Climate change is not a science problem. There is consensus among the scientists that climate change is real, caused by human activity and what needs to be done.
Taking action is not awaiting scientific consensus. It is awaiting political consensus and economic understanding. Those denying reality are the problem and will be judged harshly by history.
Unlike nuclear war which may happen, climate change is happening. The fact that it unfolds gradually makes it is no less real and no less an existential threat.
Imagine going to the doctor and receiving a diagnosis of diabetes. You don’t like the diagnosis so you get a second opinion, 100 times. 99 of the doctors agree you have diabetes, one who works for a soft drink company disagrees. Would you change your behavior?
Regarding climate change, 99% of scientists agree it is an existential threat that demands aggressive action. One percent, employed by fossil fuel companies disagree. Will you change your behavior?
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report written by scientists from 40 countries citing over 6,000 references determined that we must reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 45% below 2010 levels by 2030 to avoid catastrophic results. Last year emissions hit a record high so we are well above 2010 levels. We have 11 years to make a 50% reduction in emissions.
There is 50% more carbon in the atmosphere than before industrialization. The last five years were the five warmest on record.
Last year the United States released its Climate Assessment from 13 government agencies including NOAA, NASA, Departments of Agriculture, and Defense. They warned of reduced agricultural yields, rising oceans, ocean acidification, increased severe weather events, more frequent fires, droughts, and slowing economic growth.
We are currently on course for a 4 degrees Centigrade or 7.2 Fahrenheit rise in temperature this century. Peak warming occurs 50 years after emissions hit zero because of the long half life of the gases.
Climate change is the real National Emergency. We have entered positive feedback loops such as losing reflective ice so more heat is absorbed and melting permafrost releasing methane, a potent greenhouse gas. Our response must be proportionate to the scale of the problem.
The costs of addressing climate change should not be an obstacle because doing nothing will cost more. Renewable energy is creating more jobs than outdated fossil fuels. We are currently spending hundreds of billions of dollars per year on fires, storms, floods and draughts. Our economy is dependent our environment.
Physicists predicted this 100 years ago. Science is predictable. Fossil fuel companies knew about this 50 years ago. They hired the lobbyists of the tobacco industry used to create doubt and prevent regulatory action. Even President Trump believes in climate change, he proves it by building sea walls around his golf courses to protect from rising oceans.
We will not salvage our moral authority by being the only country to deny science and failing in our responsibility in this world wide crisis. We will not reclaim our position as world leader by waiting for other countries to lead.
The United States is responsible for 26% of all human-caused greenhouse gases. Because we are the leading contributor to the problem we must lead in solving the problem.
This problem has an expiration date. This is our generation’s WWII moment. It is time to act.
What can you do? Vote for people who will do something. Consume less, have fewer children, educate your self and others, eat local, support renewables and support land use policies that sequester carbon.
Climate change cannot be wished or bargained away. It will haunt every aspect of society. You can’t simultaneously claim to love your children while selling their future.
“Nature is part of all of our deals and decisions, and she has more votes, a longer memory, and a sterner sense of justice than we do.” Wendell Barry
George says
It must still be too cold out to make hot rod sounds…
Kim Wentworth says
Let’s see, 99% of scientists agree on climate change? Small sample group I would say. First off, climate change goes in cycles. Example, ya ever guess where AOC gets her “12 year statement” from. Because that is when temps and such will cycle back “the other way”. What is the problem with fossil fuels?? NOTHING, they were created by the earth going through changes over time, a very long time. Man, has only been here a very short time, blink of an eye so to speak. Your scientists whom you mention in support of climate change ALL have a vested, monetary reason for their statements as well, your statement on carbon is so funny. Without carbon we are dead. We are made of carbon. The arguments you can’t get around is 1) that the earth has gone thru changes LONG before humans 2) there is NO scientific data that supports a DIRECT climate change/ human connection. For every area of ice cap loss, an area of increased ice mass has been noted on this planet. Of all the devastating changes the earth has gone through, to think something as lowly, insignificant as human beings can control the changes to this planet is at best arrogant. Nice try though…
Aaron Bishop says
Greetings Kim,
Would you be okay if I mentioned you in an upcoming article as the author of this statement: “Without carbon we are dead. We are made of carbon. The arguments you can’t get around is 1) that the earth has gone thru changes LONG before humans 2) there is NO scientific data that supports a DIRECT climate change/ human connection. For every area of ice cap loss, an area of increased ice mass has been noted on this planet. Of all the devastating changes the earth has gone through, to think something as lowly, insignificant as human beings can control the changes to this planet is at best arrogant.”?
These are common mythconceptions that I can expound upon in great detail. Not necessarily my next article, per se, but a future one.
Would that be okay?
Cheers!
Kim Wentworth says
Um, to continue to quote scientists with same political beliefs as a john kerry or the famed provocator al gore would not benefit your argument. Oh, but I would love to see a short response on my “cycle” comment concerning the crazy AOC.
Aaron Bishop says
Here’s your short response about AOC: She’s doing what the President does best. She’s getting noticed. She’s making bold and unsubstantiated claims with some (but not a whole lot of) basis in fact. Her mind’s aim may be true, and her intentions may be good, but she’s shooting from the hip so the results will vary. She’s not a scientist in the relevant field and really should have some more consultation before making such comments. Unless her goal is simply to have the conversation reignited, then I’d say she’s doing well in that respect. I would only say if that’s her intentions, she doesn’t need to make alarmingly damning that aren’t accurate when there are many that are.
I would gladly provide evidence from scientists who are not in America (nor are Americans) and therefore have no vested interest in American politics. I could provide evidence from people who are Jews, Christians, atheists, or Hindus, etc., because the facts transcend political views, religious views, and political boundaries. Because, as the title of this article states, Science doesn’t care what you believe. The evidence is corroborated by people of all faiths or non representing many nations with different political backgrounds.
You claim “For every area of ice cap loss, an area of increased ice mass has been noted on this planet” without providing any sources or even explanation. Sure, ice forms in my freezer for every glacier lost in the Arctic. Yes, I just proved you right, but I also hope you see how flawed your claim is due to its ambiguity. Mass of ice loss versus mass of ice gained? Location of ice loss matters. Are you suggesting that there is a net balance of ice gained and ice lost? Etc.
To cap this all off, the biggest irony is that I know you possess the knowledge in your head that something is unbalancing nature’s general CO2 levels. How do I know? Your own words. “[Fossil fuels] were created by the earth going through changes over time, a very long time. Man, has only been here a very short time, blink of an eye so to speak.” You said that. You’re absolutely right. And you directly pinpointed the problem we face. It’s not that humans are insignificant as your logic leads you to believe, but the very opposite. Humans are releasing the CO2 that was buried “over time, a very long time” in “a very short time, blink of an eye so to speak.”
If you don’t get what you mean by what you said, I’ll help. It’s the *rate* at which we are putting CO2 into the atmosphere compared to the rate at which it was, and can be, sequestered. It’s the *rate* at which CO2 is being pumped into the atmosphere that is different from the other times when “the earth has gone thru changes LONG before humans”.
Where else is the CO2 imbalance coming from? Not volcanoes above or within the ocean. Not weathering. Not the liberal imagination. It is my hope that you don’t believe any and all evidence pointing to anthropogenic climate change is only ever provided by liberal sources solely for some conspiratorial liberal agenda.
This conversation is great and necessary, however, I really would like to address your claims to a broader audience than you and focus my energy in writing another article on the topic. You said there were arguments that couldn’t be gotten around. Yet, they are easily addressable if one knows the science, and I would very much like to use them in an upcoming article with your name attached to them, hence my original question. If you wish to not have that happen, I won’t attach your name.
We can have this conversation, Kim. We can really, honestly talk about this if you want. But only if there is true intellectual honesty. I take your comments very seriously, because I am well aware there are others who believe the claims you pose.
Cheers
Kim Wentworth says
I am afraid that all or at least most of your “world” scientists would all have ties to the U.N. , my apologies for giving 2 Americans as examples. Thanks for the back and forth. If you want to reference my quoted statement in an upcoming article that’s fine. The discussion over climate change is political, economical. Science has become somewhat of a questionable dubious witness.
Jeff Green says
Assume the worst with global warming energy change, hope for the best with AGW mitigation.