Saturday, March 17, 2007

A Global Warming challenger?

I have recently heard of the The Great Global Warming Swindle documentary by Martin Durkin. Only through a website of a friend, who I know questions the issues thoroughly. ( but our own perspectives exceedingly differ )

The graph at the left depicts world temperatures for the last 120 years, as opposed to Al Gore's of a much greater stretch of time. What I find most disturbing about it is that humans have been using hydrocarbons longer than 1940 - they were called coal and oil. The first billion humans would have not have existed by the 20th century if hydrocarbons not been used until 1940.

Next, temperature changes that are ascribed to Global Warming are long-term. 20 years is not long-term. If we go back to the original usage of coal, we have been adding carbon to the atmosphere for hundreds of years longer than the Model-T ever existed. In 1748, America first delved into coal-mining. 50 tons were extracted from our Earth that year alone. When we look at the long-term effects of carbon in our atmosphere, they do not appear for about 100 years. So temperatures in 1940 to 1960 were affected by carbon put in our atmosphere around. It just so happens this is a time when the world and America went into an economic depression.

The primary argument in the documentary appears to be that the sun is more of a factor in Earth's temperature fluctuations. While the sun does affect us, here is a response from a scientist working for Britain.

Peak Oil - the markets vain attempt to ignore it

I am also concerned about this very charged statment: "Global warming is natural and will occur no matter how much we destroy our economy in a vain attempt to stop it."

The Global Warming argument is a good for those who believe in it to reduce hydrocarbon consumption. But others needs to hear about Peak Oil and its economic ramifications.

20% of American wages are spent on cars. That comes to around $700 a month per person. If we cut our vehicular consumption, where would that savings go? Back into the economy, and not to the Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Venezuela who sell us oil. Not as much to Japan, China, and Korea who make our cars. Why not conserve for these reasons alone?

Obviously cars have negative environmental consequences. One can greenwash this fact by stating that 95% of a car is recycled. But also 90% of the time it remains idle in a parking spot or stop light. If 10,000 people got together and pitched in $3000 each, they could build a light-rail line. They could support it for far less than $700 a month. But this economic model does not exist, because individuals cannot build light-rail lines anymore than interstates. ( individuals seldom have the right to take land as government does - looking out for one's self interest are not public-oriented )

America is so dependent on oil, we are heading for an economic dowturn. 100 years from now, we may end up selling all of our own coal to China, while stuck without oil in our engines. That would be the real tragedy of an addiction - having to quite cold turkey due to economic circumstances than choice.

Overpopulation is an issue, intertwined with immigration,family planning, and geopolitics. When you add that many people to the world over a short period of time, hydrocarbon usage whill increase exponentially. That is why it is so hard NOT to believe that Global Warming will not come about. We cry about 40,000 "overpopulated" wolves when a city of 40,000 humans is called a "large town."

What the Global Warming and Peak Oil skeptics appear to lack is perspective. It is smart to question when and to what extent these events will create. But it is utterly ridiculous to write them off completely because your political ideology does not accept it. Nature and Earth doesn't give a damn about your political beliefs, the truth cannot hide forever. Though when we all know for certain, it is probably too late to mitigate it.