Global Warming - A Socratic Approach

The discussion over the topic of global warming, threat or hype can be analyzed by asking a few pertinent and prudent questions and then answering them with deductive reasoning based on known fact. I will not pretend to be knowledgeable in any omniscient way about the subject, as I think most people who have opinions on the subject are not, including scientists. No one can possibly know all there is to know about it and then draw an absolute, indisputable conclusion. And I want to avoid the trap that too many fall into, knowing that people tend to "believe what they want to believe" of acquiescing in and consoling myself with a comfortable myopia, perhaps cherry picking certain empirical evidences and phenomenon to support my own desire to opinionate. My purpose is not to elaborate on the evidence which abounds; melting glaciers, blighted forests, dying coral reefs etcetera, or prognosticate a gloomy future which is still debatable or salvageable, but to focus instead on a select few number of points using a Socratic approach in order to bring to the light the question of human culpability and responsibility.

First there is the scientific data and the nature of it. And the question we have to ask is; do we believe it? If you do not believe it then the argument stops here and we might have to suppose that the entire scientific community is made up of paranoid, socialist conspirators who have concocted false information and leaked it to the press. And do we believe everything we read and see on the television and big screen? Can we really trust their methods of taking core samples in the Antarctic ice and measuring CO2 levels going back 650,000 years? Are they just making this stuff up? I don't know, why would so many silly scientists waste time and energy and risk life and limb in harsh environments to collect so much useless and baseless information? Is it even true? Maybe it's all just a Hollywood production, fictitious misinformation designed to frighten us into living harsher lives. And oh, do we even buy that whole greenhouse theory in the first place? Do carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases really make the earth warmer? Well you see where that slippery slope could lead.

However, if we DO believe the data, then a glaring fact presents itself: And that is that CO2 and the corresponding temperature increases in our atmosphere are at UNPRECEDENTED levels. The operative word being unprecedented. In the history of the planet. "A study by researchers at the Physics Institute at the University of Bern and the European Project for Ice Coring in Antarctic presented data from Antarctic ice cores showing carbon dioxide concentrations higher than at any time during the past 650,000 years."* That is six hundred and fifty thousand years! That is unprecedented! So the arguments that some people use to dispute global warming, saying that we have always had warming and cooling periods throughout earth's history, therefore this is nothing new, become a moot point in light of that data. Yes, there have been many ice ages and warming periods, climactic fluctuations, during those 650,000 years, but NEVER, according to this data, if you believe it, have the levels been as high as in the last 100 years. Do the math, calculate that infinitesimal fraction.Yes, the earth's climate is dynamic and there are multiple natural influences for change, many of which we do not fully understand, solar flares, volcanoes and the like. But not even Krakatau the volcanoe influenced the climate in as long term a way, though it certainly contributed. This data alone still may not be enough to convince us that we are a major contributor of this greenhouse effect, but logic alone would tell us, when you view the big picture across this vast expanse of time, that something is going on here that is not normal for our planet.

The next question that arises then is; is this unprecedented level of CO2 and temperature rise largely attributable to humans? Well, IF you believe the census takers, another glaring fact presents itself: The world oecumene, the total population of the planet, estimated around 6,500,000,000 (that's six and a half billion) as of 2007 is also at an unprecedented level. In the history of the planet. Never before, ever, has there been this many people on the earth at one time. And the increase in population has escalated at an exponential rate in the last one hundred years. Before around 8,000 BC there were less than 5 million people on the earth. It took the next 12,000 years to increase the population to around 1 billion. Between 1900 and today we have added another 5 billion. In just one hundred years! The amount of people then has ramifications and ripple effects in every corner of the ecosystem and on our planet's ability to sustain itself. And we are not just any animal. We are the most destructive animal of all and the biggest consumer of resources. Not only have the world's forests been reduced and depleted but they have been reduced and depleted to a point that has never been before. Ever. Except maybe when the dinosaurs were wiped out, if you believe in them. That means there is less oxygen being put back in the atmosphere to counteract the increase in CO2 and less absorption of CO2. Now add to that the industrial revolution which has only taken place in the last one hundred years, a drop in the bucket, and a miniscule piece of time in the big picture of things. Give billions of people all around the world carbon spewing cars to drive in. Factories and other industrializations have been emitting greenhouse gases from the burning of fossil fuels and homes burning oil, wood and coal have been spewing out smoke from millions of chimneys for decades. This too is a recent phenomenon that is unprecedented! Never before in the history of the planet has there been this much carbon emission in a hundred year period. Now is it just a coincidence that the data showing the dramatic rise in CO2 just happens to correspond to the time period of the last one hundred years more than any other hundred year period of the last six hundred and fifty thousand years? Again, logic alone would tell you that there is a correlation: between the unprecedented amount of CO2 and the unprecedented amount of people on the planet in the last one hundred years. This logic increases the likelihood that humans do indeed bare a large responsibility for this particular warming period.

The next questions we can ask ourselves, IF we can agree on the fair assumption that the data is correct and the polyglot of human population spewing carbon and consuming resources is at least partly responsible for the empirical evidence we witness are: can we do anything about it, should we do anything about it, will it make any difference if we try, or is it too late? Well, most rational people would agree that there are definitive steps we can take to reduce carbon emissions and lesson our carbon footprints as it were. Many steps have already been taken. My personal opinion, if I may stoop, is that we should do something about it because it is our moral responsibility to be stewards of our earth, it is, after all, the only one we have, and its resources are finite. We are guilty of abuse and neglect and our children's children will pay the price if we don't correct our mistakes. It is hard to say how much of a difference reduction efforts will make. Some scientists have said that it may already be too late, and that even if we succeed in slowing down the pollution of our planet, disasters, droughts, floods and famine are already inevitable. But we don't know that. And that can't mean we should just give up and party down waiting for the apocalypse. At the very least it would be nice to breathe cleaner air and drink and swim in cleaner water. Who could argue with that? Things can be done and are being done. As much as I despise brutal tyranny I am nevertheless thankful for a Chinese government program to limit the number of children a woman may have in order to slow down the population growth. And there are indications that the exponential population growth rate of the planet is slowing down. The clean air act of 1970 has indeed reversed a careless, polluting trend in America. Cars burn cleaner than they did 30 years ago. The rivers are cleaner. An enlightened environmental consciousness for the masses is a worthy goal.

A final question to be asked is: can we implement preventative measures without ruining the economy? And I ask this question because it appears to me to be the fear of many people who are, for one reason or another skeptical or even offended by the propositions of global warming. At least that is the only reasonable fear that I can think of that makes any sense. That, or the very real fear of global warming catastrophe itself, which they/we just don't want to face. It appears sometimes that those people, whose political affiliations shall remain unnamed, are completely irrational in their fears(of economic ruin) and want to add a completely irrelevant political bent to their objections by identifying some nefarious, contrived, socialist, "secular progressive" agenda that does not exist and then bolster their nebulous position with ad hominem attacks. As if Al Gore and his "Inconvenient Truth" band of merry pranksters have concocted this fabrication in order to surreptitiously impose their subversive, seditious ideologies through some kind of mass mind control to create fear, take over the world and make us all submit. Huh? What? Well, that is exactly what some have implied. Senator Jim Inhofe said, "global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people." Perpetrated? Hoax? Exactly why would anyone want to perpetrate that hoax? The Competetive Enterprise Institute ran two television advertisements to "counter global warming alarmism." Why? What is there to counter? What are they afraid of? As Jon Stewart of the Daily show said, "I know what you're driving at, but I really don't think science and liberals are going to outlaw breathing." Yah, I think that's it. And they are afraid the left wing conspiracy is going to take away all of their SUVs and any and all privileges to consume unlimited amounts of burgers and freedom fries and outlaw backyard barbecues and on down the slippery slope to take away all our guns and prevent us from our ability to protect ourselves from terrorists. Yah, like any of that is going to happen. Global warming has nothing to do with ideology folks. It affects all of us, and all of our children. Al Gore is not even the president. He can't hurt you.

So like I said, the only "reasonable" fear about global warming "alarmism" is that it may affect industry by government intrusion in the form of regulations to control carbon emissions. And the ramifications of that are that corporations may lose profits, people may lose jobs, and the economy may be negatively affected. But come on people, do we really not have that much faith in creativity and ingenuity? Isn't that the true spirit of American rugged individualism? Don't you think it's possible that with enough cooperative effort between industry and government we can come up with creative ways to cut back on pollution without disrupting production and output? When the cigarette companies began to lose in the sale of cigarettes they branched out into other markets. If Detroit will lose in the sale of SUVs or the regulation of pollution controls couldn't they make up for it with the sales of ethanol cars, electric cars or the creation of new departments researching new technologies? Could not power companies and oil companies create new jobs in alternative fuel production, manufacturing of windmills? And don't tell me there is not enough money to finance these new frontiers when CEO's profit margins are so grossly disproportionate and we can spend hundreds of billions of dollars on war and companies can spend billions of dollars on advertising. There is a thing called alternative capitalism, which basically means people before profits. It can also mean earth before profits. There is nothing wrong with making money. But we can do it with a conscience. And we can care about our planet and still pursue happiness. In fact if we're clever enough, we can make money, pursue happiness, spread the wealth, and protect and nurture our planet all at the same time. Whether global warming is a threat or just hype is the wrong focus and is divisive and counterproductive. It is real enough for concern, there is no need for alarmism, but a change in environmental consciousness is in order.

*from Wikipedia, global warming.