«-- Letter From David in Israel Re: Blue Water Sailing as a Retreat Option? | Main | Kanban: America's Ubiquitous "Just in Time" Inventory System--A Fragile House of Cards --»
Letter Re: Pondering Some Personal Consequences of Global Climate Change
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.
