An End to Global Warming?

Recently, I had a couple of blog entries devoted to the negative effects of global warming, on May 13th and 14th.

On the 13th, I received some feedback challenging the accuracy of perceptions (including my own) that global warming is such a huge problem. The man behind those posts pointed to numbers and evidence that suggested that, in fact, global warming peaked in 2005, and effectively ended at that point. That, in fact, much of popular perception on the subject was misinformed and, thus, wrong.

So, I did some research. The debate was enjoyable, going back and forth. That, to me, is the most important thing that we can engage in. A healthy debate about important matters that effect us.

Truth is, I want to know and understand both sides of the argument. The debate that stemmed from that blog entry from March 13th was enlightening. He challenged almost every aspect of my belief, and believe it or not, I enjoy that. There is a danger in assuming too much, in assuming that one has a monopoly on the truth. You have to challenge your own beliefs from time to time, and he woke me up to the possibility that, perhaps, this issue is overblown, and that popular perceptions are just wrong.

Now, that popular perceptions often are wrong is a possibility that I have long agreed with, and on a wide range of subjects. After all, until rather recently, a vast majority of Americans agreed with those who denied that there was such a thing as global warming. Even a strong, and very vocal, minority of Americans seem to still believe that it is all self-serving hype by liberal elites. But being in the majority of opinion on almost any subject does not necessarily mean that you are right. Hell, I'll go farther than that: a majority believing something wrong not only happens far too frequently, but might be the source of a hell of a lot of our problems in general. This seems obvious to me, yet many people are startled when they hear such an argument put forth. They might not admit to it, but most people do believe that there is some safety in numbers, and that a majority of people believing something probably makes it right.

But a majority of people in the West consider themselves Christians, and there are smaller pockets of communities within that believe that their particular version of Christianity is right. Many of these, far too many, believe not only that they are right, but that those who believe otherwise are destined to have a one way ticket to Hell. Move away from the West, and this differs. A majority of people in the Middle East believe in Islam, and most believe in a version of that faith that views all of those Christians so convinced about the exclusive truth of their faith as fools. They believe, of course, that their religion is the one true religion, and that you must believe in their one, true faith, and worship their version of God, called Allah, who is supposed to be all forgiving and merciful. If you do not, then the forgiveness does not extend beyond that: you are going to Hell.

Naturally, they are all convinced that they have the one, true way, and historically, they tried to convert others, the non-believers, to their faith, and their ways. To that end, we saw unprecedented brutality. People were tortured, killed, raped, oppressed. Even genocide. The very worst of human behavior comes when we are convinced, en masse, that we are right. That is when we get really dangerous, and it hardly matters what country, or people, are doing the persecuting. The result is the same.

Today, perhaps the most aggressive pursuits (maybe they can be called Crusades?) would be in the field of business. We hear a lot about a "healthy economy", and lately, we are told that the numbers in Wall Street are back up, and things are beginning to look promising again. Economic growth, some say, is the cure all, and will fix all of the problems of the world.

Yet, it has not thus far done so. In fact, moreover, a strong case can be made that the pursuit of wealth has led to more problems than solutions! Certainly problems have at the very least continued. In many respects, the problems have grown, often in close correlation with the economy.

We are told by some that tax cuts and incentives for the very wealthiest among us leads to job growth. Yet, since these efforts were stepped up in the 2000's by the Bush Administration, the economy was struggling more often than not. When there was a supposed economic recovery (as we are told there is now), the majority of Americans have seen virtually none of this wealth. The recipients, by and large, were the wealthiest of Americans, who already had received considerable gifts from the American tax payer, in the way of those same tax cuts and incentives. Robin Hood in reverse simply has not worked out, and the overall living standard has lowered, as has overall morale, even if, for the richest Americans, things have improved.

That is part of the reason why I get skeptical when, with regard to environmental issues, we are told that the business world will work everything out for the best. A healthy economy will be the cure to all of our ills. They say that about the overall economy, and it has proven false, time and again. The policies of tax reductions and incentives for the wealthiest Americans was an experiment tries out in the 1920's, and it led to the Great Depression. It was tried out again in the 2000's, and it led to the Great Recession, with people worried about it growing into an outright depression. Those arguments have proven false.

Shall we then believe them, and push aside all skepticism, when they make the most positive claims about the environment? After all, if not for aggressive pursuits by some to obtain more profits, the environment would not be in such a sorry state as it is today. Pushing not only for more of the same, but for much more of the same with less regulation and oversight sounds to me like the height of hypocrisy and self-serving tunnel vision. It once again profits the very few, usually the most privileged among us, and comes at the expense of the rest of us. It is an old formula, and frankly, should have been discredited by now. Yet, greed wins out more often than not, and human stupidity (which includes indifference) seems a particularly difficult obstacle for us collectively to hurdle.

When he was President, Jimmy Carter established the Environmental Protection Agency. Like the government or not, this is one of those departments that, at least in theory, is supposed to serve and protect the American people. It was designed to establish and enforce some minimal environmental standards, and to help fight abuses when they occurred.

Of course, since the political flavor of these last few decades since Jimmy Carter is all about reducing the "evil" government, and deregulation, the EPA has been effectively disarmed. many people would wish to see it dismantled altogether, and surely the argument would be that it is stifling to the economy. But it tried to right the wrongs of the past. Remember that this was set up at a time when the country was shocked to find out about criminal environmental acts by corporations, when horrific stories in places like Love Canal, Rocky Flats, and Times Beach were making headlines. This was more or less the same for the story that inspired the movie, based on real life events, Erin Brochovich. Check the website, and look at the superfunds, where the EPA has tried to get involved in places that have seen some environmental disasters of varying scope. There are tons of them, and, more likely than not, you live within easy driving distance (and hopefully not much closer) to one yourself, if you live in one of the lower forty eight states. There are a few nearby me, here in northern New Jersey. I actually had to work in one briefly, in Pepe Field in Boonton, while it was being excavated and tested. A local chemical company had generously donated land for a baseball field for local townspeople, but they never revealed that they had been illegally dumping chemicals there. The locals were pissed off (can you blame them?), but the company, obviously, held all the cards, with a high-powered team of lawyers serving their interests.

There is another site close to me, in Pompton Lakes. Similar deal, although I only know about this through articles, and not through any personal experience.

Folks, what I am trying to say is that these things are real. They exist. These crimes happen. And when we place our entire trust in corporations, and claim that things have improved, environmental improvements are being made. Yet, America lags behind in the car industry, not having kept up with Europe and Japan, where cars are made that are far more environmentally friendly and fuel efficient. Probably, there are some improvements being made by some companies, but others not only fight these things tooth and nail, they employ lobbyists to do their fighting for them in Washington. That, to me, clearly falls under the domain of special interests.

But hey! If you think that these companies represent you and your interest, and will look out for you, all the power to you! Just hope and pray that you don't buy your dream home in one of those lots where, someday, it is revealed that a company did some illegal dumping, or had some kind of an accident there. When suddenly, the cancer rates among local residents shoots up, and the air, or the ground, or the drinking water (or a couple of these, or all of them) are considered dangerous to public health. Because then, you might find out the hard way, just how generous these companies are, and how willing they are to be good citizens and take responsibility for their mistakes. Ask the people of Love Canal. In a much less publicized places, like around where I grew up in northern New Jersey, there is no shortage of scandals involving illegal dumping or other irresponsible activities by corporations. Want to know how generous they have been? Ask the people affected by Pepe Field in Boonton, or the folks in Pompton Lakes how generous the corporations were there. There is one in Ringwood, New Jersey, that just made some small news, and it's not necessarily good news for residents there. All that just in northwestern New Jersey, within a twenty or so kilometre radius. Or, better yet, do some research of your own to the local illegal dumping or spills by you, and see how the companies there handled it. Talk to the people affected there, and then lecture them about the necessity of deregulation in order to produce a strong economy. Let's see how receptive they are.

If you are skeptical as to just how real these issues are, then I urge you, again, to do some research on your own. Below, you can find the web link to the EPA's Superfund program, and you can click on some affected areas near you (Here's the link, with a map on it, to see the affected areas near you: http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/), . Then, you can do some further research into it to get specifics, if you are so inclined. The point is, the threat is real, and these acts are nothing short of criminal. When we allow people to get away with such actions like this, or the more recent Monsanto Act, or clearing our forests, or fracking, or offshore drilling (and the oil spills that seem to happen, even when they insist that there won't be any oil spills), or on and on regarding issues that are detrimental to our environment and, let's be frank, to our own health, then we lose credibility when we act shocked that the cancer rate seems to have shot up, or perhaps that there are more cases of autism than ever before, or that there are mysterious illnesses are popping up. We might not know all the facts, but really, can we safely assume that there is no link between all of these things?

Same thing with the massive amounts of overall pollution, or carbon emissions. When too much of anything is put into the air, whether it can and is produced naturally or not, it will likely have an effect, and one that we will not immediately see, let alone understand. It is a high stakes gamble, and one that we seem far too often willing to wager on. We can, and have, altered the atmosphere, and surely, not for the better. Until we curb this, the list of problems will likely continue to grow, and so will the excuses by some who want to make sure we keep going as we always have, that we do not alter a thing. That we continue the gamble, because that is how this society works. That is what we are addicted to.

We were told by many doubters that climate change was not real. That it was all made up (some suggested it was nothing less than a hoax to enrich people like Al Gore). They dismissed "environmental wackos", claiming that they were out of touch with reality. There has always been the argument that making businesses more environmentally friendly is far too burdensome and expensive, and stifles the economy. These arguments began to lost momentum as we were witness to extreme weather that culminated with Hurricane Katrina and the destruction of much of New Orleans, and the previously highly skeptical President Bush finally admitting that there might be something to this whole global warming thing.

Those who are opposed to doing anything about the threats from climate change, however, did not stop there. They have always been too quick to deny the reality of climate change, or minimize the effects of climate change, or to contest that it actually has any relation to human activities. Now, perhaps they will begin to harp on this allegedly definitive confirmation that global warming has ended. At every turn, they undermined efforts by the overwhelming majority of the scientific community, and they scoffed and dismissed the concerns of the rest of us who expressed concern. But they were wrong to deny climate change, they were wrong to suggest that human activity had no impact, and they probably are wrong to declare with absolute authority, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that global warming ended in 2005. The very fact that their only intention in approaching this subject has been to end the debate before it even ever begins should be proof positive about their lack of objectivity. The argument about climate change should, frankly, never end with "what's good for business is good for the environment". That is the kind of thinking that led to such a world filled with poison and pollution to begin with and, yes, probably to the accelerated climate change that absolutely nobody with any credibility seems to be denying anymore these days, even if they now claim, rather conveniently, that it is a thing of the past. You have to look at their intentions, the history of their denial and how it has evolved into new arguments, and question whether or not their motives can be trusted, frankly. Again, the detractors have already been proven wrong, because now they admit that climate change was real, when this was the very thing that they claimed was so absurd just a little over a decade ago.

With the clearing of forests the world over (particularly in Brazil, with the Amazonian Rain Forest), the steadily rising pollution levels (they might be decreasing in the United States and Europe, but they are most assuredly on the rise in other, developing parts of the world, most prominently India and China). There are more factories producing more by products, more weapons, more everything than ever before. More pollution, more cars, more planes, more of pretty much everything. Plus, again, the world population is rising, and dramatically so, at that. If there is going to be even more of a demand for these things that have already proven to be so damaging to us, does it make sense that the argument to contain the very real dangers with environmental degradation and, yes, climate change, is to give a yellow, soon to be red light for environmental regulation, which means that these concerns yield yet again, as they always have, to economical concerns, which always, always, always have gotten the go ahead green light? Has this line of thinking worked for us in getting us where we are now? Should we put aside these petty concerns about overpopulation and the detrimental effects of excessive human activities, so that these can predictably be trumped once again, so that we once again can allow some people to make a quick buck?

The arguments of those generally opposed to environmental legislation may have changed over time, from denial that there is a problem, to denial that humans were responsible for the problem, and now to acknowledging that there once (rather recently) was a problem, but that it is a thing of the past. Yes, the arguments have changed, but one thing that never has changed even a little is their main point: the economy is more important than environmental concerns. They might not outright suggest this baldly anymore, and their arguments have evolved and grown more sophisticated. But one who approaches this general subject with any measure of seriousness should understand the main motivation behind the arguments of the deniers. There just is no way around that, because it is a major, not a minor, point.

Not to get into something too long, here, for that is not my intention with this post. But the main point is, I still think it best to watch out for those who are absolutely too certain of their own beliefs, to the point that they never question it, and barley hide their disdain when speaking to others who do not share their beliefs - religious, political, or whatever else such righteousness might pose as. Proceed with caution, objectivity, and common sense, especially if it seems the person in question is lacking any, or possibly all, of these characteristics!

Here are some links to articles that suggest that global warming has ended, with one article from last year arguing that it ended a lot earlier than 2005, another that came out last year, but not specifying a year in which global warming ended, but allegedly reporting that the "Voice of Russia" reporting that "Scientists of the Russian Academy of Science"  is arguing that the end of global warming is at hand, yet a couple of others claiming that it ended in 1998, and the other (a Christian group's website) dating from 2012 arguing that it has actually been over since 1996:

http://www.climatepatrol.com/printable/18/2276/index.php

http://notrickszone.com/2012/05/21/scientists-of-the-russian-academy-of-sciences-global-warming-is-coming-to-an-end-return-to-early-1980s-level/

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998-intermediate.htm

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3624242/There-IS-a-problem-with-global-warming...-it-stopped-in-1998.html

http://www.standfirminfaith.com/?/sf/page/29546

Here, in turn, are links to posts that suggest that we should not quite jump the gun and triumphantly proclaim an end to global warming based on less than ten years of trends:

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/david-hone/has-global-warming-stopped_b_2468966.html

http://www.forbes.com/sites/petergleick/2012/02/05/global-warming-has-stopped-how-to-fool-people-using-cherry-picked-climate-data/

http://grist.org/article/global-warming-stopped-in-1998/

Here is the Wikipedia link for a general history and summary of global warming:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy