Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
From the Annals of Sno-Cone Science
There's a vintage Bob and Ray radio sketch in which Bob plays "Mr. Science," a parody of TV's "Mr. Wizard." He's trying to explain to his young protégé Sandy "the miracle of gas refrigeration."
"Doesn't it seem paradoxical to you that a refrigerator is made cold by a flame?" Mr. Science asks. Sandy exclaims, "Holy cats! Wait 'til I tell the gang at school that! I thought it was made cold by the ice cubes, Mr. Science!"
Sandy's slippery grasp of physics and Mr. Science's increasingly convoluted explanations characterize the debate over climate change that was taking place in Washington and the media this week. As the capital and much of the Eastern seaboard were digging themselves out from two big snow events, climate change deniers were pointing to the frozen tundra on the Potomac as evidence that global warming is a fraud.
Virginia's Republican Party used the blizzards to put out a snarky ad attacking two of the state's Democratic congressmen who voted for the cap-and-trade bill last year: "Tell them how much global warming you get this weekend," the spot chortled. "Maybe they'll come help you shovel."
Right-wing Senator Jim DeMint sent out a Twitter tweet: "It's going to keep snowing until Al Gore cries 'Uncle!'" And the daughter and grandkids of Republican Senator James Inhofe built a six-foot igloo on Capitol Hill with signs announcing "Al Gore's New Home" and "Honk if you [heart] Global Warming." Once again, the GOP mines comedy gold.
Granted, debating global warming while stuck in a snowdrift can seem a little counterintuitive, especially if you tend to willfully deny scientific evidence and prefer to limit your knowledge of the cold to such things as sticking your tongue on the schoolyard flagpole and enjoying the occasional Sno-Cone. And scientists didn't do themselves any favors when the phrase "global warming" was coined. Compared to "climate change," it's much too easy to misinterpret, intentionally or not. (As some have suggested, "global weirding" might be more accurate and helpful.)
In truth, and to get way too basic, warmer air holds more moisture and when temperatures get colder it falls from the sky as a lot of snow. Not to mention that short term weather phenomena, like blizzards, don't necessarily reflect overall climate trends which are measured over decades and more.
And by the way, as the progressive website Media Matters reports, if we can momentarily shift our East Coast-centric eyes from our own icy weather, note that they're having trouble getting enough snow at the Olympics in Vancouver and Rio de Janeiro is wilting from its worst heat wave in half a century.
One big fact that convinces me of the reality of climate change is the seriousness with which America's defense and intelligence agencies are taking it as a worldwide threat. The American Security Project, a Washington think tank, reported last month that the Central Intelligence Agency has relaunched a program "to share surveillance and other data with scientists monitoring climate change," including satellite photos. And in September, the CIA announced it was creating a Center on Climate Change and National Security that will study "the effect environmental factors can have on political, economic, and social stability overseas."
The Chief of Naval Operations has established "Task Force Climate Change" to "assess the Navy's preparedness to respond to emerging requirements, and to develop a science-based timeline for future Navy actions regarding climate change." Navy Secretary Ray Mabus has set the year 2020 as a deadline for the Navy cutting its use of fossil fuels by half.
On February 1, the Pentagon issued its Quadrennial Defense Review, which establishes defense strategy and priorities and evaluates potential international risks. It cites intelligence assessments that "climate change could have significant geopolitical impacts around the world, contributing to poverty, environmental degradation and the further weakening of fragile governments. Climate change will contribute to food and water scarcity, will increase the spread of disease and may spur or exacerbate mass migration.
"While climate change alone does not cause conflict, it may act as an accelerant of instability or conflict, placing a burden to respond on civilian institutions and militaries around the world."
Among its other findings, the review cites a 2008 National Intelligence Council report that more than 30 U.S. military installations were "already facing elevated levels of risk from rising sea levels. DoD's operational readiness hinges on continued access to land, air, and sea training and test space. Consequently, the department must complete a comprehensive assessment of all installations to assess the potential impacts of climate change on its missions and adapt as required."
Consider yourself warned and, one hopes, suitably chastened. As Sandy tells Mr. Science, "I'm never going to throw an ice cube from a moving car again. Boy, Smokey the Bear's got enough trouble as it is!"
Precisely.
26 Comments so far
Show AllMy granny smoked til the day she died at 100. Therefore smoking does not kill. With millions having this level of scientific understanding and applying it to climate change, what hope do we have.
My sister died at 1 year and never smoked. Not smoking killed her.
correct: correlation does not imply causation. I.e. there is a high correlation between infant deaths at age 1 and the number of those infants who do not smoke. But obviously not smoking was not the cause. Its a principle that either side of a conflict can abuse and present to ignorance as truth. It is also one of the things that makes it so hard for ordinary shallow thinkers to lay hands on the truths that lay embedded in a sea of lies, misrepresentations, and misperceptions.
"correlation does not imply causation"
You sound like a tobacco CEO testifying before Congress.
"Navy Secretary Ray Mabus has set the year 2020 as a deadline for the Navy cutting its use of fossil fuels by half."
back to sails?
The ignorance around climate change is intentional.
There should be a campaign to hammer in the fact that global warming, particularly the warming, only applies to the oceans. Catastrophic climate change is what we get on land. Global warming, the term, lingers on because it works to the deniers advantage to have that name continue.
Warmer oceans will put more moisture in the air.
This moisture will fall from the sky at some point,
the climate change part makes guessing where exciting !
All of this has been predicted for decades, and now that we see it happening,
they look at all the extra water, and don't make the link to the source. They
mock the theory while shoveling the evidence of its strength.
It seems the powers that be and their propaganda spewing msm talking heads are focused strictly on blaming we the people for the mess of climate change. Their solution? Certainly not punishing the big polluters who put them in office. They can play the carbon trading scam game to their distinct advantage while we pay for that abuse with higher taxes and draconian measures placed on us by the green police. Sure we should recycle and conserve energy. The pushing of using mercury laced light bulbs doesn't really seem to be too earth friendly though does it? How about gmo crops with pesticides inside which are killing the honey bees? Where is the outrage from the msm on those issues? Is that a sick joke or what? Having said that we are all citizens of this planet and as individuals should treat her with respect and love. HOWEVER..
Perhaps we need to look at other "man made" methods of changing the climate. The military has been in the business of controlling the weather for decades. If you don't know anything about HAARP and what it's purpose is perhaps you should look it up.
There are many that stand to gain billions on the greening of America just as there was in the bankster bailout aka the bilking of America.. the new health care(ha) bill which is a giveaway to the insurance industry and the H1N1 flu hoax, a gift to Big Pharma. The commercialized "green movement" is as phony as the pink ribbon breast cancer campaign. It's all about this green>>> $$$$.
Think about it before you jump on Al Gore & friends bandwagon which leads him straight to the bank to deposit his millions and drops you and me off at the poor house.
Al Gore is making a fortune off his advocacy of climate change legislation? That is his reason for making An Inconvenient Truth? Give me a break!
Gore is a founder of the "Carbon Credit Bank".
www.swifteconomics.com/.../the-market-for-global-warming-green-is-the-color-of-money/
jerseygirl:
You make such a great point about the lightbulbs. We are on a brain cell killing, Chinese forced diet, of mercury light bulbs to support their manufacturing monopoly.
You also make an important point about the honey bees, which were deliberately assassinated to destroy our crops.
You make a great point about the "green police" limiting consumers instead of fining polluters who make a killing.
You also make a great point about the flu hoax, another scam by China to sell star anise enabled "Tamiflu" and chip our society, while giving us yet another dose of mercury to kill our braincells.
You certainly make a good point about the giveaway to the usury of the insurance industry.
You make a good point about man made methods of controlling the climate also, but HAARP has been used for detrimental purposes of control also and it is not the only one...
Where you lost me was in your thinking that making money at all, even for a truthful and good cause is wrong somehow. Al Gore deserves every penny he can raise for the business of competing for our lives. Tax credits are effective with cap and trade. It forces those who pollute to pay those who do not. In all cases, it is for profit, even HAARP. All of the government, including that, is run by very highly paid subcontractors, ie... large companies. (This is with the exception of underbudgeted human services of any kind, which for profit companies call "waste".)
Your best point was: "Having said that we are all citizens of this planet and as individuals should treat her with respect and love."
Ownership rights get in the way of this. It is a capitalistic system we have. You lump all of the companies that are trying to do something about detrimental climate change as a business, as scam operations.
This is China's tactic. They expect the West to give them technology or they will steal it, while claiming that they are doing something about climate change. They have quickly reached the point of the World's largest polluters and population and are buying up land everywhere. They have successfully brainwashed all of us into thinking that if you are not giving money to a charitable cause, you are bad.
Nothing could be further from the truth about Al Gore, who is the only honest businessman in the bunch. Unfortunately, he is outspent by lobbyists for polluters in obtaining support, which I would like to point out, is for changing worldwide political opinion and laws against these same polluters. He is spending his money trying to save the world instead of buying a big yacht and forgetting about all of us.
The government should be paying him to manage the environment like other subcontractors. Perhaps he should be singing a HAARPists tune.
In an honest and respectable society, the Inhofe spawn would be ostracized (if not flat run out of town on a rail) for their willful stupidity and cultural insensitivity.
In the first instance, they proudly display their ignorance of the science of climate change. The patriarch was no doubt beaming with pride. Can any of them say "Duh"?
But more egregious is the tragic irony of the symbol they used. The igloo is a traditional winter shelter for the Inuit, the people most vulnerable to the early effects of global warming. Indigenous peoples in the Arctic are already unable to hunt and are losing their homes to thawing permafrost and rising sea levels.
But what the hell do we care, eh? The Inhofe clan says "Not a damn."
I can't wait to see their comedy act when the gigantic methane farts begin.
Obama's commitment to ignoring climate change, exactly like Bush's, means we'll just have to be spectators to the Great Meltdown. As more glaciers and ice caps melt and as ocean temps increase, we'll see harsher winters in the temperate zones (the whole continental US), drier and hotter summers, and more violent hurricanes and tornadoes. Climate chaos is what I call it. It's been in the 20s and 30s in Florida and along the US-Mexico border for over a month, arctic conditions in the upper midwest, massive snowstorms on the east coast and relentless rain across the southwest. All this going on as temperatures rise in the Arctic, Himalayan glaciers melt and Siberian methane escapes from the thawing tundra, supposed to cause far more greenhouse gases than fossil fuels do. Cap and trade will do ZERO to address any of this. Reference: Feb. 2010 Harper's.
If, in fact, another ice age is in the offing, will it be worse than what we are now moving towards?
Considering that the majority of what is now the political and economic power center of the US, the New York/Boston/Washington D.C. corridor was under more than a mile of stone grinding ice, would that really be such a such a loss?
"some have suggested, "global weirding" might be more accurate and helpful."
I like that term. It's funny that the past two years in my area the climate seems more like what used to be normal. Precipitation is up after going down for years and this winter has been more like a real winter instead of 30s one day and 70s and 80s a few days later and see sawing back and forth throughout the winter months.
I wonder if the inbredhofes will still deny a warming planet when all the Arctic ice melts and the destruction of the albedo effect sends temperatures soaring.
[I wonder if the inbredhofes will still deny a warming planet when all the Arctic ice melts and the destruction of the albedo effect sends temperatures soaring.]
No, that's when they'll start screaming that the lord JayZeus is returning. That the effects of global warming are really just the unfolding of the 'end time' prophecies in the bible and that if we don't kill all the sinners GAWD is going to punish all of us. So...
shhhh! Don't mention arctic ice melting. What's good is the way Obama called out the deniers in his state-of-the union speech. What's sad is his performance at the climate summit; as so often, a walking contradiction. I had a history professor that once described the Mugwump Party as politicians that sat on the fence with their mugs on one side and their wumps on the other. Can you say corporate power?
How do you cure conservatism?
Oh man, I'd get banned if I answered that. Let's just say 'baby seals'...
same way as bacon.
a pig's a pig.
Mars once had a denser, warmer atmosphere that allowed water on its surface and possibly even Martian vegetation and animal life. Then, somethng caused its atmosphere to become life-unfriendly. All the surface water boiled off into outer space. Martian capitalism, maybe?
I wouldn't surprise me.
Martian lack of mass, more likely (being only 1/4th Earths mass, it couldn't hold its atmosphere via its own gravity).
More than likely whatever whacked the South section of Mars. Something did a number on the Martian Southern Hemisphere.
Look at the Venus hell. It does get that much more solar radiation than Earth.
How climate change acceptors speak: "While climate change alone does not cause conflict, it may act as an accelerant of instability or conflict."
How climate change deniers speak: "Tell them how much global warming you get this weekend. Maybe they'll come help you shovel... It's going to keep snowing until Al Gore cries 'Uncle!'"
No wonder they are winning the 'debate'. We keep speaking in legaleeze. They keep hitting all the pork-rind buttons.
I think the important thing here is how stupid the politicians think the public is. ANYONE who says that the weather in one relatively small portion of the earth for a short period says anything about the general climate of the entire planet over a long period thinks the listener is a monumental MORON.
It takes millions of data points carefully collected over time to specify a planet's climate and any extrapolation of that data to times not studied is risky to the accuracy. Also, some data always defies the general trend. I would be careful about judging the height of humans based on NBA centers as your only data.