And what do we do about it?<\/p>\n
\nGlobal warming is for real, and it is important. Just as important is the fact that global warming is largely anthropogenic. Global warming is important because conditions for life on the planet are changing due to warming as well as other changes caused by the release of fossil carbon into the atmosphere, in ways that will have, on balance, negative impacts; That it is anthropogenic is important because this means we have identified a cause of an important negative effect and thus could potentially curtail it. The anthropogenic nature of global warming is also important for another reason: It provides a test case. Can humanity handle a problem of this magnitude, that it has created for itself, with sufficient speed to curtail the worse consequences? Or not?<\/p>\n
It has been said that global warming is a mixed bag: For some it will be bad, for others it will be good. This is a myth. Global warming is on balance bad, and it is mostly bad. Never mind the extra CO2 in the atmosphere that plants like, and which would increase agricultural productivity. Plants do not produce more tissue, fruit, grain, or what have you in direct proportion to the CO2 in the atmosphere. A little, yes, but after a small increase in productivity more CO2 does not increase productivity. The small amount of productivity is offset by the negative consequences of global warming.<\/p>\n
It may be that the most significant impact of “global warming” will actually be not in atmospheric temperature change, but rather, in the change of ocean chemistry caused by absorption of extra CO2. If ocean chemistry changes in a way that some models predict, it will become difficult for several kinds of small marine organisms to build their shells. Many of these organisms reside at or near the base of the marine food chain. Some also serve, collectively, as one of the primary means by which atmospheric CO2 is broken down to produce atmospheric oxygen. Collectively, they are one (and an important one) of several “lungs of the, planet.” In the worse case, which may or may not happen, oxygen may become noticeably depleted in our atmosphere, and food supplies may be negativelhy affected.<\/p>\n
The situation will probably eventually resolve itself. A widespread oxygen-breathing organism causes the oxygen-producing system to fail and disrupts its own food chain. The oxygen-breathing organism then goes extinct (taking numerous other species with it). Eventually, oxygen-producing systems re-develop, food chains adjust, and something like present-day conditions return, and since the oxygen-breathing organism that caused the problem to begin with has gone extinct, things would be back to something that passes for normal for a while.<\/p>\n
If you are an anthropogenic global warming denialist, you can count yourself as partly responsible for such a calamity. You probably won’t live to see the worst consequences because you are old (most AGW denialists are grumpy old men). You may want to write a letter to your grandchildren, who will suffer these consequences, explaining your role in creating their misery. Just sayin’<\/p>\n
What does AGW denialism look like?<\/strong><\/p>\n It looks like a lot of things.<\/p>\n It looks like anonymous Internet cranks shouting at other people for not being real scientists.<\/p>\n It looks like people shouting about alarmism.<\/p>\n It looks like faux journalists seeking a “balanced view” that gives “both sides” of “the debate.”<\/p>\n It looks like web sites pretending to be valid science-oriented resources faking data and making stuff up, and Internet trolls dropping links to those sites wherever possible to (mis)direct people to them.<\/p>\n How do we address it?<\/strong><\/p>\n Call them on it, every time they open their mouths. Demand explanations for their motives (which is something to think about, by the way). If you are a blogger and they comment on your blog, you need not be intimidated by screechy references to the “First Amendment” … just delete their blaterhing or change their links to point to the web site of the Spam Museum<\/a>, a major Minnesota Attraction. Or whatever<\/a>.<\/p>\n When you have friends or colleagues who seem to show leanings towards AGW denialism, show them clearly that you do not take them seriously, indicate subtly that their credibility is at stake, politely give them links to sites like Real Climate<\/a> where actual climate scientists talk about actual climate science. Do not vote for, and always vote against, politicians who are denialists. Yes, yes, I’m suggesting that Anthropogenic Climate Change is a “litmus test” issue, because it is. And the litmus test is not only a political one … it is also a test of ocean acidity, which has increased by an average of 30% with the release of fossil carbon to date, and which is expected to reach 150% by 2100, which, in turn, is probably beyond one or more thresholds of disaster.<\/p>\n When you look upon a global warming denialist, you are not seeing a person who is deluded, wrong, misinformed, or misguided. You are seeing a person who is intent on killing your grandchildren. You may want to treat them politely, you may want to be a dick to them. Do whatever works. But don’t let them think for a second that you do not know what the consequences of their actions are. Don’t let them get away with it.<\/p>\n