"The (Very) Wrong Idea" by "Teaching Americans Geography"

February 10, 2010

After reading some recent op-eds by conservative columnists, it seems to me that willful ignorance is now somehow equated with “healthy skepticism”. Make no mistake, however, that referring to a “great global warming hoax” demonstrates not skepticism, but political bomb-throwing and a lack of intellectual integrity on the part of the writer.

The other day, I read an opinion piece alleging that recent and extremely minor data mistakes on the part of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) somehow undermined the entire scientific theory of anthropogenic global climate change. Never mind the massive edifice of scientific data, published on a routine basis, by a myriad of researchers and institutions, that supports the theory.

For that’s what a theory is, a hypothesis supported by extensive testing and data. The hypothesis here is a simple one, that greenhouse gas emissions by human activity have thrown the regular cycle of warming and cooling out of whack. Despite a certain writers allegations, climate change is more than just one glacier in the Himalayas and ski season in the Alps. Mountains of data exist, taken from all over the world, that support this theory. And those are just on the side effects of what is happening, like increased extreme weather events, prolonged droughts, drying freshwater supplies, and the spread of plant and animal disease.

When you get right down to it, climate change seems like an easy thing to understand. (Caveat: I’m not a scientist. Any real ones, feel free to correct me if I mess up). I mean, we can test the greenhouse effect, right? By this, I mean, the heat-trapping effects of gases like carbon dioxide and methane should be testable, in a lab. Following that, scientists have multiple ways of measuring global average temperatures and the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, over time. So, if we know these gases have this effect, that we are increasing the amount of these gases in the atmosphere, and that this effect is occuring, where does denial entire into this equation?

Some might question the data, or bring up the much-publicized (by Fox News, anyway) “Climategate” scandal, which was really a non-scandal. What did get revealed to the public is that the right-wing will take any statements they can, divorce them from any sense of context, and claim that disproves a well-supported scientific theory. Unfortunately, all the rhetoric in the world doesn’t change numbers. We can measure carbon, we can measure temperatures, and we know carbon traps heat.

Another issue brought up was that of one or two “scientists” (see: those paid by Exxon) and some “liberals” (because, the Earth is apparently a partisan issue) agreed that climate change was a hoax. Well, I’ve got two counter-examples for you: Lindsey Graham and John McCain. Conservative politicians have trended toward climate denial, but both of these men acknowledged that humans are causing it, and we need to do something about it.

Finally, it was alleged that climate change was a hoax created by liberals to expand government intrusion into our lives (kind of like neoconservatives and the war on terror, huh? Maybe another time...). Well, I’m a liberal, and I can tell you right now, that’s not at all what we want.

Personally, I support common-sense emissions regulations, along with rational incentives to spur investment in things like wind turbines, solar panels, plug-in hybrids, and energy-efficiency measures. I don’t want these because I prefer plants to people, but because its a pretty pragmatic way to grow the American economy. Not exactly radical socialist, is it? In fact, it’s downright Keynesian capitalist.

It’s a proven way too. Look at Denmark. They instituted a price on carbon emissions, and now they export a fairly large amount of clean-energy technology. I’m originally from a small town right smack in the middle of Kansas. Out there, we just built a fairly-large wind farm, using the biggest and most efficient turbines on the market. Can you guess where those turbines were shipped to Concordia, Kansas, from? If you said Denmark, you’re correct. The Vestas V90, a 250-ft tall beast of a windmill is manufactured in Denmark.

My question is, why not here? Heck, we’re America. We used to be the manufacturing capital of the world. I guarantee you we could build those turbines here, and we could build them bigger, better, and more efficient. There’s no reason American workers couldn’t produce a superior product, and no reason clean-energy technology couldn’t revitalize the manufacturing sector. Instead of SUV’s, all those empty factories in Detroit could pump out wind turbines, solar panels, and hybrid cars.

And that just building the things. To take it back to my home town again, more than a dozen young people got good, medium-skill, career-focused jobs working for the wind farm. In a community that small, 12-20 solid, sustainable jobs is a big deal. Not only that, but our community college started up a wind energy technician training program, ensuring an educational pipeline to give young people the skills and opportunity to break into these green-collar jobs.

It only makes sense to support this, it’s a win-win-win situation. Our economy wins by closing trade deficits and strengthening the dollar. The American worker wins, because there’s no way unemployment would stay at ten percent, and the environment wins, because ending our mutually-abusive relationship with fossil fuels will significantly change the way we affect nature. Expect a column on the relationship between fossil fuels and U.S. national security soon, as well.

And that’s the right idea, despite what small minds might say.

ADDENDUM: I'd like to respond to what was commented on here by posting this: http://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/ This is a factcheck of the "Climategate" scandal by the Annenberg Foundation, a non-partisan group started by one of Ronald Reagan's advisors. Also, the relative wealth of evidence for climate change comes not just from the IPCC, but from the dearth of peer-reviewed journals published on a constant bases. Nature and Science are "sometimes biased media," I suppose. Just this month, Science published research on climate change and ocean acidification. I would have to see evidence that proves the peer-review process is corrupt before I would believe that claim. Finally, the claim "follow the money" applies in reverse too. Follow the oil and coal money, and I bet it leads to a lot of denial politicians and "scientists". As for the head of the IPCC, upon further research, I think you'll find that he receives a fairly modest income, and the rest of his money goes to several charities, including one a friend of mine is going to work for, that builds solar-powered footlamps for schoolchildren in rural India.

CORRECTION: I like comments, because I like being proven wrong. Thank you to thortonfan for his comment about Vestas. What you said makes me very, very happy. The turbines placed by Concordia were shipped from Denmark, but I'm very pleased to here they have manufacturing facilities in the U.S. as well. We need more like that!

The (Very) Wrong Idea

I almost fell out of my chair reading your article. i submit that you must be guilty of the same willfull ignorance you accuse others of. In believing what you read thru the (sometimes biased?) media, you have formulated your opinion on global warming and pronounce that it is fact. Have you yourself researched all the information available to you? Are you aware of how many notable scientists' opinions have been totally disregarded because they weren't in agreement with the IPCC agenda? That carbon credits in the U.S. will be traded at the Chicago Climate Exchange (Obama has ties) and that Al Gore's investment company owns a 10% interest in this? That Dr. Pachauri has a similar investment in his native India; if the world does embrace carbon trading; he will become a very rich man? That both the originator of the Weather Channel and the head meteorologist at Accuweather do not agree with the theory that global warming is man made and stems from a carbon problem (the majority of meteorologists do not agree, either)? As an educated person, assuming you are the same; I suggest you research and form your own opinion of what may (or may not) be taking place. You may be very surprised at what you find. Like they say: follow the money...

The (Very) Wrong Idea

Mr. Lowell.

There has never been a consensus in climate science. The wealth of evidence that you point to does not exist. The 'edifice of scientific data' has been compiled by a cabal of people hell bent not on controlling the earth's atmosphere / weather but its politics. This is now proven beyond doubt and required no computer modelling / guess work whatsoever. The peer review system was corrupted, data destroyed or manipulated, thermometers moved / removed, spurious graphs, lies, collusion and money...lots of money were the means to this end. The thought of an exposed scam having any influence now on policies that will have crippling effects for the vast majority of ordinary, hard working citizens but a nice little earner (by that I mean billions if not trillions) for the con artists and charlatans is just too repugnant to contemplate.

tarrop...nice response btw.

The (Very) Wrong Idea

I work at a Vestas manufacturing plant in Brighton Colorado. We will be producing the US turbines: towers in Pueblo, blades in Windsor, nacelles and hubs in Brighton.

Sign in to comment

Or login with:

OpenID