Real Entry on Global Warming…

While I’ve been known for being strong (and stubborn) with certain issues, I’ve never been one to shy away from hearing all sides of the story. It’s why I read diaries of people like Ashleigh or NL… I want to know what everyone thinks about the issues, not just the people who agree with me on most things. I like to hear all sides, and while I can be quick to take a side… its never been for not hearing out the other side out. If anything, sometimes hearing the other side of a story can actually confirm my feelings, not change them. There are many issues that are not cut and dry. This is the case when it comes to touchy subjects like abortion, capital punishment and other moral delimas. These are complex issues that have more than two sides and a crapload of grey layers that make it far from one would call a cut and dry issue. Global warming is the same… because regardless of what many might say, it’s not a simple issue. There are many sides to this issue and many people out there have many ideas and theories that not conflict but support the idea that that planet is getting warmer.

Now I would like to post something status of our planet’s climate. Before I start, I want to make one thing perfectly clear: I’m not posting this to debunk or retort other entiries that have make a clear cut stance. My goal is to make a contribution to the debate and offer some information that I feel needs to be addressed and discussed. I also want to make it perfectly clear to others where I stand on the issue of pollution before I start tossing around alternate theories and what not.

1.) Is the planet getting warmer? I’m not a denier. I think the planet is indeed getting warmer. The why part is where I have my doubts and where much of the debate from this entry will come from.

2.) Do I think the Kyoto accord is a good thing? Yes, absolutely. I’m a full supporter of that and the work that was made to create it. Even though I don’t think it will make a lick of difference when it comes to global warming, there are other environmental problems that would benefit from the reduction of CO2 emmissions.

Now that I got those out of the way, let me present my official position on global warming: I don’t think it’s a man made problem. While I have no doubt that our CO2 emmissions are not helping the climate, to blame all one source as the leading or sole cause for what has likely been thousands of years of climate change is a tad irrational. Like I said above, I do think the planet is getting warmer but if we were to turn off every factory and destroy every car and stop all emmissions from going into the sky, there’s a good chance the planet could still continue to get warmer. The reason why is because there are other possible causes to why this is happening. While many scientists are eager to toss the problem onto the lap of industry and pollution, there are other causes that are pretty much impossible to reverse or change. Like it or not, the planet is going to get warmer regardless if we want it to or not. Is that going to spell the end of the world? I don’t think so. The fact is this planet has been warming up for quite a while, and there are examples of the planet cooling off as well, millions of years ago during a time known as the Ice Age.

My stance on this issue shifted a great deal when I was in high school. At the time I had my doubts about the issue, but didn’t say much since it wasn’t PC to argue against the whole green movement. One day, one of our teachers invited a doctor from a University in another province to discuss issues about the environment. Since this person specialized in climate and all that other jazz, I was under the assumption that this was going to be another ‘pollution is bad, we need to stop it ASAP’ lecture but I went anyway to get out of class. Turns out this lecture was anything but and because of that it was a real eye opener. The good doctor took the time to introduce us to alternate theories to why the planet was getting warmer, and that the event might be a natural occurance, and something that cannot be started or stopped by mankind. I could see the looks on the teachers face and how what was a completely politically incorrect speech was annoying them all to no end. The professor took the time to let us know that like all issues, there is more than one side to the story, and the issue of global warming was no different.

The professor had other ideas to why the planet was getting warmer. “Did anyone notice that bright shiny thing in the sky on the way here today?” he asked with a hint of sarcasm. Everyone chuckled as his humor and nodded, “Well that gigantic thing out there isn’t controlled by a light switch. That thing is not a controlled anomoly, it is free to pump out as much or as little energy as it wishes. Solar activity, both solar output and solar storm particles should have an enormous impact on our climate and how warm or cold our planet becomes. For any scientist to deny this as a factor to our planet’s warmth is one of many alternate reasons to why our planet is getting warmer.

Another theory he presented had to do with gravity. “I know you guys are made to believe that we circle the sun like this.” he went on to draw a perfect circile, “But unfortunately, gravity is not that mathematically perfect. Our orbit of the sun most likely looks more like this.” he went on to draw wavy lines so instead of a perfect circle, he had what looked like a twenty armed octopus, “this is how our orbit works as the gravitational pull from other massive planets like Jupiter and Saturn would pull us away and sometimes closer to the sun based on their own positon in their own respective orbits. So this means there are times in our orbit when we are closer to the sun and other times when we are far away. So when our planet is farther away from the sun, it gets colder. So what happens when our orbit takes us closer to the sun?” everyone shouted the answer, “Of course, it gets WARMER.”

This lecture was a real eye opener for many students that day. His message was clear: there is more than one cause to global warming, and to pin that on just one cause was irrational and not good science. For example, it has been suggested that we are in the middle of a 2000 year magnetic pole reversal. If true, there are countless ways that could effect our climate. We have also been mining many water tables in our ever expanding irrigation of the planet. This would cause larger shifts in water vapor than what we see in CO2. I’m not saying these are the real reasons our climate is changing, my point is we can’t ignore all the possible reasons just because they don’t include CO2 emmissions as their main cause.

During that lecture I was attending, someone did take a moment to ask the professor if there are natural reasons that could explain why the planet is getting warmer, why was everyone focusing on and pretty much blaming it all on them. It was a valid question, and I was curious to know what he thought about that as well. His answer was the best I have ever heard when he responded. He didn’t accuse anyone of trying to weasel funds from the government to further their research, nor did he accuse anyone of being on the take from a major corporation like greenpeace. He gave a very rational reason to why only pollution and emmessions of CO2 are taking all the rap: it’sthe only cause that we have the ability or power to change. We don’t have the ability to fight or change our orbit or how much power the sun radiates, He didn’t deny that emmissions are not a cause of the problem, he just didn’t think they were the only cause of the problem. However, it’s the only man made cause so he said he couldn’t blame people for focusing on that one because it’s the only one you can fight and change. The others are natural causes that we can’t change even if we wanted to, so it’s a case of fighting the causes you can make a difference in and accepting the ones you can’t fight.

It was a good lecture, and I actually stayed behind to talk to him more afterwards to ask questions and stuff. I found the information I got from this seminar very educational, and while I didn’t accept it all as gospel or anything, his simple common sense approach to a very complex issue was rather unique and taught us all to think outside the box and not accept everything just because it’s the PC thing. The fact is there are many recorded incidents in history of the planet being warmer than usual, just because we don’t have the exact scientific data from those times doens’t mean it shouldn’t be taken into account. I’m not saying that CO2 emmissions are not hurting the climate, I just don’t think they’re the only suspect. I think that climate is being double, possibly triple teamed by many factors, not juts one. In order words, I don’t think the issue is entirely man made.

One example I personally love to use to play with during enironmental debates when discussing the effects of pollution on the environment is Mount St. Helen’s. I’m sure everyone is aware of the massive eruption that volcano went through in 1980, but no one takes into account what effect it had on the environment. When that mountain blew it’s top, literally… it blew over half a billion (540 million) tons of sulphur into the air and covered an area of more than 22,000 miles. In one explosion, this volcano pumped more pollution into the sky than every single factory in north america combined could generate running full steam for a full century. So what happened to the environment in that area? It was devastated, but it slowly recovered over the last twerty-six years and healed itself. Now the area is as lush and fertile as it was prior to the eruption. There are no massive ozone holes over Mount St. Helen’s, nor is the area warming up any faster than it was before. For some reason this area is a complete anomoly since it puffed up the same gases that many industries is being chastized for putting up as well. This one volcanaic eruption surpassed all the output of polluntion we’re putting in the sky right now, yet for some reason the amount we’re putting up there is getting the rap for the climate change going on. I’m not trying to flat out say any sides are wrong, but the logic of all this just seems a tad fishy and requires more attention and definitely more research.

For the record, I’m all for emmission reduction. I think we need to force car companies to make better vehicles for the environment. If they refuse to abide by our request, we should pressure government to legislate new tougher regulations into law. We need to regulate massive tax breaks for people to commute and use pubic transportation to improve emmissions and do as much as possible to make things work. I can’t guarentee that it would make a difference with regards to global warming, there is no proof it would, but it would benefit other issues that emmissions are known to cause like acid rain, air quaility and what not. So for those reasons I’m all for respecting the Kyoto accords and pressuring my government to honor them and meet the expected goals. If that happens to help out the issue of Global Warming, that’s just icing on a very big cake, nothing more.

So do I think the professor was right? Honestly, I’m not sure… but it was interesting to hear the other side of the story and to hear someone have to courage to stand up and speak his mind even if he/she would be opposed for expressing a view that wasn’t PC at the time. There are many others out there in the scientific community who believe and have written interesting pieces about the alternate causes for global warming. They are not denying anything, but adding other causes to what might be a bigger problem. To dismiss them might not be the best course of action just cause they don’t fully agree with the tree huggers and greenpeace. While I’m not sure if he’s right, he did present some sound theories that suggest that even if we follow everyone else’s views and cut emmissions of CO2, it could change nothing.

Yet I understand that global warming has become a hotly contested issue. It’s gotten to the point where both sides are being accused of being bought off and/or lying for personal or financial gains. Either you’re scaring the government and the public into funding your project more or you’re lining your pockets with the proheir pockets via big oil. You know an issue has gotten out of hand when all sides are accusing the other of lying and exaggerating to futher their own cause and not seek the truth. The fact is I don’t think anyone is lying and that all sides legitmately believe their side. There is a chance that pollution is the cause of what’s going on, but there’s no more solid evidence to prove that then there is to prove the other theories and suggestions that have been presented above. I happen to think they all are having an effect on the climate and the changes are going to keep happening even if we stop all CO2 emmissions.

What I took from that lecture was more than just a new view on the issue, but an attitude of how one should approach any issue. Don’t make it personal, just look into it and draw your own conclusions. Don’t take anyone’s word for it, look into it and make your own choices on what to believe and what not to believe. While my views on the issue were effected by his lecture, the attitude in which he presented his views made an impact as well. It led me to look into the issue further and make my own conclusions. I recommend doing the same, and I look forward to hearing (or reading) what you have to say about it.

Peter