Guest column
Global warming science
Dean Ritz
Do I think the United States of America should be penalized by punitive United Nations’ mandates to cap carbon dioxide? No. Do I think we should be forced to surrender our sovereignty to global institutions at the expense of countries that pollute the environment more than us? No. Do I think there should be a carbon tax or some type of pollution tax against America? No. This being said, I think we need to take a closer look at global climate Change and treat spokespeople from both sides of the argument with courtesy.
Global warming – or global climate change – has been in the news lately, a contentious issue that seems to divide good people along conservative and liberal ideologies. The liberals are often depicted as tree-hugging socialists and the conservatives as ignorant Neanderthals seeing global climate change as a liberal strategy to replace Christianity.
But like the evidence supporting the connection smoking has to lung cancer in the 1960s and 1970s, the data for anthropogenic global warming is getting harder to refute. I am not a scientist, so to educate myself I sought information from scientists who study the evidence and give objective, non-political answers. I searched for scientific organizations that do not have anything to gain from either creating or denying evidence.
Resources that I eschewed were politicians, since they need to straddle and hedge opinion so as not to alienate either voters from the left or the right and keep their jobs. The famous afternoon radio host who parrots “consensus is not science” – I love that one. So if nine out of 10 cardiologists conclude you need a stent after reviewing scientific evidence, you should disregard their opinion because it is a consensus. The final groups I tried to avoid are those trying to sell a book, usually a writer with no background in science, or a scientist that is an outlier with credentials in a discipline not related to climatology.
So here is what I found from respected scientific organizations: Since 2001, 34 international science academies have made formal declarations confirming human-induced global warming. Examples would be NASA, NOAA, American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Meteorological Society, the Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies, the Royal Society of New Zealand, the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences, the list goes on and on.
Anyone can access these sites and arrive at their own conclusions. What I read was very concerning: increased sea levels leading to flooding, crop failures leading to famine, unusual weather patterns, habitat destruction, extinction of animals, and billions of dollars in property destruction. The scientific evidence is too copious for this column; I suggest you go to the websites.
When it comes to politicized opinion versus scientific evidence, my favorite comment by a scientist: Whether you believe in photosynthesis or not is irrelevant, it is an irrefutable process in plants and it is happening all the time. You believing or not is immaterial.
Does it make sense to gamble against significant scientific evidence when the consequences may be catastrophic? For those who think that global warming is a hoax, I ask who benefits?
I am optimistic that if we attack this problem internationally, science will find a solution.
Remember the ozone hole back in the 1980s? Why don’t we hear about the ozone hole anymore? It is because we acted internationally through the Montreal Protocol of 1987 banning CFCs, chlorofluorocarbons. Internationally we came together, identified the problem and acted to resolve it.
Difficult problems can be resolved. Strategies such as increased use of solar technology, reforestation, energy conservation, affordable electric cars (Volvo is going completely electric) should be part of the overall plan, but the future technology to solve these problems is hard to predict.
In the year 2000, not that many years ago, did anyone think that one day you would be able to have a device in your pocket that is a phone, a camera, has the ability to play videos and movies, text information to other people, and access the world wide web?
Like the preponderance of evidence against cigarette smoking, I think denying a problem is not in our best interest. Resolving global climate change will take international cooperation, and will also create international opportunity. Narrow-minded parochialism is an impediment to scientific exploration. We cannot imagine the new technologies, and the new jobs, that will be created by unleashing our best scientific minds to solve this problem.
Global warming – or global climate change – has been in the news lately, a contentious issue that seems to divide good people along conservative and liberal ideologies. The liberals are often depicted as tree-hugging socialists and the conservatives as ignorant Neanderthals seeing global climate change as a liberal strategy to replace Christianity.
But like the evidence supporting the connection smoking has to lung cancer in the 1960s and 1970s, the data for anthropogenic global warming is getting harder to refute. I am not a scientist, so to educate myself I sought information from scientists who study the evidence and give objective, non-political answers. I searched for scientific organizations that do not have anything to gain from either creating or denying evidence.
Resources that I eschewed were politicians, since they need to straddle and hedge opinion so as not to alienate either voters from the left or the right and keep their jobs. The famous afternoon radio host who parrots “consensus is not science” – I love that one. So if nine out of 10 cardiologists conclude you need a stent after reviewing scientific evidence, you should disregard their opinion because it is a consensus. The final groups I tried to avoid are those trying to sell a book, usually a writer with no background in science, or a scientist that is an outlier with credentials in a discipline not related to climatology.
So here is what I found from respected scientific organizations: Since 2001, 34 international science academies have made formal declarations confirming human-induced global warming. Examples would be NASA, NOAA, American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Meteorological Society, the Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies, the Royal Society of New Zealand, the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences, the list goes on and on.
Anyone can access these sites and arrive at their own conclusions. What I read was very concerning: increased sea levels leading to flooding, crop failures leading to famine, unusual weather patterns, habitat destruction, extinction of animals, and billions of dollars in property destruction. The scientific evidence is too copious for this column; I suggest you go to the websites.
When it comes to politicized opinion versus scientific evidence, my favorite comment by a scientist: Whether you believe in photosynthesis or not is irrelevant, it is an irrefutable process in plants and it is happening all the time. You believing or not is immaterial.
Does it make sense to gamble against significant scientific evidence when the consequences may be catastrophic? For those who think that global warming is a hoax, I ask who benefits?
I am optimistic that if we attack this problem internationally, science will find a solution.
Remember the ozone hole back in the 1980s? Why don’t we hear about the ozone hole anymore? It is because we acted internationally through the Montreal Protocol of 1987 banning CFCs, chlorofluorocarbons. Internationally we came together, identified the problem and acted to resolve it.
Difficult problems can be resolved. Strategies such as increased use of solar technology, reforestation, energy conservation, affordable electric cars (Volvo is going completely electric) should be part of the overall plan, but the future technology to solve these problems is hard to predict.
In the year 2000, not that many years ago, did anyone think that one day you would be able to have a device in your pocket that is a phone, a camera, has the ability to play videos and movies, text information to other people, and access the world wide web?
Like the preponderance of evidence against cigarette smoking, I think denying a problem is not in our best interest. Resolving global climate change will take international cooperation, and will also create international opportunity. Narrow-minded parochialism is an impediment to scientific exploration. We cannot imagine the new technologies, and the new jobs, that will be created by unleashing our best scientific minds to solve this problem.