Sunday, January 31, 2010
So much for global warming; or not
Mark Taylor is outdoors editor at The Roanoke Times.
mark.taylor
@roanoke.com
981-3395
Mark Taylor
Outdoors coverage
- Notebook: Outer Banks beach-driving plan kicks up sand
- Outdoors commentary: Many Sunday hunting cons
- Winter tourneys invite fishermen out in the cold
- Visit our Outdoors page
The Wild Life blog
This winter's cold and snow have been an eye-opener, huh?
The snow has brought beauty and fun, along with strenuous shoveling, mucky floors and scrambles for child care when school is canceled.
And all of it has been flavored with lots of cracks about climate change.
"So much for global warming," a friend recently joked.
At least I think he was joking.
There's a chance he wasn't.
One recent survey conducted by Yale and George Mason universities found that 57 percent of respondents believe global warming is occurring.
That's a significant decline from 71 percent in October of 2008.
Only 50 percent of respondents were "very" or "somewhat" worried about global warming, a drop of 13 percent.
In another poll, citizens were asked by the Pew Research Center for the People and Press to rank 21 issues in terms of priority.
Guess what finished last on the list?
Climate change is not an easy thing.
It's difficult enough to study past climate data in order to establish trends.
For example, even though there is strong scientific consensus that the planet it warming and man is contributing, there remain scientists who dispute that.
Looking ahead is even more difficult.
Whether or not we are shaping it, this is nature, after all, and nature has a way of veering away from the path we think it is supposed to follow.
Part of the recent jump in skepticism is rooted in the train wreck that has been happening in the climate research field in recent months.
There was the scandal involving scientists who tried to hide and/or repress research that flew in the face of their results showing that the planet is warming at a dangerously rapid rate.
More recently another report that claimed global warming was threatening rainforests in the Amazon has been discredited because the original report was written by an environmental activist and based on research regarding forest fires and not climate change.
Though there remains plenty of research that supports the assertion that the planet is gradually warming, and that man is helping to make it happen faster than it should be, the scandals have weakened the overall credibility of the global warming movement.
Basic human nature is also at play.
Our memories tend to be local, short and selective.
When temperatures in Roanoke don't climb above freezing for a week in January, it's easy to forget about those recent January weeks when we were walking around in shorts.
It's been a chilly winter across much of the country.
But the truth is -- and most folks realize this -- that weather and climate are two different animals.
Weather is what's happening here and now.
Climate is the big, global picture.
Actually, outdoors enthusiasts are well equipped to intellectually deal with this because we encounter it regularly in our activities.
Consider the deer hunter who spends a long, cold day in the stand. If he doesn't see a deer, does that mean his hunting area is now devoid of all whitetails? Of course not.
Same goes for the angler who gets skunked on a fishing trip, or the birder who has a slow day of hawk-watching during the fall migration.
But if a bunch of hunters, anglers or birders experience declines -- or increases -- in kills, catches or sightings over a long period of time, that could indicate a real trend.
The climate change issue is complicated by the makeup of the debate's loudest participants.
Simply, many have a dog in the fight.
Plenty of the most ardent purveyors of the global warming message are longtime activists who have never been without an environmental cause, and never will be.
Much of the skeptic movement is rooted in industries that could be in for a financial smackdown from government-mandated intervention measures.
That scientists take money from groups on both sides further clouds the picture.
There's also that pesky little thing called partisan politics, which has certainly contributed to the us versus them atmosphere of the debate.
In general, liberals are more likely to believe in global warming and support measures to halt it while conservatives are more likely to hold an opposing view.
And, again, members of both sides are all to happy to take campaign contributions from special interests.
It's tempting to just ignore the whole mess, but we can't really do that. The stakes are just too high.
We must not rely on a single side or source for our information.
It is as irresponsible to consider only Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth for information on climate change, as it is unwise to let skeptic Rush Limbaugh be a single source on the issue.
Nor should steadfast allegiance to a single political party shape our stance.
Obtaining an educated view on this complicated issue just isn't that easy. It takes time, effort and an inquisitive, open mind.
Enjoyable? Not really. Important? Absolutely.
In the meantime, we should enjoy the snow.
Because we will see less and less in future years?
Not necessarily.
Because it's beautiful and fun.
