Science B15

Page B15

Science in the News The Town Voice The Complex Made Simple

Global Warming

By Arlon Staywell RICHMOND — Global Warming is not really a scientific topic, rather it is mostly political. Nevertheless we will establish that here in the science section. Of course the paths energy takes at various frequencies of radiation and other means of conduction and such are all part of a real science with real data. Different atomospheric makeups might allow different amounts of high frequency solar light wave energy in and not let out the lower frequency infrared heat energy and so forth. Carbon dioxide has been identified as a gas whose higher concentration in the atomosphere tends to trap more heat from the sun. The exact effect when considered with all the other factors is apparently the source of much discussion. The real science however shows that discussion is not very relevant.
The Relevant Problem
While it is true that the consumption of fossil fuels does release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, that cannot be a serious problem much longer. When the fossil fuels or "nonrenewable energy sources" are entirely depleted it will be necessary to depend on renewable sources of energy. Renewable sources of energy take the same amount of carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere when they are created as they put back in the atmosphere when they are consumed. The problem in those days will definitely not be too much energy to consume. While this might appear like not worrying about the wildfire because the tsunami will put it out, it is more science than many other discussions face.
So far this is just science though. The amount of energy people consume and the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will be regulated by nature, whatever the political situation. An important note whether you believe the globe will warm or run out of fossil fuels first is that current levels of energy consumption are not sustainable either way. But the more pressing issue for real science would seem how soon till fossil fuels are expended.
The Political Cause
Still there is the political motive to much of the discussion. When some notice how cheap human life has become in culturally inverted America, euthanasia, abortion, embryonic stem cell research, the death penalty and they need to justify it they can pass time talking about how there are too many people anyway and feel better about what would otherwise be counted as sensless destruction. Should anyone, especially this website, try to open a discussion about making people more moral, they will try to squelch it with their noting some population problem.
While it might be true that a simple lowering of standards against killing could lower the population to a more easily sustainable level, that killing does not make anyone more moral. The moral way to control the population is by not creating too many people at the start. Rampant abortions might take some number out, but the lower morality could easily put more than that back in. Rather than a wild whirlwind of unplanned creation and senseless destruction, more careful planning should be the case. Overpopulation should never be cause to pass a law to kill people for having been born, or conceived. The small number surviving would be immoral and that will doubtless create more serious problems than overpopulation. And while running out of fossil fuels might indeed make our lives more difficult, it won't likely make them as difficult as in times past.
The Transparent Artifice
A lesson I learned many years ago is that people don't always say what they mean. People who say for example that they "don't believe in global warming" are usually lying. They believe, as most people do, that fossil fuels are running out eventually. You can argue that those energy sources won't run out in a hundred years or maybe two hundred and fifty, or more but you must accept they will eventually run out. It is easier to argue that global warming isn't real. So why do people do that? They do it because it creates the impression that the Democrats are "center-right." They do it because it creates the impression that the right didn't lose the election. Much of the country would indeed like to believe that they are "center-right" or something other than the totally godless senselessness that abounds.
Talk Radio
Talk radio survived the Bill Clinton years because it likewise then did not accept that the right lost. They found reasons to be believe that the Democrats were killers just like them and therefore everything was all right. And indeed most Democrats are killers somewhat like them, but neither is "right." The "right" which supports law and tradition and values human life has not won for many years now.
The fact that fossil fuels are "finite" is something that really cannot be denied. Just because anyone, whatever their political affiliation, recognizes that inescapable fact does not necessarily mean they are "center-right." The truth is that the solution most people seek, many "Republicans" also, is very godless.

The Town Voice Home | Science Index B1 | B14 | B15 | B16