Some people suggest that it is dangerous to become a zealot about global warming, that in fact there is validity to both sides of the debate and that perhaps compromise is the answer for all. The problem is that compromise and middle ground are just another way to sit on our hands and take no action at all. I totally agree that becoming a zealot about anything is unhealthy, leads to conflict and limits both reasoned debate and considered analysis of fact, but there are also some things that just demand action and social outcry. When it's wrong, it's wrong!
I liken global warming to slavery (bear with me here) which suffered from inaction and compromise for hundreds of years. People turned a blind eye because it didn't directly affect them, still others enjoyed the benefits of cheap labour and domestic service and rationalised away the degradation of human rights. It took vision and strength to stand up and say "this is just wrong even if it costs me personally".
Al Gore is obviously using global warming as a political platform and as a hot button issue, but that doesn't make it any less important. After all do we decry Abraham Lincoln's stance on slavery? This was another hot button issue for its time and provided a stance which along with unifying the nation ensured much public support and not a small amount of political opposition. This stance also allowed him to implement other radical political changes even if some of his actions were less than ideal or altruistic.
While the scientific waters were muddied for many years with reports funded by companies like Exxon with vested interests in negative findings, there is now almost no dissention amongst the scientific community about global warming; it's a threat that is very real and we are already seeing the blinking red warning lights.
Still people claim division and growing dissention within the scientific community: which leads me to ask, what growing number of scientists are sceptical about climate change? Certainly all of the scientific conventions, lectures and conferences that I have attended have been of absolutely one voice: "why isn't the world listening?".
Perhaps it's actually because so many people are weighing into the debate, both politically and socially and in such high profiled opposition that the average person just doesn't know what to believe. Perhaps worse still, the various media networks of the world are purposefully injecting ambiguity into the debate because when it comes right down to it, social issues that involve outrage and conflict on both sides make big dollars and get a lot more ratings.
Therein lies the Achilles' heal behind using media as a balancing mechanism for political and social events and issues. When media networks are run to make a profit how can any of us expect balanced and fair reporting? The simple answer is, we can't. They will report (and I use that term loosely), spin and deliver whatever content sells the most copies, rates the highest airtime or moves the most number of ads. If one story succeeds in doing this better than others, then it is in the network's interest to ensure that this story continues to run, continues to have conflict and continues to be unresolved.
It's all about the bottom line and yet here we are relying on them for an informed, balanced coverage. It's just like relying on the scientific reports from Exxon I mentioned earlier (which is exactly the sort of content the media networks have been feeding us). It might be amusing if it wasn't so irresponsible and so incredibly dangerous.
The fact is, Australia, the driest inhabited continent on earth, is already providing the "canary down the well" and alarm bells should be sounding everywhere. With incredible climate change over a very short period and stronger storms and changed climate patterns, it's sobering to realize this is just the beginning. Still, people sit back and do nothing, or worse, those with little or no information take a stance against global warming and perpetuate misinformation and non-education.
So could this be a natural phenomenon? (as is so often paraphrased, suggested and misrepresented both for political gain and media ratings). The short answer is that natural cycle precedents do not exhibit such extremes in change that we are now witnessing.
Yes the earth goes through natural cycles from ice age to global warming and back again, but according to these cycles we should be on a "cooling" phase over the next 10,000 or so years. In fact pre-industrialisation the temperatures for the past few hundred years were indeed on a gradual decline just as anticipated. Yet here we are a scant hundred or so years later and we're on an express train with no way to get off. We either hit the brakes now to start bringing this over-heated engine to a stop or we end up passengers all the way to a man-made crisis.
The ice caps ARE melting at an unprecedented rate, faster than has occurred in any of the previous Milankovich cycles (based on repeated ice core samplings). The oceans ARE rising instead of lowering, faster than was anticipated by any of the original "global warming" projections, the average global temperature IS rising every year, more and more of the earths landmasses ARE in drought, suitable crop zones ARE shrinking and weather patterns ARE changing.
Specialised ecosystems, wildlife and water resources ARE being affected now, and soon (within this century) we'll see the impact on other ecosystems with devastating affect; on fauna and flora in general, on economies world wide, on farming and agriculture and before too long on every single person on the planet either directly or indirectly (but most likely both).
Let's breakdown the scientific mumbo-jumbo: According to scientific analysis, if you look at previous cycles and all the data available to us (which is significant) then the temperatures should (on average) be declining, the oceans should be lower and we should be heading (very gradually) into another ice-age.
Instead we're heading very rapidly into much warmer conditions. To assume this is a natural event you also have to discount the incredible amounts of gases (not least of which is CO2) which we are as an industrialised society, pumping into our atmosphere at an incredible rate. Additionally, you would need to discount the fact that this warming exactly coincides with and is accelerating with the advent of industrialisation over the past hundred years to date. That's right; the graphical curves for increased pollution and increases in global warming are almost exactly the same, this is no coincidence!
Obviously there are agendas to both sides of the argument and the debate is being hijacked for political advantage and corporate greed, to the detriment of all.
However I must respectfully disagree with the people that claim the scientific community is divided. There are very few voices against global warming and of those few, most are on the payroll of corporations or political campaigns. I have yet to meet a single micro or marine biologist in any country (and I've met many) who thinks it's a non-issue or any other person from the scientific community that doesn't share some concern about this threat. The only people who I've met personally that are in the negative camp are lay people without much information on the subject, be they political, corporate or general public.
My last two cents worth is that the media has an awful lot for which it should answer. Gone are the days when we could depend on our media networks as the counter balance to political corruption, corporate wrong doing and social inequality. Gone are the days when our media would do whatever was necessary to see the truth get out and gone are the days of "keeping them honest".
Instead, welcome to "big brother", "survivor" and so called "news reports" with a complete and utter focus on the almighty dollar; let the consequences and the world be damned!
Read another of my articles on Global Warming:
Is Australia's Continued Warming and Drought a Global Warning About Global Warming?.
You are a member of Ben Jones's Fan Club!
tweet this!
