Global warming? Science? Stop your bitching

In my ongoing posts on the current global warming debate, I’ve decided to take a look at what the other side (those who deny the connection between emissions and global warming) has to say. In this article, Dr. Sloan, Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology argues that emissions have not been the major cause of global warming, and that, moreover, there hasn’t been much of a global increase in temperature in the past century at all.

While there has not been a significant increase in temperature in the past century, carbon dioxide, the main component of fossil fuel emissions, is, without debate, a greenhouse gas (along with water vapor, and ozone). With that being said, the carbon dioxide levels have been relatively stable over the past 1200 years, increasing exponentially only in the past 50 years. There are two explanations for this increase. Either the burning of fossils fuels have lead to increased carbon dioxide levels, or the earth’s volcanic activity has been really staining us down lately. Since the last major volcanic eruption was in 1991, it’s probably emissions. Even if emissions have no major impact on temperature increases, why continue to squander the limited amounts of fuel out our disposal? Sooner or later oil will be tapped out. Looking into alternative fuel sources now will ensure that the future has something to fall back on.

Dr. Sloan does not fail to point out the obvious benefits of a warmer climate, a longer
growing season.

A warmer climate could prove to be more beneficial than the one we have now.

A longer growing season means more food; and while I can’t argue with this, if temperatures continue to rise beyond optimal growth temperatures, crops will be unable to produce.

Moreover, actions taken thus far to reduce emissions have already had negative consequences without improving our ability to adapt to climate change. An emphasis on ethanol, for instance, has led to angry protests against corn-price increases in Mexico, and forest clearing and habitat destruction in Southeast Asia.

Yes, of course there will be some negative consequences to changing our lifestyle. Anyone who’s taken medicine knows that there are always unwanted side effects to the overall benefit you receive; so it goes for cutting back on carbon dioxide emissions. What Dr. Sloan’s argument comes down to, in my opinion, is that the environment is fine now so can everyone stop bitching about it. Yeah that sounds about right, my internet is on now so I should probably stop paying attention to the bill.