Climate crybabies

[rikki]

Can anyone tell what the point of this (http://www.metropulse.com/articles/2006/16_28/thats_wild.shtml) is?

[SnM]

Making a few extra bucks? :)

Seriously, another elegant column. But what about your critic in the letters col http://www.metropulse.com/articles/2006/16_28/incoming.shtml? How can you ever overcome his devastating onslaught of logic?

[pixeljockey]

Seriously, another elegant column. But what about your critic in the letters col http://www.metropulse.com/articles/2006/16_28/incoming.shtml? How can you ever overcome his devastating onslaught of logic?

why did they even print that? short on letters?

conservation of energy and entropy????? aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!! it makes me want to cry.

(nice column rikki, as always.)

[rikki]

He is justified in criticizing the promise of a "fact-filled" discussion of evolution. I didn't write the drop head or deck or whatever it's called, and though there are facts in the column, a lot of it is historical speculation. My intent was more to explain how much more interesting the natural world becomes in light of evolutionary theory and not so much to explain the facts. So I guess I'll have to write about the facts of evolution in a future column...

[metulj]

Great column, Rikki. Absolutely fabulous and was just sent to my students as a supplementary reading.

Weather != Climate. The first intellectual leap that the flat earthers have to make to understand the problem.

[kag]

just posted this most excellent op-ed to my blog

[dilettantedude]

Good column, Rikki, and some skepticism that's needed about what we're focusing on here.

I'm not sure if you intended it this way, but my interpretation of it is something I've been saying for years. Focusing on global warming is misdiagnosing the problem. It's like focusing on fever as the cause of disease, not the effect. You really better do something about the cause.

Global warming and the degree to which humans contribute can be attributed to a combination of the solar cycle and human activity. The degree to which humans contribute is debatable, and leaves a big opening for people who want to avoid responsibility.

In my view, environmentalists would be far better advised to work harder on publicizing the actual harmful health effects of human pollution. Start with children for effect. It's pretty difficult for anyone to argue persuasively that pollution is not bad, and that we aren't doing way too much of it, if we can demonstrate pollutants in children's blood, for instance.

One way to start scaring folks into better practices is start having mothers get their breast milk tested for a few markers of severe pollution. Make it a big social push. That ought to scare some folks silly. This is just one suggestion, but you get the idea. Bring it home.

A few mothers find mercury and lead in their breast milk, they're gonna kill the first asshole who says they're getting hysterical and overhyping the problem. They can say that about global warming, and a lot of folks won't know it's not true, but not about breast milk.

[rikki]

I'm not sure if you intended it this way, but my interpretation of it is something I've been saying for years. Focusing on global warming is misdiagnosing the problem. It's like focusing on fever as the cause of disease, not the effect. You really better do something about the cause.

Global warming and the degree to which humans contribute can be attributed to a combination of the solar cycle and human activity. The degree to which humans contribute is debatable, and leaves a big opening for people who want to avoid responsibility.

That's just what I was aiming for. I had to cut out a few things I'd have liked to say to fit within the word limit, and I was worried I might have obscured the message. "Climate crybabies" is directed at Gore and his chorus more than the other side. I almost feel like the energy lobby wants environmentalists to put all their eggs in the global warming basket because the effects of air pollution on human and ecological health are much easier to demonstrate than the risks of climate change. We already have a strong case on moral (stewardship) grounds and on health grounds. Too much emphasis on climate change distracts from those solid points.

I guess that is clear to you since you were already thinking those thoughts. I hope it's clear to a more naive reader too.