Skeptics and Deniers: The Conclusion (Part II)

Part of the previous blog post: 

This post is Part I of the conclusion to Skeptics and Deniers, a series of analyses on the book Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years by Fred Singer and Dennis Avery. I'm sorry about the delay in publishing this post :( I really wanted to give a more in-depth review of the book, and the writing became too long to be a single post. That's why I divided it into two parts! Please understand that it took longer to explain my judgments, inferences and opinions in greater detail for a comprehensive review. 

* For those of you who haven't been following these posts, here is a little background information:  the book's  authors assert that Global Warming is simply part of a succession of changes in the Earth's system; there is only weak evidence that Global Warming is anthropogenic; Global Warming might actually be beneficial; we do not have to make an effort to curb CO2 levels, because they aren't responsible for Global Warming.  If you wish to see my analyses posted over the past several months, please check out the previous blog posts: on the Earth and the Sun; the weaknesses of the Greenhouse Theory; Rising Sea Levels; Mass Extinction Part I, and Mass Extinction Part II. 

We've finally reached the end of the book. Looking back at the previous posts of this series, I see so many topics and sub-topics that the authors explored to explain their views. Methods of scientific research, inferences made from statistics, connections between health and climate change, possible misconceptions of the public, the role of politics in influencing mass media, the evolution of foreign policies and protocols, etc. Along with this, the authors present a rather detailed overview of the history of climate change that took place on our Earth. I deeply appreciated this part of the book, in that it gave me a chance to truly reflect on my own views, knowledge and ways of accepting new findings and research.

I also became aware of the limited scope of my understanding of our world. Frequently, when the authors stated the flaws and inaccuracy in research that presented ideas I saw as "facts" e.g., 'Global Warming causes extinction of many species', I couldn't decide which side to lean towards. Should I stick with what I've internalized throughout my entire education so far? Or would it be ignorant to dismiss these new ideas as absurd? The main reason for my indecisiveness was my lack of knowledge of the scientific, social, and political spheres of our world. 

This leads me to another question: how confident are the authors in their own beliefs and ideas? While I was thankful for the aforementioned experience I received from this book, I was puzzled, bewildered, astonished, even incredulous at the way they laid out their information. I cannot possibly list all, but there were so many generalizations, exaggerations, manipulations of words that were used to support their views. A seemingly innocuous sentence such as 'People choose land with higher productivity for agriculture, which inhabits less species, leaving our the rest of the world's land to nature.' At first glance, this single sentence doesn't seem out of the ordinary. However, when looked at just a little more carefully, it is outright wrong. It almost makes it seem as though we only use land for agriculture. We use land left over from agriculture for so many other purposes, such as shelter, transportation, goods production, etc. When sentences like this are scattered around the book, a quick reader would gain the misleading impression that we humans aren't powerful enough to impose great changes in our environment.Why would the authors write such sentences? It certainly helps their opinion that humans aren't really causing so much change on our planet (ex. not causing Global Warming, not driving wild species to extinction). With this realization that I began to see the book as somewhat manipulative. Along with this lingering idea, it was when I noticed other aspects of the book that I began to doubt the credibility of the authors.

I hope I have given you at least a glance at climate skepticism. I realize that I may have been partial to my own beliefs at certain points; I know, however, that I put a lot of effort into presenting an objective view and leaving some points to be interpreted by the readers of my blog. Whatever view an individual has, it is always helpful to be aware of the entire spectrum of viewpoints, as well as the logic and evidence behind them. This may be the only way we can become more certain that decisions we make in our endeavors are not illogical or unfounded but reasonable and substantiated. I hope you have enjoyed this series of blog posts and will begin to explore more on how our planet really works. I will do the same when I go to college and explore to address the questions that I have.

Thank you for supporting me, and I will see you in March!

Skeptics and Deniers: The Conclusion (Part I)

This post is Part I of the conclusion to Skeptics and Deniers, a series of analyses on the book Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years by Fred Singer and Dennis Avery. I'm sorry about the delay in publishing this post :( I really wanted to give a more in-depth review of the book, and the writing became too long to be a single post. That's why I divided it into two parts! Please understand that it took longer to explain my judgments, inferences and opinions in greater detail for a comprehensive commentary. 

*I added pictures of some pages in the book. As I mentioned before, I had to do with a Korean translation of the book that I found in the library. So don't be surprised when you see just Korean letters! I put them up for the Korean followers of my blog :) 

* For those of you who haven't been following these posts, here is a little background information:  the book's  authors assert that Global Warming is simply part of a succession of changes in the Earth's system; there is only weak evidence that Global Warming is anthropogenic; Global Warming might actually be beneficial; we do not have to make an effort to curb CO2 levels, because they aren't responsible for Global Warming.  If you wish to see my analyses posted over the past several months, please check out the previous blog posts: on the Earth and the Sun; the weaknesses of the Greenhouse Theory; rising sea levels; Mass Extinction Part I, and Mass Extinction Part II. 

My blog posts have been mostly covering the earlier part of the book, up to the relationship between Global Warming and Mass Extinction in Chapter 6. The following are some of the points that the authors make throughout the rest of the book, not just in the final chapter :) I also added my comments for some of them. Again, please remember that the words highlighted in pink are those of the authors.

Chapter 7

aaa: During the Medieval Warm Period, the population of Europe grew by 50%. It can be inferred that there was much greater food production during that time. Wealth of food brought prosperity to the cities, transportation and construction.

Chapter 10

aaa: Global Warming does not bring about greater frequency or strength of droughts, hurricanes, storms and tornadoes. For example, WASA (Waves and Storms in the North Atlantic) found there was no evidence warmer climates in 1900 - 2000 resulted in more storms or hurricanes. 

Chapter 14

aaa: There is strong evidence that abnormally low temperatures bring about greater casualties than abnormally high temperatures. Besides, the growing popularity of air conditioning will make illnesses and deaths from heat less likely. (According to a research in the early 1980s, the number of deaths during abnormally hot climates was 41% less in households with air conditioning than those without it.) Additionally, cardiovascular diseases and respiratory diseases can become much worse in cold climates. 

    : I understand that the authors are trying to emphasize how warmer temperatures aren't the worst. Colder temperatures can be worse in many ways. But is the comparison between the hot and cold really appropriate in this book? All abnormal climate phenomena can be disastrous. We're trying to figure out the best way to handle the changes in climate that are occurring in the present moment in time. Does it really matter whether the current climate is not as catastrophic as another?

Chapter 15

aaa: The rich do not necessarily have to reduce their levels of consumption. They tend to have fewer children, need less land, reduce levels of environmental pollution that result from industrialization, plant many more trees, provide most of the funding for nature conservation. Wealthy nations are taking a positive role towards environmental conservation, not that of destroying the Earth. People of the ancient ages didn't 'live in harmony' as we believe them to have been; they actually damaged nature because members of their tribes always exceeded the absolute limit of their resources. Supporters of the Green Revolution, a central idea of which is that developed nations must reduce their consumption, should consider the way such a 'simpler lifestyle' would influence life span and quality of life.

      : Such unconventional ideas and generalizations are pretty common in the book. Still, I was taken aback at the way the authors presented their ideas. What do they mean by "need less land"? Is this logic formed on the basis of "less people, less land"? What about the amount of food they require per person and the spacious homes they inhabit, both of which need land? Even if they themselves physically take up less space, much land is required to provide the products and resources that they consume. Simply emphasizing the wealthy's potential in helping nature conservation isn't really appropriate here when we're dealing with statistics like the following: USA, less than 5% of the world's population, took up 18% of the world total primary energy consumption in 2012 (US Energy Information Administration). 

    : Hypercars that run on hydrogen (see the Wikipedia page on Hypercars here)are claimed by some (which include the famous Jeremy Rifkin, author of Entropy) as a sustainable means of transportation. They also assert that 96% of the time during which the cars are parked can be used to produce electricity by connecting to the national electricity network. However, the cars' ability to actually produce energy on the distributed energy production network isn't feasible. Furthermore, it is highly inefficient. This is the "illusion of the hydrogen economy".

*Chapter 16 (The Last Chapter)

      : We should implement measures to curb CO2 levels only when the following is proved and verified:

1) Greenhouse gases contribute much more to higher temperatures than the natural cycles of change in the Earth's climate

2) Global Warming causes great harm to human welfare and ecosystems

3) Reasonable human activity accelerates Global Warming

aaa: For every argument, some researchers provide evidence for one side while others provide for the other. This book support those who say Global Warming isn't caused by human activity. This would also be the side that says we don't have to change our practices and lifestyles since there isn't sufficient evidence to prove that we should. I'm not sure this is the wise direction to take. What if it's too late to take measures when all evidence begin to point towards the other side? 

Even as the authors mentioned in various points of the book, we still do not have a complete picture of how our planet works. Trends and cycles in our Earth's system is very complex; it includes the 1,500-year cycles that the authors love, it also involves the Greenhouse Effect that they dismiss. Can we be absolutely certain which evidence is stronger than the other, and which findings are the ones to implement in our policies and practices? In my humble opinion, we should at least try not to accelerate the activities that could be damaging our environment. I also believe we should be able to make some sacrifices - even if the logic behind them isn't absolute - because they could make all the difference to our posterity. Choosing to take no action would be irresponsible when some of the evidence, regardless of their imperfections, says we shouldn't. 

      : Although we cannot prevent damage from global climate change throughout the entire globe, we can develop the technologies to minimize its influence on our society. For example, we can provide enough food through mass production and send such resources to regions that need them. 

     : This idea is valid only when this is certain: we ourselves do not exacerbate global climate change. If it is found that we do accelerate Global Warming, what the authors suggest would be attempting to clear up after the catastrophe instead of actively making an effort to prevent it. Can we really afford to simply prepare for the scenario that could be averted in the first place?

Next blogpost: The Conclusion Part II!

Skeptics and Deniers: Global Warming and Mass Extinction - continued

Last post of the Skeptics and Deniers series was on Global Warming and Mass Extinction. This blog post will be its continuation, discussing the various factors that threaten wildlife.

The writers list four 'confirmed' factors:
1. Asteroid Collisions
2. Hunting
3. Agriculture
4. Introduced Species

Since the writers do not believe that Global Warming endangers wildlife, they give the factors that are not directly related to the current climate change. It provides an outline of the threats throughout time, giving a  glimpse of the  complex relationships between a species and the environment and also among species. 

There was an interesting piece of information linked to factor #3: although humans have taken over one third of the world's land for agricultural purposes, the land suited for farming is likely to to have been providing habitat for a small number of species. However, I have to take issue with what the book says soon afterwards: that because we choose land with high productivity for farming (more suited for agriculture), we leave out the rest of the world's land (on which more species live) to "nature". Are the writers implying that humans take control of land just for farming and do not use the rest for other purposes? If there is a reason for this misrepresentation, perhaps the writers are trying to give the impression that we do not impose that great an influence on the environment. It certainly wouldn't be a hindrance to the writers' opinion that human activity cannot have such a big impact as to cause an anthropogenic climate change...

Factor #4 was another point that I gave more thought to. It states that the development of transportation unintentionally brought new species to foreign land. Ships, cars, and planes meant the introduction of species to distant regions around the world. The book explained that the competition between the native and foreign species was inevitable, causing some to become close to extinction. I wondered whether this conflicted with ideas presented further in the chapter. Giving examples of various species - the Northern Pika, birds of the eastern region of the United States, etc. - the writers offer the following idea: as a reaction to the changes in climate around the world, many species' original habitats may become unsuitable; however, the animals are "strong" and have an "inherent ability to adapt"; thus, the range of their habitat will simply shift, causing no definite harm to their survival. The writers explain that mentioned species have shown to survive moving to different regions and that others will do the same. And yet, what is so different about this situation that the various species survive in this case, and do not in the first scenario - the introduction of species by human transportation? Competition between species exists in both, does it not? Is it due to the number of animals being shifted? Is it about how long it takes to make the shift? Please tell me what you think in the comments below! 

The final post of this series will be posted soon~!

Yangjaecheon in Late December - Early February

Spring isn't quite here yet. There are icy puddles on the concrete, brittle branches trembling when birds flutter past, off-white leaves of feathery bristlegrass billowing in the wind, the sting on the tip of my nose. 

I've been taking walks along my beloved Yangjaecheon lately. I wanted to share my pictures with you. Some are blurry, some are grainy. I hope they capture the still serenity that I love about the stream - the gem that can only be observed in late winter mornings. 

The familiar scene seen from afar 

Reflected across the small ripples

Mallard ducks - shades of dusty brown, cream, sepia, dark velvet green, and a hint of sandy yellow

Can you guess? Is the sun setting or rising?

Like ice cracking across the surface

Silhouetted against the skies