to stop it now! I myself do not care about this as much as everyone else here. Afterall, nobody can tell me the world is any warmer when on 6 March 2007, it is -16C at 12noon where I am working, so cold, not so warm and so ‘The Warmer, The Better!’
According to the Aprtil issue of the Atlantic:
“The Real Roots of Darfur: The violence in Darfur is usually attributed to ethnic hatred. But global warming may be primarily to blame. “
Yep. That’s gonna make the public listen to the scientists - your SUVs are respnonsible for genocide!!!!!! (since Darfur was a utopia overflowing with milk and honey before the SUV was invented). Arguments like this may please the chattering class, but the public will just roll their eyes.
As Clark said, scientists need better PR machines than the ones they’ve got. This issue has become unneccesarily partisan.