Global Climate Change Science... The Real Skinny

Related Issues: Environmental Policy , Science / Technology , Global Warming

Tags: global warming , climate change , environment

Similar Letters: Search for letters similar to this one

Thursday, 07/10/2008 @ 12:45 PM PST

To whom it may concern:

There is a lot of misinformation out there when it comes to global climate change science. It's time to set a few records straight. While this issue has been politicized to death on every side of the spectrum, there seems to be a misconception as to the the goals of this particular scientific branch. Let's start with a few undisputed facts, shall we?

First, this planet has a long and well established history of cyclical climate change. Warm periods are followed by colder periods that are followed by warm periods...on and on and on. It's not so much the middle sections of these cycles that are concerning to scientists, it's the extremes. Think of the climate like a see-saw on the playground, lots of ups and downs but always seeming to balance out when looked at over long periods of time. Sure that's a simplistic view and maybe not 100% accurate, but sometimes you have to accept that life and the universe we live in isn't always perfect. The goal of this particular brand of science is to even out those highs and lows that cause true devastation on a global scale.

One issue I see brought up time and time again is the notion that humans are not responsible for these trends. While that is most assuredly true, to take that fact and leap to "so we shouldn't try to do anything about it" is akin to throwing out the baby with the bath water. Just because humans likely are not the contributing factor in global climate change, and let's just assume they aren't, why wouldn't we want to contribute to stopping this cycle? Climate scientists can only guarantee one thing... If we don't do anything to begin controlling the climate in the world we live in, we absolutely will have another ice age. There is no question of if, but when.

Maybe it'll be a hundred years, maybe ten thousand years. It doesn't make sense to wait until we're in a state of crisis to act. Preemptive defense is a valid reason for doing things, like it or not. Clearly the science behind global climate change is in it's infancy and needs to mature. That having been said, doing nothing is rarely better than doing something when you know for a fact a problem exists. If anyone doesn't think an ice age might be a problem, imagine everyone living north of the Mason-Dixon line being forced to migrate south. That's potentially billions of people forcefully relocated in the worlds current state, and I don't think any of us expect the worlds population to shrink anytime soon.

There are significant disagreements on what we should do about climate change, but there should be no disagreement that something must change. More of the same means we'll have another ice age and significant portions of our globe will be affected severely. Let's start now to keep that from happening. There is no better time than the present.

Sincerely,

The_Guru

Total Comments: 55

Write your own comment on this letter!

	mkennedy357, on 07/10/2008 @ 01:59 PM PST wrote:
		Finally! Someone gets it. We have to prevent this Ice Age whatever the cost! I am building giant fires in my neighborhood to keep the glaciers away. We should raise taxes to give people big coats. I have to go now, my alien friends are here to help me with the fires.

	BennyBoy, on 07/10/2008 @ 07:43 PM PST wrote:
		I do agree with you that weather is cyclical and there is climate change. I also agree with you that we don't have anything to do with the climate chanage (or maybe you don't believe this but just accepted this premise for part of your argument). Regardless, I do have a problem with your logic. You're saying that even though we aren't effecting climate change let's do something to effect cliate change. I don't think that if I change out my lightbulbs and drive a hybrid that it will keep us from having another ice age thousands of years down the line. In the whole scheme of things, we're just not that significant to the greater picture of the earth and weather patterns and to think that we can change things is, in my opinion, a little arrogant. (Guru, I'm not calling you arrogant I think your letter is in good faith but I've heard a lot of others with alterior motives) One volcano eruption puts more "pollution" in the air than millions of cars for years and years. >>>

	BennyBoy, on 07/10/2008 @ 07:44 PM PST wrote:
		>>>>Not to mention the economic ramifications to making changes to go green. This will cripple our economy like we've never seen before and all for what? Something that you say we can't control? I just don't think the benefits would outweigh the costs.

	BennyBoy, on 07/10/2008 @ 09:27 PM PST wrote:
		Also, I have no problem with green technology being developed. I do have a problem with the government subsidizing it. If a company can find a way to make money by conserving and helping the planet I'm all for it.

	The_Guru, on 07/11/2008 @ 06:00 AM PST wrote:
		To Benny: I've never understood the gloom-and-doom argument as it relates to green technology. It seems to me the people making it don't believe in American ingenuity and our ability to take lemons and come up with lemonaid. We created a whole economy that relies almost entirely on the burning of fossil fuels. Is it that hard to believe we could transform that economy into one that relies almost entirely on another source of energy? Government subsidized the oil industry, why not subsidize other things like wind, solar, geothermic...the kinds of technologies that aren't just going to dry up and go away someday?

	The_Guru, on 07/11/2008 @ 06:08 AM PST wrote:
		I find it really odd that government subsidies are all of a sudden bad. Let's examine a few things we wouldn't have without government subsidies... A phone system. Radio. Television. The internet. An interstate highway system for trade. Airlines. Oil refineries. Gasonline distribution channels. Cellular technology. Electricity. Municipal water and sewage systems. I think you get the picture. Without government subsidies, this country would be MUCH worse off today.

	tinara1977, on 07/11/2008 @ 07:37 AM PST wrote:
		You can't stop the earth. Are you serious. It is the EARTH!!!!! That is human ignorance at its highest. Mother nature will shake us off like fleas on a dog. Look at the latest extreme in weather. Look at the tsumanis. How well can we stop those waves from scrshing and wiping us out. Look at N.O. We can even rebuild it. Look at M.O. Look at the flood. How do you plan to stop the cold.

	DotNetAllDay, on 07/11/2008 @ 10:10 AM PST wrote:
		Sorry, but your theory that humans can stop a global (or even planetary) event is absurd. It's akin to the scientists who just 500 years ago said the sun rotated around the earth. If the sun is going to get hotter and change the earth's temperature, it will do it. And there's nothing we can do about. And certainly changing a lightbulb out won't do anything (other than save a few bucks annually).

	BennyBoy, on 07/11/2008 @ 11:18 AM PST wrote:
		Guru, like I said, I have no problem with green companies making money the old fashioned American way. I believe in American ingenuity but I also beleive in the free market. If there is a market for it than people will find a way to make "green" profitable and everyone will be happy. There's no need for the government to subdidize this. The problem with wind, solar, geothermic sources of energy is that right now, we have not found efficient ways to harness these energies and there is not a big enough market for these energies. The problem now is, in the meantime, a bushel of corn has quadrupled in price wich causes a ripple effect in our economy for the bad.

	BennyBoy, on 07/11/2008 @ 11:30 AM PST wrote:
		Also, not all of those industries you listed were not subsidized.

	The_Guru, on 07/11/2008 @ 11:33 AM PST wrote:
		Please tell me which of the industries I referenced you think weren't subsidized by the US government and I'll point you towards resources indicating they were. That seems much easier than issuing a blanket statement like "not all of them were" and trying to force me to defend all of them in one fell swoop.

	The_Guru, on 07/11/2008 @ 11:44 AM PST wrote:
		Johnny, I'd submit that your view that we simply cannot impact planetary weather is akin to the non-scientists 500 years ago who clung to the notion that the sun rotated around the earth because that's what their religion told them must be true. At one time it was "common sense" that the earth was flat. At one time it was "common sense" that the sun, moon and stars all rotated around the earth. Scientific method itself has evolved tremendously over the years and is no longer encumbered by religious prosecution. I think you may find that there were scientists in that period 500 years ago that you referenced who knew that the sun didn't revolve around the earth. They either kept their mouths shut or lost their heads, simple as that. I'm a firm believer that humanity is capable of doing just about anything it puts it's collective mind and energy into doing. Maybe you don't have that much faith in our abilities.

	WesSurvey, on 07/11/2008 @ 12:39 PM PST wrote:
		I don't believe that humans are the cause of global warming, at least not as a whole. Sunspots, and cyclical climate change may be factors. The melting ice caps? The ice is getting thicker is some places, and you don't hear about that in the mainstream media. Don't get me wrong though. I am not advocating inaction. People need to take precations so that we are not the cause of harm to the planet.

	DotNetAllDay, on 07/11/2008 @ 05:27 PM PST wrote:
		Guru - You're right. I don't have faith in our abilities. We can't even forecast weather accurately more than 5 days out. I think you give our scientists too much credit.

	stewthehermit, on 07/11/2008 @ 05:50 PM PST wrote:
		Regardless of the weather patterns, it is obvious the affects that pollution have on personal health and immediate environmental impact (read any descriptions of cities from the Gilded Age to get an idea). So for that sake alone I think it is important to do at least something (e.g.recycle) to simply preserve the beauty of our country and the health of our nation.

	BennyBoy, on 07/11/2008 @ 09:12 PM PST wrote:
		Guru, I'm not going to go into detail about your list of "subsidized" industries, but the circumstance for those would be much diffrent than for green issues. I think we're getting a little off point of your original letter. I still don't understand how you say that we can't effect the weather but we should do something to effect the weather. Plus, if you're worried about an ice age, shouldn't we be trying warm up the planet????

	The_Guru, on 07/11/2008 @ 09:17 PM PST wrote:
		Well, I'm still trying to figure out your reference to my saying that...can't seem to see it anywhere... Now, as to your question about worrying about warming as it relates to an ice age... That goes to the heart of my original post. No, we don't want to warm the planet, we want to stabilize the planet. The warmer we get it, the colder it will be on the flip side of the cycle. What we want is an even, stable climate without the extremes.

	saicharankumar, on 07/12/2008 @ 08:50 AM PST wrote:
		i do agree with the letter as the climate is cyclic and changes with time. but we can't stop the earth

	Shaebutter, on 07/12/2008 @ 09:24 AM PST wrote:
		Going green will help. We have to go back to being hunter-gatherers. using our resources not abusig the earth the way we have the last decades. Shaebutter

	BennyBoy, on 07/12/2008 @ 11:59 AM PST wrote:
		Guru, you're saying that we don't have anything to do with the weather patterns. So, nothing that we've done to date has effected the weather. You didn't say that we can't effect the weather just that we haven't, I'll give you that. You want to stabilize the planet but how? Going green? I have yet to see any studies that say that going green will stablilize the weather.

	owlwatcher, on 07/12/2008 @ 01:12 PM PST wrote:
		Please, the whole global warming issue is just a way for the government to tax every citizen with a carbon tax while big business that are the big contributers to global warming get tax breaks and free reign to destroy our natural resources. Yes we should do 'our part' and reduce our wastes but our duty is to not stop there but to put a stop to the polution at the source!

	The_Guru, on 07/12/2008 @ 02:16 PM PST wrote:
		I'm reminded by a conversation I had with my mother in the late 1970s. She is a highly educated person and the discussion was about cloning. Her opinion at the time was that humans couldn't even figure out how to cure the common cold, how were they ever going to figure out cloning, something much more difficult. What does this have to do with global warming? Not a thing. It just points out that arguments that may seem rational on their face often fall flat in the real world. I don't believe for a second that going green alone will stabilize the environment. I also don't discount scientific studies that have shown a correlation between CO2 levels and the major highs and lows in the global climate.

	BennyBoy, on 07/12/2008 @ 04:01 PM PST wrote:
		What study was done that they could measure CO2 levels during the highs and lows of global climate changes? I don't think they were measuring CO2 levels during the ice age. Also, you say more of the same will mean we will have another ice age. If you say going green won't be enough, what else are we supposed to do? I'm sure CO2 levels were probably a lot lower during the ice age then they are now, what were the humans at that time doing wrong that we can use their mistakes and fix?

	The_Guru, on 07/14/2008 @ 02:45 PM PST wrote:
		The climate has had natural ups and downs through the eons, even before man was here. Now according to you, that must mean we can't do anything to stop it from happening again. It's a good think your way of thinking has been proven wrong time and time again. Need examples? Try medicine. The fact that things have happened before without intervention from mankind does not preclude mankind from making a difference. Now…CO2 levels DURING an ice age? During the ice age, CO2 levels would have dropped precipitously because of plant life dying off. Cause, effect...I thought they taught that even in public schools. What scientists do have is soil and core ice samples they can reasonably date and figure out what the atmosphere was like when these were on the surface, but they hide things like that in books. CO2 levels follow climate conditions, which makes sense as well as being backed up by science. Warming (and CO2) peaks, watch out for the crash. History does repeat itself.

	BennyBoy, on 07/14/2008 @ 04:08 PM PST wrote:
		What's your solution the the supposed problem that we are having? You're saying that the main factor of weather change is the CO2 levels? If the earth's temps keep going up and down naturally, you want to regulate the CO2 levels? So if the earth's temp goes up we need to reduce CO2 and if the temp is going down we need increase CO2 levels?

	The_Guru, on 07/15/2008 @ 10:14 AM PST wrote:
		Isn't cause and effect great? That's exactly what I'm talking about...finding that status quo middle ground and doing everything possible to keep us there. The more variables you can remove from an equation, the easier that equation becomes to manage. This is what science is all about...baby steps towards a goal with the potential of an occasional "aha" moment. But those moments are the exception and not the rule. Scientific achievement most often occurs in tiny incremental steps...address variable A, then focus on variable B. Address variable B then focus on variable C, and so on and so on. CO2 has been identified as a variable. Get it under control, then move on to the next one. And sometimes you don't know what the next one is until you address the first.

	BennyBoy, on 07/15/2008 @ 11:20 AM PST wrote:
		The problem I have with your theory is that it is not a scientific fact that there is a direct corolation between the earth's temperatures and CO2 levels. I came across this speach from John Coleman (creater of the weather channel) who says that CO2 does not effect the earths temps at all. His main point of his speach is against global warming but a little less than halfway down he addresses CO2 if you don't want to read the whole thing. http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/19842304.html

	The_Guru, on 07/15/2008 @ 03:03 PM PST wrote:
		Extremely poor premise by this guy, but what do you expect when he starts out just blasting anyone talking about global warming as being a fraud. Let's start out with the simple "Every time we breathe out, we emit carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. It is not a pollutant." when the thing he's talking about is CO2 being a greenhouse gas. Notice the difference? Greenehouse gas. Pollutant. A distinction he fails to recognize. Also "how can this tiny trace upset the entire balance of the climate of Earth? It can’t. That’s all there is to it; it can’t." I'm sorry, but he's just wrong. Want proof? Let's take out the CO2 and replace it with sodium cyanide. It's just a trace, how could it upst the balance of the climate of the Earth? You and I know it would, but this guy apparently doesn't think so. To him, small means insignificant and nothing else. How about something from the scientific community, not just another partisan.

	PCWaitress, on 07/15/2008 @ 04:10 PM PST wrote:
		So if they ice age happened before plastic bags, cars, the industrial revolution, or the Mason-Dixon line why do think we can do anything to prevent it in the future? If we have the technology to clone humans, maybe we should start developing technology to make a new planet. Besides, scientific elements created it in the first place, right? Maybe it will happen again.

	The_Guru, on 07/16/2008 @ 05:29 AM PST wrote:
		You're kidding, right? I'll assume you're not and answer you as best I can. People were dying all over the world of bacterial infections of all kinds before the discovery of penicillin. Why did they think they could do anything to prevent those deaths in the future? As I pointed out to Benny before, it's a good thing for humanity that scientists don't buy into "it's happened before without our intervention, so I guess there's nothing we can do to prevent it." According to your premise, we should really pull the plug on all scientific study as it pertains to prevention of anything that has ever happened before. Does that really make sense to you?

	SamQueen, on 07/16/2008 @ 07:19 AM PST wrote:
		I think that global warming is something that could be prevented and that it is us humans fault but going green now may be to little to late.

	DotNetAllDay, on 07/16/2008 @ 10:01 AM PST wrote:
		Guru - What does weather have to do with global warming? Hmm... I don't know. Everything! I understand your point of the fallacy of human arguments, but it doesn't apply in this case. Sorry, but I still don't have faith our climatologists, especially those who's livelihoods are dependent on those grants that would go away if they were wrong.

	sraymond136, on 07/16/2008 @ 03:06 PM PST wrote:
		Sure, maybe its partially a natural cycle. What I don't get is why people argue it and then use that argument for a reason as to why we shouldn't have to clean up our act. Regardless of whether or not we are or are not causing global warming, and to what degree we are, if we are .. it is still important to lower emissions, to clean up the planet and stop killing it. Eventually, we will kill it, and ourselves, and if we keep waiting, eventually it will be too late.

	laulena25, on 07/17/2008 @ 01:22 PM PST wrote:
		I want the environment to be manageable for my children. I dont want them to suffer for my generation's mistakes.

	jojodewees, on 07/17/2008 @ 10:42 PM PST wrote:
		Guru do you think there is nothing being done? They told us to not use aerosols. Someone had to do research to find out that that was a problem. Billions of dollars have spent doing this research. If we don't see something directly then we think nothing is happening. Do a little more research and then write your letter. I'm pretty sure that the butterfly effect is real but I need evidence to know that one little thing I'm doing today could cause the next ice age. Let them do their work. Be patient.

	stlcomputer, on 07/18/2008 @ 05:55 AM PST wrote:
		This is gods planit. He corrects it when somthing goes wrong. We can not even cure a cold. How can they say we can fix a planit. Man has not cured anything on this planit.

	The_Guru, on 07/18/2008 @ 10:00 AM PST wrote:
		We haven't cured a thing on this planet? How about Polio? How about cowpox and smallpox? How about bubonic plague? We tried waiting around for centuries for God to cure us of those illnesses, then we took matters into our own hands. I know how much some bible-thumpers love to dismiss everything humankind has achieved. They often try to say that everything good is a direct result of Gods work, but everything bad is mankinds fault. It's people like those who make the thought of religion being taught in our public schools a scary thought indeed. Here's a thought...celebrate human achievement, don't denigrate it.

	tc01fire, on 07/18/2008 @ 11:57 PM PST wrote:
		I've never heard it compared to "throwing out the baby with the bathwater" but I think that is a very valid point. We build things to prevent flooding, to shelter ourselves from tornadoes--these things, like global warming, happened in the past and will happen again. It doesn't mean we have to sit and take it!

	breams44277, on 07/20/2008 @ 10:46 PM PST wrote:
		I don't agree that humans don't have an impact on climate. Just drive around Los Angeles on a typical summer day and see if you can see the hills or not. That is definitely a human impact on climate. However, I do agree that we should all do what we can to help improve the environment. And for those of you who keep posting things like "how will my changing a light bulb help?", I'd just like to say, one light bulb might not help, but thousands will and it all starts with that first one .

	dj2sharp, on 07/21/2008 @ 04:45 PM PST wrote:
		I agree with you on the cyclic climate. This has been proven over and over again by research. Any stock investor could even conclude with the same evidence that earth is headed for a climate change by looking at a chart of the history of earth's climate Im not sure that it will be an ice age, though. If they are screaming global warming right now, I think temperatures will rise, not fall, in the future.

	vicky_19m2005, on 07/23/2008 @ 12:55 AM PST wrote:
		I really want the environment to be alive for future generations to come. They should not suffer for my mistakes.they have a right to live in a properous world

	danlukas, on 07/25/2008 @ 03:33 PM PST wrote:
		They claim that CO2 emissions are the main cause. Lets not forget that the most influential force to the heating the climate is methane gas. There is more methane in the atmosphere than CO2. Where is all this methane coming from? Cows. Cows release methane all day long. So now what do we do? Save the polar bear (which has a growing population) and kill the cow!

	ryangoeswii, on 07/27/2008 @ 03:08 PM PST wrote:
		This is just one of those topics where you can't always change the opinion of everyone. As it stands now, what is really being done? Nothing really just a whole lot of talking and some recycling. All we can really do is wait and see.

	mmmark, on 07/27/2008 @ 05:34 PM PST wrote:
		Do you have any scientific training? Have you actually read any of the consensus papers on climate change? I can't understand people who just won't accept the truth and move on. You are right on one thing though - whatever we believe, it is time to start betting on a cleaner and brighter future for our kids. Al Gore rocks!

	bigburkefamily7, on 08/01/2008 @ 07:26 AM PST wrote:
		I do not believe humans are responsible for global climate change. When I was in school, we were being warned about the "new ice age" that was coming. Now it's global warming. I believe in managing the environment responsibly. I don't believe this includes knee jerk reactions to percieved crises which turn out to be more harmful than the conditions they were to mitigate.

	weloseourselves, on 08/03/2008 @ 02:57 AM PST wrote:
		You're right, even if this is a natural cycle and EVEN IF there is not a crisis on the horizon, it still makes sense to take simple -- and economically productive! -- steps to better protect the environment and climate. Recycling, composting, and changing agricultural practices are economic and environmental winners in the long run, and we should start pushing such projects much more forcefully.

	LSRaven1, on 08/07/2008 @ 07:01 PM PST wrote:
		Well…that was a well thought out…apparently centric or at least willing compromise…unfortunately I don’t think this kind of argument will sway many…nor will any argument of this type…sober, scientifically minded…I love it the Letter…I just do not think its "Novel" enough to get anyone's attention and spur them to action no matter what the benefits…when it can be don’t in a WIN/WIN way…whether global warming theories are valid or not.

	jarhead, on 08/26/2008 @ 05:52 PM PST wrote:
		Nobody's saying that since humans aren't necessarily causing this, therefore we shouldn't do anything. Many of the things humans can do were already being done.

	Nuvious, on 09/05/2008 @ 03:19 PM PST wrote:
		You're half right. While the Earth does go through these climate changes on its own often and the data supporting global warming is statistically insignificant, we should still be concerned about carbon emissions, regardless of any climate change. The climate is a chaotic system and small changes can have huge impacts. I don't believe the world will end, but we should try our best to alter the content of the atmosphere as little as possible so that when climate change ends we can safely blame it on nature and not us. Fun fact - the best (and I mean BEST) computer modeling of weather can only predict a week to maybe a month in the future, and that's with significant error. This hurts both arguments, for or against global warming. We simply don't know what our effect has been on the environment.

	davevjr, on 09/11/2008 @ 01:35 PM PST wrote:
		Climate change is Being caused by us! we constantly mine the planet, out ocars belch out CO2 wich traps the sunlight and heats the atmosphere. this comes from cars, factories, oil refineries. If you drive see a smoke stack on factory the really killing the enviroment. Also deforestation causes it also by removing the tree's it also a natural filter for CO2. Tree's and other plant breathe it and expel oxygen.

	radmul, on 10/16/2008 @ 02:04 PM PST wrote:
		While cycles of climate change do in fact exist there has never been a rapid change that did not lead to disaster for the inhabitants. Allowing pollution without consequences is wrong under any circumstances.

	ljames, on 12/16/2008 @ 01:36 PM PST wrote:
		We are adding fuel to the fire by burning fossil fuels. By cutting down on these we ourselves will be able to breathe better. Also save up on health cost by cutting down on medical expenses on conditions like COPD and respiratory.

	ptrpaypal0111, on 03/31/2009 @ 03:13 PM PST wrote:
		Climate change is really the wind, ocean, and earth as a wholes issue, not ours. If a climactic change is to occur it will occur, regardless of our meaningless additions to the pollution and what not. A volcano expels far more pollutants than we ever could.

	Playtah, on 06/11/2009 @ 01:25 PM PST wrote:
		It's hard to pinpoint the cause, as yes, there have been cycles of weather patterns and disruptions since the earth began, but we have also been kicking more polution in the air since the Industrial Revolution.

	sparthers, on 06/13/2009 @ 01:59 PM PST wrote:
		I think we need to be more concerned with the health of our people and the preservation of the beauty of this world that God has given us. The whole climate crisis has been blown out of proportion.