@Scott Westerfeld: "Plot idea: 97% of the world's scientists contrive an environmental crisis, but are exposed by a plucky band of billionaires & oil companies."
Two quotations related to climate change:
Gus Speth is an environmental lawyer and advocate, a professor at Vermont Law School and a Distinguished Senior Fellow at Demos, a nonpartisan public policy research and advocacy organization. He said:
"I used to think the top environmental problems were biodiversity loss, ecosystem collapse and climate change. I thought that with 30 years of good science, we could address those problems.
But I was wrong.
The top environmental problems are selfishness, greed, and apathy. To deal with those, we need a spiritual and cultural transformation, and we scientists don't know how to do that." 1
With respect, this webmaster disagrees. It is true that "selfishness, greed, and apathy" are major problems to be overcome to prevent future environmental catastrophes from materializing. However, I feel that there are other major factors to overcome as well.
One is the denial of the findings of scientists by many present-day religious and political conservatives. Since the time of Galileo Galilei (1564-1642), huge swaths of the population have regarded science and religion as natural enemies. The two have different sources of information, different definitions of truth, and thus have entirely differing concepts of reality. Many people deny the existence of climate change and global warming as they deny the evolution of living species, the cause and nature of sexual orientation, the cause and nature of gender identity, etc.
A second factor is the ease with which lawmakers' votes can be purchased at the state and federal level.
Rush Limbaugh, a talk show host and conservative commentator said:
"... if you believe in God, then intellectually you cannot believe in man-made global warming ... You must be either Agnostic or Atheistic to believe than man controls something he can't create." 2
Our future? A superb video that shows what the Earth would look like if and when all of the glaciers melted:
Enormous amounts of water are contained in various glaciers across the world, primarily in the Arctic, Antarctic, and Greenland. These are all melting at an accelerating rate, most notably in the two poles. A video by Business Insider Science gives a view of what the world's land masses would look like if all of the glaciers melted:
A similar video has been placed online by RealLifeLore:
The Independent newspaper has an article containing maps showing the outline of many countries if all the glaciers melted. 11
Unfortunately, the effects of such a glacier melt are hard to predict with any accuracy. That is because the sea level rise would be caused by the both the melting of the glaciers and the thermal expansion of the oceans caused by heating of the water. The effects of the former can be estimated accurately, but the effects of thermal expansion depends on the degree of heating.
Residents of Florida would be particularly hard hit since the current average height of land in that state is only about six feet above sea level. Michael D. Lemonick, writing for Climate Central said:
"For places like Hallandale Beach ... the sea has already risen more than a foot --- over the past century, and new research by Climate Central shows that some 2.4 million Floridians are at risk of flooding from even a moderate hurricane-driven storm surge. The odds of a catastrophic 100-year flood by 2030 are now 2.6 times higher than they would have been without global warming." 4
A recent study says we can expect the oceans to rise between 2.5 and 6.5 feet (0.8 and 2 meters) by the year 2100, enough to cause major problems in many of the cities along the U.S. East Coast, the Gulf of Mexico, and elsewhere. More dire estimates, including a complete meltdown of the Greenland ice sheet, would result in a sea level rise by 23 feet (7 meters). This is enough to submerge London, England. It would place the bottom floor(s) in most of the world's oceanside hotels under water.
If all the glaciers were to melt entirely, the level of the oceans would rise by about 216 feet (66 meters). Many cities and costal areas around the world would be under water -- including the entire state of Florida.
There have been five mass extinctions in the history of the Earth. These are times when there is a massive loss of animal species and animal populations. Some scientists are referring to the present time as the start of the sixth extinction -- the first one to be caused by humans rather than by natural forces. Researcher Mark Urban of the University of Connecticut has combined the results of 131 earlier studies and concluded that:
If greenhouse gas emissions continue at the present rate that 16% of the Earth's species will be threatened with extinction by the year 2100.
However, "If greenhouse gases were capped and temperatures rose a couple degrees less, then the extinction threat would be nearly halved." 5
Why does this religious site discuss environmental concerns?
A topic like this might normally be considered a scientific matter, without a
significant religious component. It might not be expected to appear on this web site.
We have included it because environmental concerns and religion are linked in at
least two ways:
Many religious conservatives deny that the problem exists or that it is
serious. Some of this belief may be derived from the general distrust that
many religious conservatives have towards science and scientists. Another
source may be their common belief that Jesus Christ will
return to Earth within the next few years and instantly correct any pollution problems. Thus,
some feel that we
need not pay much attention to these matters today.
Morality has always been closely associated with religion. A case can be
made that leaving a highly polluted world behind for future generations
is a profoundly immoral act, to say nothing of the massive loss of life caused
by environmental degradation over time.
Satire/humor about global warming:
The Onion web site is perhaps the most popular source of satire on the Internet since its founding 22 years ago. They posted the following message concerning global warming, its effect on ocean levels, and what we can to do about it:
Needless to say, the meaningful, scientific content of this video is zero.
Citizens for Public Justice, a national Canadian religious group, has produced this infographic:
The two degrees Celsius rise in temperature, shown above, is equivalent to 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit. 3.7 degrees Celsius is about 6.7 degrees Fahrenheit.
ALL of these conflicts have either already been settled in favor of expanding scientific knowledge and/or human equality, or they appear to be headed that way.
For the past century, almost all of the conflicts have involved gradually smaller groups of people -- from women at 50% of the population to transgender persons at 0.6% . I am at a loss to predict what group might be next. There don't seem to be any small groups left to hate, discriminate against, and/or oppress.
I am wondering whether this millennia-long series of conflicts between science & religion involving discrimination against minorities is petering out, and will eventually be no more -- perhaps to be replaced with science & religion conflicts that affect everyone, like global warming/climate change.
Almost four decades ago, James Hansen startled a U.S. Senate committee meeting in 1981 by saying that he was 99% certain that human activities were already warming the climate. Ironically, the speech was given during a stifling heat wave in Washington, DC. He co-authored an article in Science during August of that year that begins:
"Atmospheric CO2 increased from 280 to 300 parts per million in 1880 to 335 to 340 ppm in 1980, mainly due to burning of fossil fuels. Deforestation and changes in biosphere growth may also have contributed, but their net effect is probably limited in magnitude. The CO2 abundance is expected to reach 600 ppm in the [21st] ... century, even if growth of fossil fuel use is slow."
C02 reached 412 ppm during 2018-OCT. Where it will be by the end of the century is anyone's guess. 14
2014 to now: President Trump's changing beliefs on global warming:
During 2014-JAN, Trump tweeted: "NBC News just called it the great freeze — coldest weather in years. Is our country still spending money on the GLOBAL WARMING HOAX?"
During 2015-DEC, he said: "Obama's talking about all of this with the global warming and … a lot of it's a hoax. It's a hoax.
During 2016-JAN, Trump discussed climate change on the Fox & Friends TV program, saying:
"Well, I think the climate change is just a very, very expensive form of tax. A lot of people are making a lot of money. I know much about climate change. I'd be — received environmental awards. And I often joke that this is done for the benefit of China. Obviously, I joke. But this is done for the benefit of China, because China does not do anything to help climate change. They burn everything you could burn; they couldn't care less. They have very — you know, their standards are nothing. But they — in the meantime, they can undercut us on price. So it's very hard on our business." 15
U.S. politicians and others who have made the transition from climate change deniers to climate change beleivers have gone through two steps:
Step 1: Recognition that climate change is actually happening.
Step 2: Recognizing that human activity is responsible for most of the climate change.
Recently, President Trump seems to have almost completed Step 1. During 2018-OCT President Trump was interviewed on CBS' "60 Minutes." He acknowledged that climate change is actually real. He said:
"I think something's happening. Something's changing and it'll change back again. I don't think it's a hoax. I think there's probably a difference. But I don't know that it's manmade. I will say this: I don't want to give trillions and trillions of dollars. I don't want to lose millions and millions of jobs." 16
The next step is for him to admit that it is caused by human activity. The final step is for him to do something about the problem.
Also on 60 Minutes, Leslie Stahl discussed Hurricane Michael which was the most intense hurricane on record to attack the Florida panhandle. She asked President Trump about the general scientific concensus that the intensity of hurricanes world wide is increasing. She asked:
"What about the scientists who say it's worse than ever?"
The president replied, "You'd have to show me the scientists because they have a very big political agenda." 16
The following information sources were used to prepare and update the above
essay. The hyperlinks are not necessarily still active today.