The 15 minutes I was a climate-change denier
I cannot shake the hands of everyone who participated in the March for Science on Saturday, April 22, (Earth Day) but I am very heartened by the number who showed up.
While the purpose of the march wasn't solely about climate change, it is the science issue that worries me most — and it seems to be the one most under attack.
I've accepted that climate change was real from the moment I first heard of it, except for a brief moment at work one day when a co-worker who noticed a story about climate change in the newspaper commented about how stupid people were to concern themselves with it. "It's cyclical!" he added.
"Huh," I thought, "how can climate change proponents be so certain it isn't just cyclical?" Though a decade or two had passed since I'd sat in an earth science class, I did recall learning something about natural temperature shifts. It seemed plausible.
So I googled it. It turns out that 97 percent of scientists say human activity is "extremely likely" to be at the heart of the increase in global temperatures Earth has been experiencing since the industrial revolution. It has to do with carbon dioxide's heat-holding properties, the increased amount of CO2 in the air, and the rate at which the warming of the earth accelerated since carbon-dioxide burning became the norm during the Industrial Revolution. (See References section below.)
No, it's not 100 percent of scientists being 100 percent certain, but it's certain enough for me. To be honest, I hope they're wrong. I hope we don't have to change a heck of a lot of our lifestyles in a short amount of time to ensure the planet is livable for future generations. But as it is, I'm not willing to risk it.
Thanks again to everyone who took part in Saturday's march.
References
While the purpose of the march wasn't solely about climate change, it is the science issue that worries me most — and it seems to be the one most under attack.
 |
| (Image by Stuart Miles/FreeRangeStock.com) |
I've accepted that climate change was real from the moment I first heard of it, except for a brief moment at work one day when a co-worker who noticed a story about climate change in the newspaper commented about how stupid people were to concern themselves with it. "It's cyclical!" he added.
"Huh," I thought, "how can climate change proponents be so certain it isn't just cyclical?" Though a decade or two had passed since I'd sat in an earth science class, I did recall learning something about natural temperature shifts. It seemed plausible.
So I googled it. It turns out that 97 percent of scientists say human activity is "extremely likely" to be at the heart of the increase in global temperatures Earth has been experiencing since the industrial revolution. It has to do with carbon dioxide's heat-holding properties, the increased amount of CO2 in the air, and the rate at which the warming of the earth accelerated since carbon-dioxide burning became the norm during the Industrial Revolution. (See References section below.)
No, it's not 100 percent of scientists being 100 percent certain, but it's certain enough for me. To be honest, I hope they're wrong. I hope we don't have to change a heck of a lot of our lifestyles in a short amount of time to ensure the planet is livable for future generations. But as it is, I'm not willing to risk it.
Thanks again to everyone who took part in Saturday's march.
References
- How do we know global warming is not a natural cycle? ClimateCentral.org, published Nov. 7, 2009.
- Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Causes. Climate.NASA.gov.
- Global Climate Change: Vital signs of the planet: Scientific consensus. Climate.NASA.gov.
Comments
Post a Comment