Jim,
The subject of Global Warming is one that creates an intense reaction in people who have a political investment in opposition to it. As you can see by the letters my comment generated, it made the writers so angry that it actually interfered with their ability to read! We, as survivalists, need to be acutely aware of when this happens to us, as the ability to react to any information coolly and logically is a cultivated adaptation that will give us a leg-up in stressful situations.
In reply to M.W.A., I should probably expand on something about CO2 that I only touched on for brevity’s sake. Contrary to how it might seem to us laymen, not all CO2 is the same, which is why I talked about man-made CO2’s “distinct isotopic signature”. The Carbon component of Carbon Dioxide is composed of three different isotopes (C14, C13, C12) and man-made CO2 has an identifiable ratio of these isotopes. Lest anyone think that the proofs of Global Warming are generated only by climate scientists, these isotopic ratios are recorded by those in many varied scientific disciplines (such as oceanographers and geochemists) and the results consistently concur with the basic premise, that increasing man-made CO2 levels parallel with increasing global temperatures. The collection of data like this has long been a characteristic of science and has nothing to do with attempts to control anyone or anything, as implied by M.W.A. As to the semantics of “Global Warming deniers”, we’re speaking of a very small group of dissenters, almost devoid of scientists (let alone ones working in the sciences associated with the earth’s climate). Even the Bush administration, after repeatedly rejecting (and attempting to suppress) the conclusions of the scientific community, just this week said that they wholeheartedly embrace the U.N.’s IPCC report (which concluded that Global Warming is man-made) and called the evidence for Global Warming “unequivocal”. Anyone who clings to the notion that this is nothing more than a ruse invented by environmentalists belongs to a tiny minority at this point. By the way, if M.W.A. would like to provide proof for his assertions about making “climate change denial” a crime, I’m sure we’d all like to see it.
I’m not sure where Michael Z. Williamson is getting his quote of raising ocean temperatures “a few degrees” as it isn’t in my letter (or any other letter on your site) but his claim that “the Antarctic is growing” is incorrect. There was a temporary mitigation of the trend of ice loss due to some unusual precipitation but the first ever gravity survey (GRACE) of the entire ice sheet by NASA has detected significant Antarctic ice mass loss. “The mistake of one scientist” which he claims is insane to suggest was not connected to the “Medieval Warming Period” as Mr. Williamson misread, but rather the assertions of the growth of glaciers worldwide (I urge him and anyone else confused about this to re-read what I said). As I said about the so-called “Viking era”, there may have been regional anomalies but this does not result in a conclusion of world-wide warming at that time (indeed, the evidence suggests nothing of the kind). The “records from the timeframe involved” don’t actually “document” anything other than an attempt by the Vikings to expand settlements there. When I was a kid in school (in the distant past), we were taught a bit about Viking history, including their early use of propaganda. One of the most self-evident proofs of this is the very name of their colony: Greenland! Those who bought the stories they were told about it were sorely disappointed when they arrived. Instead of the fertile farmlands (capable of growing vineyards?) they had expected, they found a cold wasteland that was anything but green, ultimately incapable of sustaining the small (and initially, quite hardy) colony there. If there were warm periods in the area (and there is little to suggest that there were), they were freakish and short-lived. It would be foolish to assume that selectively chosen Viking literature on the subject of Greenland is a worthy substitute for accurate documents about conditions at that time.
As I implied in my previous letter, anyone who chooses to disregard the overwhelming conclusions by the scientific community is more than welcome to do so. I have no doubt that one could find some fantastic real estate buys along the Mississippi coast, for example, and if you feel that Global Warming is nothing but a hoax, there’s no reason why you shouldn’t take advantage of a buyer’s market. I wouldn’t even have dipped my toe into this controversy save for seeing disinformation presented as fact. Keep in mind that ExxonMobil has contributed a huge amount of money to support the distribution of non-peer reviewed papers critical of Global Warming science and the establishment of friendly “think tanks”. In my mind, it’s one thing to argue the concept based on it’s economic effects but it’s highly unethical to distort (or outright lie about) about the science involved. As survivalists, it would seem logical for us to pay very close attention to the potential catastrophic events that could domino when the climatic “tipping point” arrives, rather than be distracted by a corporation intent on buying “the best lies money can buy” to increase it’s short term profits. However, (as I keep saying), that’s your choice to make. To me, there’s not much difference in how I prepare to survive, Global Warming simply increases the impetus for me to do so. Best Regards, – Hawaiian K.
Letter Re: Pondering Some Personal Consequences of Global Climate Change
