Ever since the infamous Chicken Little freaked out about the imminent descent of the sky, alarmed people everywhere have taken a certain morbid delight in anticipating the next great catastrophe to befall the Earth. The latest entry in the pantheon of fear–one with a surprising amount of staying power–is global warming.
Now, before all you AGW (anthropogenic [man-made] global warming) acolytes start besieging me, let me be clear that this little treatise is not about whether or not warming is occurring.
No, what we are dealing with here is the neurotic reaction of the populace to the possibility of AGW–and in my view, that reaction is far more dangerous and destructive than a 100-year trend that adds a degree on average to the global temperature.
What got me thinking about this is my belated reading of the late Michael Crichton's "State of Fear," a 2004 novel describing a worldwide plot in which a group of eco-terrorists seeks to cause major environmental disasters to bolster their believability on climate change–and, of course, fill their pockets with cash.
What distinguishes this from the common potboiler, however, is that Mr. Crichton employs over 150 real (not fictional) references to support his notion that global warming is not the equivalent of the sky falling.
In fact, this book is highly educational on that score, and it includes a number of charts and graphs taken from reliable references. Mr. Crichton also takes care to specifically spell out his views on the subject of AGW, which can be summarized as follows.
o Warming is occurring.
o Humans are involved in increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and we can expect that will make some difference in temperatures (italics mine).
o There will likely be a .8-degree (Celsius) increase in average global temperature in the next 100 years.
Mr. Crichton emphasizes that he came to these conclusions based on his three-year review of the scientific literature (not articles in the mainstream media).
If you're familiar with "State of Fear," or have read about the novel, you probably know that pro-AGW interests were positively apoplectic in their condemnation and vilification of the work–and of Mr. Crichton.
Why the extreme reaction? Because, as Mr. Crichton later explained in a television interview with Charlie Rose, "I am not a catastrophist." He added that he believed carbon dioxide "will not be the primary driver" of warming, pointing instead to solar influences and urban land use.
More importantly, Mr. Crichton noted that environmental issues tend to draw emotional responses, and from there, "it's easy to move toward increasing hysteria." According to the author, "People line up for the catastrophe. They're excited."
Mr. Crichton said, quite correctly, that long-term predictions about the global climate are not possible. Interestingly, some of his critics complained this information was coming from a mere novelist who was writing a work of fiction. True enough, but as anyone who has read Mr. Crichton's work knows, his books are among the most thoroughly researched when it comes to getting it right about technology.
His conclusion, based on common sense, is that rather than spending vast sums of money and energy on trying to head off a slight warming trend, "we ought to be taking care of disease and world hunger first."
Despite the outcry from those whose financial interests are tied to the notion of impending disaster, there are many who agree with Mr. Crichton and go even farther in their criticism of AGW.
Canadian climatologist and former University of Winnipeg professor Timothy Ball wrote in 2007 that: "Global warming, as we think we know it, does not exist. Believe it or not, global warming is not due to human contribution of carbon dioxide. This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification."
While I tend closer to Mr. Crichton's views, I completely endorse the idea that our world has gone bonkers over this catastrophe du jour. Just take a look at how insurers and other companies (notably utilities) are trumpeting their "fight" against AGW. Ask yourself, however, if they are doing that because they believe it, or because they think that's what people want to hear.
A sad fact of human nature is that many of us enjoy the thrill of impending doom so much that we are loath to pay attention to the peer-reviewed science that says we probably won't see environmental catastrophes from a small climate shift.
Need more evidence? "Climate of Extremes: Global Warming Science They Don't Want You to Know"–a new book from the Cato Institute, a nonprofit public policy research foundation headquartered in Washington, D.C.–looks at "why the news and information we receive about global warming have become so apocalyptic."
According to Cato, "The science itself has become increasingly biased, with warnings of extreme consequences from global warming becoming the norm. That bias is then communicated through the media, who focus on only extreme predictions… This body of work details how the impact of global warming is far less severe than is generally believed, and far from catastrophic."
To be sure, there is much to be discussed and debated on the topic of AGW. I would encourage every reader, however, to pick up and read "State of Fear," which, despite being five years old, comprehensively summarizes the obvious conflicts among research studies and rightly criticizes the media for hyping extreme results that simply aren't supported by the science.
Whatever your view on AGW, this book brings up extremely important caveats, and the educational information will surprise many. Besides, it's a really fun read.
© Arc, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to TMSalesOperations@arc-network.com. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.