catapult magazine

The other day, I heard a Chicago-radio interview with a scientist who claimed that global warming theories are the result of people who reduce the scope of history to their own limited experience. He says that people with a self-centered, individualist worldview think this generation is the first to face large-scale climatic changes. Such a narrowly focused perspective finds expression in theories such as ozone depletion and global warming.

The scientist said the earth has encountered far greater environmental hazards than car fumes and hairspray emissions. The earth’s atmosphere is capable of handling major changes caused by volcanoes, earthquakes, glacier increases and decreases, etc. He suggested that today’s society thinks too highly of themselves when they talk of human destruction of the earth. Thinking that human beings can so easily drain the earth’s oil supply in such a short amount of time reflects an inflated view of human power.

Though we recognize that humans do have a responsibility for the earth and that what we do does affect the earth, is there a tendency in “environmentalism” to think too highly of human power?

Correct. Thus: no more dinosaurs.

The issues of global warming and depletion of oil supplies are somewhat related, but very different issues, however. And while there’s serious debate about whether global warming is or isn’t an important issue, I don’t know of that much vigorous debate about whether our oil reserves are actually being depleted. We have limited supplies of oil, and we use vast quantities of the stuff. Therefore, we will eventually deplete it. And we can say with reasonable certainty that if we keep using it at the current pace that the currently known supplies will run out in XX years. I don’t think there’s much individualism or egotism involved in that question.

I think there’s probably some truth to his argument with respect to global warming, but grains of truth are often used very effectively to mislead and distort the big picture. Sure, there may have been periods of drastic (or even gradual) climatic change throughout the earth’s history, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that we’ll always be able to overcome them or that there won’t be large pieces of life as we know it that may cease to exist (say, for example, California) if the climate does change.

It seems certain that pollution and carbon dioxide emissions at least contribute to global climate change, whether or not it’s the primary factor. If it’s not the primary factor, then perhaps we can’t do much to prevent it. If it is the primary factor, however, then we have the ability to prevent potentially disastrous problem for future generations.

It’s fascinating how people can twist words to the point that it seems plausible to call concern for the environment and for future generations an individualist and egocentric point of view, and can make it seem as if indifference to the consequences of global warming is the truly community-minded point of view.

Well said Jonner. I do like the term ‘climate change’ better than ‘global warming’ because the changes around the world are patchy. Most of northern Canada and Alaska, for example, are warming at a dramatic rate. So much so that towns will need to be abandoned because houses are sinking into the melting permafrost. Parts of Siberia on the other hand, are cooling. The global trend is warming though. I suppose I’m being nitpicky, but I find that ‘climate change’ gets a less virulent reaction from Limbaugh types than ‘global warming.’

The little ice age in the 1600s is a well documented historical climate change where most of Europe’s average temperatures dropped by up to 2 degrees C. Result: wars, massive crop failures, population stagnation, starvation among peasants —some argue that the rebirth of serfdom in eastern Europe was an outcome of this climate change. That particular cooling trend coincided with a massive volcanic eruption in Indonesia (I think that’s where it was).

The little ice age was temporary, so I assume that vulcanic eruptions don’t have permanent climate effects. I’m not sure about that though. Asteroids hitting the earth on the other hand, if that’s what happened, changed life on earth in a big way, and we probably wouldn’t be here if that asteroid hadn’t hit.

About the scientist who feels that global warming cannot be caused by humans, I’ll just say this. In the old days people went into their forest to collect wood for heating their houses and cook their food. Today we collect the wood of the last 100 million years to heat our houses, cook our food, and run our cars, etc. So instead of burning just what’s on the surface, we’re burning a zillion times that much. Volcanos can’t do that. Volcanos have been blowing up for the entire history of the earth and everything turned out just fine so far. Humans on the other hand have never industrialized before, so this is just one grand experiment of carbonating our atmosphere to see what happens.

This scientist is also not likely to be a Polynesian whose nation is scheduled to disappear within the next 100 years. Scientists from there probably have a different perspective. Call that individualism if you want. I’d call it ‘having different priorities.’

It seems to me that we have little to lose by taking a closer look at how human presense affects climate. It seems to me we have little to lose by looking into the possibilities of global warming. If this is a subject upon reasonable scientists can disagree (as it seems to be), doesn’t it make sense to take the cautious route?

Some of scientific research as in global warming seems to suggest that we have an inflated sense of our influence on creation, but other research, like nuclear energy, reflects an ignorance or a perception of insignificant influence to the effects of scientific invention.

I won’t pretend like I’m an expert on environmental matters, but I will comment on the volcano thing. Having seen Mt. St. Helens in person it is an amazing thing. The power and the devastation that moderate sized volcano (compared to Mt. Rainier, for example) did was mind boggling. Yet 20 years later, nature regenerates itself. Prairie grass sprouts where volcanic ask and lava was. Trees grow leaves and stand true where they were barren and blown down by 300mph flying matter.
All this without human help. The resilience of the earth really is amazing.

About the tree issue, the logging that occurs in the Pacific Northwest is on Tree Farms where they own a certain amount of property, and log a section one year, then plant new trees in that section. Then they go on to a new section while they give the new trees time to grow. In other words, for every tree that gets cut down, another tree is planted and they can keep cycling through the land cutting and planting forever.

Without straying too much from the origin of the thread, the Bible charges Adam with taking care of his creation. How that applies to oil, car fumes, etc. is where I’m not sure. I can’t say I’ve given it a lot of thought.

As a soldier, I get paid to blow things up and destroy things, but I think people would be amazed at how many environmental regulations and restrictions there are guarding our digging foxholes, blowing up demolitions, etc. As obnoxious as the regs are and how they often change our whole training concept, I think for the most part they are good and they are certainly important to maintaining quality of army training areas.

When it’s 40 degrees in mid-January and there’s no snow to be seen, I like to think that this so-called “global warming” must be nice for homeless people.

See? There’s an upside to everything.

There are those who plant a tree or two for every one they cut down, but by no means do all loggers. Everytime I drive to my wife’s home (Northern Ont.), I’m disappointed in seeing another section mown down. Yes, there is reforestation as well, but from what I’ve seen and heard, it doesn’t add up to what is lost.
In the pacific northwest in particular, one of the main concerns is the type of forests being cut. Old growth timber is worth way more money and for that reason there is very little of it left. Being a different ecosystem than 100 year old trees, many people are bothered by it’s destruction.
I’m losing the vein of this post now. Sorry. I think i do that quite a bit.

Along the same lines as mrsanniep: though it would be sad to see the Polynesians go, I will take it as a sign of God’s wrath when Hollywood is covered with water from melted ice bergs. It will be like Waterworld, only this time without Kevin Costner.

Sorry, I had to. This is a great discussion. When did the global warming theory or ozone depletion theory get started? Does anyone know?