- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
The theory maintains that climate is complex, and has many factors. Solar energy is definitely a factor, even an idiot knows better than to fry himself in the hot sun.
Simple physics predicts a rise in temperature following heat being applied to CO2, an efficient vessel of heat (it's black, ever see carbon paper?). This has been observed on a small scale (e.g. - a greenhouse), and is predicted by physics on a large scale, as well, and fits with what we see from distant stars, as well (carbon vs heat).
The Earth's mean temperature cannot be predicted from carbon alone, however, because it is a complex system that has balanced itself over time.
The problem with the word "balance" is that it seems to imply something nice. In fact, balance can mean huge tidal waves crossing continents, something we have undeniable fossil proof of. The Earth's idea of balance is a lot different from ours. Your entire position essentially amounts to, screw it, let's burn more oil, it doesn't matter, I read a couple of articles that say so.
You don't attempt to connect on any sort of planet that a climate scientist is from.
In fact, what I'm saying about catastrophes was once not very accepted science, especially since it was so strongly advocated by a man named Velikovsky, who was also an iconoclast. He happened to be wrong about a lot of things, but he was entirely right about global catastrophes. They happen.
Equilibrium builds up, and then it explodes. Now they call it punctuated equilibrium, and they still say Velikovsky was wrong, and will get beet red if you even bring up his name. There, I just gave you all the ammo you need against an astrophysicist. Don't say I never did you a solid, and don't say I don't question science, either.
We had a nice little thing going on this planet, and it would be good to get some new ice for the polar bears to stand on. Saying that there's no way to make that happen is nihilist and wront.
Even if global warming is entirely solar activity, as you say, we could put sun shades in space that orbited, giving us a permanent partial eclipse. Your defeatist attitude is simply that, and also reveals the emptiness of your arguments. We won't accomplish anything by listening to you. We wouldn't have gone to the moon if we had listened to the whackos who said it was impossible, because man couldn't survive in space, or a million other whackos who said it was impossible for a million other reasons.
Why? Because we relied on the physics, and the pointy-headed intellectuals were correct.
