First off, since this is science we're talking about, let's make sure we're all on the same page.
Pic: scientific proof that CO² exists in the atmosphere
As we discussed last time, the most wonderful aspect of the climate debate at this moment in time, and a point simply no one could contend, is how many choices we now have:
— If you believe the science, then it's obvious that Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is the villain.
— On the other hand, if you believe the science, then there's no question that Natural Global Cooling (NGC) is the true menace.
— However, if you believe the science, then it's quite apparent that Anthropogenic Chlorofluorocarbonic Warming (ACW) is the real threat.
— And, for those who believe the science, it's crystal-clear that Natural Global Warming (NGW) is what's really goin' on.
Again, it's all about the science, folks, and the wonderful options it provides. And that's not to mention the unity it brings to the community as we can all now agree that science is ultimately the answer to this imposing problem.
Unfortunately, as in any contest where there are multiple participants, scores are being kept and tallies are being tabbed. Since I'm on the NGW team, it's my duty to mock, scorn and degrade the other three contestants at every opportunity. They constantly do the same to my team, so no hard feelings. As they say, all's fair in love and global thermonuclear war.
First, I've noticed a bit of desperation recently on RealClearPolitics when it comes to snagging AGW articles for their 'Energy' section. They're usually articles from various (delicate cough) "Institutes", but lately they've been resorting to posting links to sites like Grist, generally regarded as the most wacko of the eco-nut sites. This is the home of the Seas May Rise 30 Feet During Centuries Ahead junk, alarmism at its finest.
The headline is correct, however, in that science predicts that one of those 250,000-year severe up/down temp cycles is heading our way and in roughly 180,000 years the planet will be so warm that all of the polar ice will melt and the seas will rise somewhere in the neighborhood of 3,000 to 4,000 feet, so the headline isn't entirely inaccurate when it says "centuries ahead".
Next, we have the inherent problem when dealing with such a complex issue on a global scale. It's easy to gin up charts and graphs and stats for some localized event, but trying to come up with even the simplest of rules that work on a planet that ranges from the Sahara Desert to Antarctica is a little different.
A pretty good example would be the whole "species dying off by the bucketload" claim.
You know, this stuff:
Back to Grist, here's a cute bit of implication. Note the use of the word some.
This does not mean that each and every species will go extinct. Some may shift their ranges to keep up with favorable temperatures. Some may perish in certain locales but not others. And some may find a means of coping in a changed environment.
So take heart, ladies and gentlemen, at least some species will live. With the implied message being but all the rest will die(!) unless you immediately donate $100 to Greenpeace and urge your congressman to vote for Cap & Trade! Die, we tell you, die!
They know they can't use the word "all", but they're desperate to at least imply most, which only leaves some.
Unfortunately, there's trouble on the horizon. The next article we turn to is talking about the current heat wave in Britain, calling it, of course, an "extreme event" — and we all know what that means.
But the bad news is that there's good news:
Wildlife trusts around the country have reported a jump in the populations of a range of species, such as butterflies, dragonflies and bumblebees on land and jellyfish and leatherback turtles in the sea.
So, adding it all up, some species will die off, some species will thrive, and some species won't give a shit. Science, folks! That's what it's all about.
Another example of desperation comes from this recent AGW article as the author describes a conversation he had with some stranger at the airport:
When I asked him what he thought would happen in the next centuries, he said, “I think the sun will cool back down and everything will work out fine in the end.” I respectfully disagreed with him and quickly left to buy a sandwich.
This begs the question, how many people do you know think the sun will cool down over the next hundred years? This is the level of desperation the author must stoop to in order to portray the typical denier.
And hey, remember way back when global warming only meant a few degrees and the only ones directly impacted by it were the bucketloads of species that were going to die off and those poor fools living on the coasts?
Of course, we will always have some climate change deniers, but more and more of us are realizing that we will all survive or none of us will.
And there's your ultimate act of desperation. Either the planet's saved or we're all going to die.
Die, we tell you, die!
Who would have guessed ten years ago that one day we'd be fondly looking back on those times as "the good ol' days"?
