The Mouse in Limbo
Last night Mrs. Mouse & I attended a talk on global warming sponsored by the local Democratic Committee and delivered by Rev. Steve Brown, Director of Virginia Interfaith Power and Light. This county -- named for James Madison -- is largely Republican, so we were careful to advertise the event as a non-partisan, religious gathering. We sent letters to all of the local ministers outlining the program and asking their help in getting their congregations to attend. Indeed, the final newspaper announcement appeared in the religious section, and indeed again, the speaker was none other than a minister of the Presbyterian faith.
So, who attended. With four exceptions, no one other than the same cadre of Democratic activists who attend all the events sponsored by the Committee. The exceptions? The minister of the local Episcopal Church, the minister (and his wife) of the Presbyterian Church where the event was held, and a man well-known in the community for his devotion to what the Mouse calls "true Christian principles," care for the poor, love of his God, and devotion to doing what he can to improve the lives of everyone. I do not know the voting habits of the four "strangers," but apart from them, I can say for sure there was not a person there who is of the Republican persuasion.
To be honest, that was expected. I cannot recall ever seeing a Republican at any Madison County event that promised to deal with liberal or progressive issues. But then, how and why has it come about that global warming is considered a liberal issue? If 98% of the scientific community is right about its worldwide catastrophic effects, global warming is a human issue. To the extent we think of it as a problem that can be batted around by politicians and pressure groups until it just goes away, we are disastrously mistaken.
Think about one of the facts presented last night. Hurricane Katrina affected a coastline about 90 miles long and produced 150,000 refugees. Global warming will affect every coastline in the world and could produce more than 100,000,000 refugees, that's one hundred million. Katrina killed less than 1,000 people. Global warming may kill millions.
Madison County's Republicans are not the only ostriches. The Washington Post, three days ago ran a story focusing on the report just released by NASA's chief climatologist, James Hanson, in which the facts were spelled out as clearly as could be. The article appeared on page A22. I recently blogged about a subcommittee hearing that ran on C-Span, in which the debate centered not upon what to do, but rather upon whether the statistical methods employed in the famous "hockey stick" report employed a method different from another statistical method -- and those people, your elected representatives, were serious!
Let me say something about that "hockey stick," where it got its name. If you track the ratio of CO2 to temperature change over the past 450,000 years you get a correlation that is essentially perfect. That is, as the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere rises, temperature also rises. As CO2 falls, temperature falls. Smooth out the minor squiggles, and you get two curves that are essentially parallel. The interesting thing is that at the peak temperatures -- seven of them over the 450 millenia -- the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere topped out at 300 parts per million (PPM). If you draw a trend line connecting those high spots, you get a more-or-less straight line. That's the handle of the hockey stick. Now look at the most recent measures of CO2 in the atmosphere. The number is 380 PPM, almost 30% higher than at any point in the measured past. What's more, if you project the current trend of CO2 being put into the atmosphere into the future, you get a line running up at a near perfect 90 degree angle, the only slope being that brought about by the passage of time. Connect that line to the straight line of the handle, and you get the hockey stick's blade, a graph that shows CO2 shooting to almost double any amount observed in the past.
Now recall the almost perfect correlation between CO2 in the atmosphere and temperature, and you get the fact that, unless we do something pretty soon, the earth is going to be hotter than it has ever been in the past 450,000 years. When that happens, the polar ice caps will melt, sea levels will rise by 40-60 feet, climate patterns will dramatically change, and many thousands of living species will cease to exist, one of them perhaps the species homo sapiens.
In any case, human life will be in grave danger.
So, back to the question. How has it come about that global warming has been considered a liberal issue? Surely liberals are not the only ones who can read and comprehend the meanings of "hockey stick" graphs and other scientific facts. Surely liberals are not the only ones who, when faced with death-dealing predictions, would be concerned. And surely liberals are not the only ones who will be affected by global warming.
A possible answer -- in fact, the most likely answer -- for the blindness of certain partisans lies in the fact that certain economic entities -- Exxon/Mobil and Shell Oil -- have taken action to distort the facts associated with global warming. They are doing this because they perceive that some of the things we might do to save ourselves from the worst effects of global warming will cause their profits to fall. If for example, people start buying high-mileage automobiles and start using other than oil-based fuels, Exxon will certainly sell less gasoline. The coal industry as well has begun to fight back against the incontestable fact that coal is the worst of the CO2 offenders. I have in the past several days seen at least three TV commercials vouching for the cleanness of coal, the opposite of the truth. In short, the industries affected by what we might do to avert global disaster have instituted a brain-washing campaign to make the American people believe the opposite of the truth ... and it is working, since even some liberals have bought the story.
Add to this the apparent fact that the present occupant of the White House and his fellow travelers in the legislature are more the servants of the corporations than of the people, and the answer to our question becomes patently clear. We're in for big time trouble because corporations (understandably, because their conscience is focused on the bottom line) and our government (unforgivably) have managed to sell us a bill of goods. They've told us we're playing a friendly game of Bingo when in fact we're playing Russian Roulette with all the chambers loaded.
I've discussed in the past, right here, the underlying reasons why some government officials have made their mistakes. I don't for a minute think they're all evil men, but I do think they have been persuaded by a philosophy that is fundamentally flawed. As I say, I've talked about that before, but tomorrow I'm going to talk about it some more. In the meanwhile, be assured that there is hope. If no other message was made clear last night, it was that the means are available with current technology to head-off the worst effects of global warming. All that's needed is the moral and political will to act.
So, who attended. With four exceptions, no one other than the same cadre of Democratic activists who attend all the events sponsored by the Committee. The exceptions? The minister of the local Episcopal Church, the minister (and his wife) of the Presbyterian Church where the event was held, and a man well-known in the community for his devotion to what the Mouse calls "true Christian principles," care for the poor, love of his God, and devotion to doing what he can to improve the lives of everyone. I do not know the voting habits of the four "strangers," but apart from them, I can say for sure there was not a person there who is of the Republican persuasion.
To be honest, that was expected. I cannot recall ever seeing a Republican at any Madison County event that promised to deal with liberal or progressive issues. But then, how and why has it come about that global warming is considered a liberal issue? If 98% of the scientific community is right about its worldwide catastrophic effects, global warming is a human issue. To the extent we think of it as a problem that can be batted around by politicians and pressure groups until it just goes away, we are disastrously mistaken.
Think about one of the facts presented last night. Hurricane Katrina affected a coastline about 90 miles long and produced 150,000 refugees. Global warming will affect every coastline in the world and could produce more than 100,000,000 refugees, that's one hundred million. Katrina killed less than 1,000 people. Global warming may kill millions.
Madison County's Republicans are not the only ostriches. The Washington Post, three days ago ran a story focusing on the report just released by NASA's chief climatologist, James Hanson, in which the facts were spelled out as clearly as could be. The article appeared on page A22. I recently blogged about a subcommittee hearing that ran on C-Span, in which the debate centered not upon what to do, but rather upon whether the statistical methods employed in the famous "hockey stick" report employed a method different from another statistical method -- and those people, your elected representatives, were serious!
Let me say something about that "hockey stick," where it got its name. If you track the ratio of CO2 to temperature change over the past 450,000 years you get a correlation that is essentially perfect. That is, as the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere rises, temperature also rises. As CO2 falls, temperature falls. Smooth out the minor squiggles, and you get two curves that are essentially parallel. The interesting thing is that at the peak temperatures -- seven of them over the 450 millenia -- the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere topped out at 300 parts per million (PPM). If you draw a trend line connecting those high spots, you get a more-or-less straight line. That's the handle of the hockey stick. Now look at the most recent measures of CO2 in the atmosphere. The number is 380 PPM, almost 30% higher than at any point in the measured past. What's more, if you project the current trend of CO2 being put into the atmosphere into the future, you get a line running up at a near perfect 90 degree angle, the only slope being that brought about by the passage of time. Connect that line to the straight line of the handle, and you get the hockey stick's blade, a graph that shows CO2 shooting to almost double any amount observed in the past.
Now recall the almost perfect correlation between CO2 in the atmosphere and temperature, and you get the fact that, unless we do something pretty soon, the earth is going to be hotter than it has ever been in the past 450,000 years. When that happens, the polar ice caps will melt, sea levels will rise by 40-60 feet, climate patterns will dramatically change, and many thousands of living species will cease to exist, one of them perhaps the species homo sapiens.
In any case, human life will be in grave danger.
So, back to the question. How has it come about that global warming has been considered a liberal issue? Surely liberals are not the only ones who can read and comprehend the meanings of "hockey stick" graphs and other scientific facts. Surely liberals are not the only ones who, when faced with death-dealing predictions, would be concerned. And surely liberals are not the only ones who will be affected by global warming.
A possible answer -- in fact, the most likely answer -- for the blindness of certain partisans lies in the fact that certain economic entities -- Exxon/Mobil and Shell Oil -- have taken action to distort the facts associated with global warming. They are doing this because they perceive that some of the things we might do to save ourselves from the worst effects of global warming will cause their profits to fall. If for example, people start buying high-mileage automobiles and start using other than oil-based fuels, Exxon will certainly sell less gasoline. The coal industry as well has begun to fight back against the incontestable fact that coal is the worst of the CO2 offenders. I have in the past several days seen at least three TV commercials vouching for the cleanness of coal, the opposite of the truth. In short, the industries affected by what we might do to avert global disaster have instituted a brain-washing campaign to make the American people believe the opposite of the truth ... and it is working, since even some liberals have bought the story.
Add to this the apparent fact that the present occupant of the White House and his fellow travelers in the legislature are more the servants of the corporations than of the people, and the answer to our question becomes patently clear. We're in for big time trouble because corporations (understandably, because their conscience is focused on the bottom line) and our government (unforgivably) have managed to sell us a bill of goods. They've told us we're playing a friendly game of Bingo when in fact we're playing Russian Roulette with all the chambers loaded.
I've discussed in the past, right here, the underlying reasons why some government officials have made their mistakes. I don't for a minute think they're all evil men, but I do think they have been persuaded by a philosophy that is fundamentally flawed. As I say, I've talked about that before, but tomorrow I'm going to talk about it some more. In the meanwhile, be assured that there is hope. If no other message was made clear last night, it was that the means are available with current technology to head-off the worst effects of global warming. All that's needed is the moral and political will to act.
posted by Benedict S. at 11:18 AM
7 Comments:
Neither God or Global Warming shall come between Madisonians and the Mountaineer Football Team Homecoming.
Benedict, there are always people who can't think beyond the very lowest level of complexity. For these people, "It's cold out today, therefore there can't be global warming" sounds like impeccable
logic!
Sadly, some of them write newspaper columns or host radio shows. Sadder
still, others actually take them seriously.
Benedict, You have the answer right in your pocket, about the oil companies.Big-Business Republicans -- particularly oil executives and other industries who profit by causing global warming -- generally don't acknowledge the problem because they profit by denying it. "It is hard to convince a man of a truth when his income depends on him not believing it." It is normal human nature to deny responsibility when you are accused of a foul thing, whether you are claimed to have done it deliberately or not. I do not think in most cases this is conscious deception; it is more self-deception.
Unthinkingly-partisan Republicans reject global warming simply
because Democrats believe in it. In the same way that the Bush
Administration in 2001 did not believe bin Laden was a real threat
simply because the Clinton Administration warned them he was, these folks reason that since Democrats and Republicans are opposing political parties, it follows that if Democrats favor something, Republicans oppose it.
Here's a good article from USA Today on global warming.
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/2006-05-31-business-globalwarming_x.htm
If anyone is interested in reading it.
Anon: Amen, brother, amen. But, where has the team been that they're now coming home?
Robin: Yes, you're right, sweetie, but every now and then I take a break from the funny papers and do something productive, like taking a nap, or having another Diet Dr. Pepper. (LOL, as they say.)
Old Hippi: Interesting thought about why the current occupant disregarded the Al Queda threat. I vaguely recall that Richard Clark said somethng like that in his book, Against All Enemies. The idea fits well with the divisive nature of this administration.
Christa: I'd love to know which of the many democratic f__k-ups you have in mind. Normally, when apprised of a problem, the Mouse can dream up 15 ways before Monday to solve it ... unfortunately, to no one's satisfaction. [That's the problem we sane people face. No one agrees with us.]
What's your thought on the new Bob Woodward book? It's causing quite a stir now since we are so close to mid-term elections.
Old Hippi: I'm pleased with the comments, but I'll have to wait until I read the thing. His last was a big disappointment, at least from a congressional reaction standpoint. He nailed the current occupant on misappropriation of $700 million but the panty-waste congress rolled over.
Post a Comment
<< Home