A Lot of Hot Air

I recently read a diatribe from a well-known author likening the scientific and social acceptance of Global Warming to the Eugenics movement of the early 20th Century. My instinct upon reading that, was to dismiss the notion outright as preposterous. However, in the interest of open-mindedness I thought I’d give it another look. For those of you that don’t know, I’ve touched on the eugenics topic before with my post inspired by the film Idiocracy. Which in actuality, is a pro-eugenics film; the underlying principle being that we are breeding ourselves into stupidity. Something that, as a species, we should probably try to avoid. Of course, in practice, the eugenics movement inexorably led to the Holocaust perpetrated by Nazi Germany. Which, as it turns out, is something we should probably try to avoid even more.

The point is, this is an example of a reasonable-sounding idea gone terribly awry. It all seems innocent enough if you just take the term at face value: “Eugenics is the study and practice of selective breeding applied to humans, with the aim of improving the species by improving human genetic qualities to counter dysgenic dynamics within the human gene pool, specifically in regard to congenital disorders and factors relating to the heritability of IQ.” Like the eugenics movement, the Global Warming movement offers a similarly sensible theory: “The Earth as an ecosystem is changing, attributable in great part to the effects of globalization and man. More carbon dioxide is now in the atmosphere than has been in the past 650,000 years. This carbon stays in the atmosphere, acts like a warm blanket, and holds in the heat — hence the term ‘global warming’.” Sounds reasonable enough. Makes sense to me anyway. In fact, it makes sense to a lot of people. Just like eugenics did almost 100 years ago. So much sense, that the scientific community rallied around the concept of eugenics and received research funding to study their claim. The problem is, that unless the theory holds true, the funding stops and the researchers have to find a new job. So, it comes as no surprise that the more research grants are given to study the validity of a theory, the more “science” points to its validity. Go figure.

I’m not saying these two issues are identical—not at all. However, I am saying that there is a certain similarity. They both have taken an issue with an almost infinitely complex set of variables, boiled it down to a simple concept we can all understand, funded science to support and validate the theory and then attempted to institute sweeping sociological changes that impact the lives of millions of people based on their findings. I’m not an expert on Global Climate Change. I first studied the notion in 1992 and frankly have heard little new on the subject since then. But I do know this much. When people start trying to scare the hell out of me, I am immediately suspicious. My first instinct is to safeguard my loved-ones and my wallet. I find the notion that the Earth is going to devour our civilization with catastrophic weather changes equally credible to the arguments that claim there is no Global Warming at all because it’s cold outside today. For some reason, I get the sense that both sides are lying to me.

There’s some intellectual dishonesty going on here from both sides that I find disturbing and ideologically paralyzing. I mean, I want to understand the issue. It’s important to me, and I’ve no doubt there is merit to the claims of scientists all over the globe who present climate change as a very real threat to human beings. But that belief I have is just that. A belief. I don’t know that for certain. And I am skeptical of anyone else who claims to have a complete understanding of the planet’s ecosphere and temperature fluctuations, our impact on them and the almost infinite number of other variables that contribute to the livability of our species on this wildly diverse planet. We know so damn little about the whole thing. Let me re-phrase that… I know so damn little about the whole thing. So little in fact that I am begging both sides of this issue to come together and present their ideas with some sense of credibility. I’m a big believer in science—I’m generally a fan of, you know, facts. But I’ve got to warn you, if your scientific conclusions can be picked apart by the likes of me, you’re on shaky ground. Like I said, I am not an expert, but even I have been able to find the double-speak and missing pieces of critical data on many of these studies (on both sides).

Claiming that the ocean level will rise and engulf the State of Florida within 10 years is equally unhelpful to your cause as claiming that because some scientist buried a set of data means that there is no threat at all. It’s childish, reactionary posturing from self-righteous partisans who care more about scoring political points than they do about addressing the important issues of the day. Frankly, it’s just plain stupid. Almost as stupid as claiming that I am comparing environmentalists to Nazis.