Climate Change, Snow, and Africa
During the recent snowstorm in the eastern United States, I thought to myself, will the global warming denialists be using the this storm to rally against global warming? Surely they realize that increased precipitation is fully compatible with, and even predicted by, climate change? Surely they understand that the differences between trends and cycles? Surely they realize that, despite the frigid temperatures in the densely populated areas of Europe and North America, January 2010 was among the warmest on record? Alas no, the Fox News- Limbaugh crowd displayed their ignorance with glee, portraying this is as the final nail in the coffin for man-made global warming which has already been discredited by doctoring the data.
Of course, there has been no discrediting. The evidence for a starkly increasing global temperature remains unshakable, and the links to carbon emission remain indisputable. As the Real Climate puts it:
“In some media reports the impression has been given that even the fundamental results of climate change science are now in question, such as whether humans are in fact changing the climate, causing glacier melt, sea level rise and so on…Overall then, the IPCC assessment reports reflect the state of scientific knowledge very well. There have been a few isolated errors, and these have been acknowledged and corrected. What is seriously amiss is something else: the public perception of the IPCC, and of climate science in general, has been massively distorted by the recent media storm. All of these various “gates” – Climategate, Amazongate, Seagate, Africagate, etc., do not represent scandals of the IPCC or of climate science. Rather, they are the embarrassing battle-cries of a media scandal, in which a few journalists have misled the public with grossly overblown or entirely fabricated pseudogates, and many others have naively and willingly followed along without seeing through the scam.”
I’ve been following the impact of climate change on developing countries, especially in Africa, for some time. In these parts of the world, climate change is not some future abstraction we can debate, it is the here and now. Depending on the area, Africa is suffering from desertification, water shortages, drought, low crop yields, flooding in fastly-urbanizing cities, water stress in river basins, increased disease, a decline in fisheries, and increasing population displacement. This is directly affecting the livelihood and security of some of the poorest, most vulnerable, people on the planet. I heard a Ghanaian talk about coastal towns he remembers that simply have been washed away. And of course, the very existence of many island nations is at stake. This is real. This is happening.
One African who understands what is happening is Cardinal Peter Turkson of Ghana, the new president of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace. In an interview with John Allen, he noted the following:
“Could climate change be that kind of hysteria? Maybe. The other day I attended a meeting of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, and somebody came close to suggesting that all this is part of a cycle. We had the age of the glaciers, and today’s warming is part of the same cycle, so we’ve gone through this before. Maybe, but for the guy who lives in Papua New Guinea or someplace, whose island is now under water, whose fields where he used to feed and grow is now under water, this isn’t hysterical. The land upon which he used to live has disappeared. The water level has risen, and that island has disappeared. That’s not hysteria, it’s a real threat to life. For example, in Ghana and several tropical African countries, the weather cycle has changed so much that farmers can no longer predict when to sow and when not to sow. As a result, the harvests are poor, and that’s not hysteria either. For some, [climate change] isn’t just a theory, it’s a real experience.”
It was against this background I discovered a post by one Thomas Peters, a young jostler in hard-right Catholic circles. Master Peters discovered that the California bishops has proposed a carbon fast for lent – a nice idea - and was decidedly unimpressed, so unimpressed that he intoned the following:
“The “proof” for man-made, carbon-related global waring is unravelling fast. It is not settled science. Unfortunately, it appears that some of the last people to become aware of this development were too focused on distributing calendars telling Catholics to boil water with the lid on rather than keeping up on current events. And regardless of the science of climate change, the idea that Catholic should be more focused on supporting politicized green campaigns instead of focusing on the personal effects of sin is … deeply misguided as well.”
He then links favorably to somebody condemning the “economy crushing cap and tax bill”. Does this really require any comment? Perhaps a little…A number of things are clear. First, Master Peters needs to step out of his narrow little American political bubble and into the real world. If science is too difficult for him, maybe he should consider what is going on in Africa and other low-income regions. Last time I checked, solidarity is still a tenet of Catholic social teaching. Then again, I remember one of my very few interactions with Master Peters was on precisely the subject of climate change a number of years back. When I raised the point about the fate of low-lying islands, he blithely suggested the people simply move. At that point, I decided against further interaction with this American Marie Antoinette.
A second point: when Peters lectures the bishops on sin, he seems unaware that something could be morally amiss with American over-consumption and the consumerist culture, even apart from carbon emissions. But this is precisely the point, isn’t it? For Americans in the liberal tradition of Peters, what matters first and foremost is the God-given right of the individual to consume and possess material goods and to use planetary resources as they see fit. As for the poor, non-Americans, future generations? Let them eat cake.
Trackbacks
Comments are closed.
For Americans in the liberal tradition of Peters, what matters first and foremost is the God-given right of the individual to consume and possess material goods and to use planetary resources as they see fit.
In the immortal words of the ever so charming Ann Coulter:
Take it, rape it, it’s yours!
On the one hand, I agree with you completely. But on the other hand, the thought occurs that this world is fallen; it is no longer The Garden. It is scheduled to be completely replaced by a glorified, perfect world; one that partakes of eternity. Does one paint the walls, or even sweep the floors of a house that is going to be demolished in a week or a month?
Perhaps we would do better to focus more exclusively on the consumerism that destroys souls, and let that effort positively effect the environment in collateral ways?
Excellent piece. I’m particularly glad that you addressed the Peters post.
LOL. Actually except for political ideology you two have a lot in common.
Him being Peters I mean (Captain Obvious TO THE RESCUE).
Rodak, that’s not very good theology. We should treat the world like we treat our bodies, as destined to be transformed in glory. It is this world, not some other world, that will be transformed in the “new heavens and new earth,” just as it is this body, yours and mine, and not some other body. This is why we receive the eucharist, not in some spiritual sense, but as physical bread. It is a symbol of matter, of earth, of this world, consecrated by human physical work and study and science so as to be raised to glory with Christ. We of course don’t know how this will all work out, but it will. Remember, we weren’t made on day 7 either. No one was. We were made with the animals and all six days were made for day 7, not just day 6. All is made for the ultimate glory of God.
There’s a certain amount of retaliation in what global warming skeptics are saying these days. For the last few years, every time the weather was a little warmer than usual, we’d be told that this was the beginning of planetary death. Each datum was used as proof of a massive trend. It’s only reasonable – that is to say, it’s just as unreasonable – for critics to jump on each chilly reading as contradictory evidence.
I remember when Hurricane Katrina hit that, at first, the experts were cautious not to blame the storm on climate change. We were told that there was no cause-and-effect relationship with this storm, but that the future would see more Katrinas as the climate changed. That distinction has faded over time. Now each weather front, good or bad, usual or unusual, is heralded as proof of climate change. It’s an unfalsifiable theory, and people who understand that resent it.
Yeah that’s probably what’s going on: intelligent “retaliation.”
Pardon?
Nathan–
Yes, everything that you say is true. My central point, however, is that climate change, to the extent that it is caused by man, is a by-product of consumerism and greed. If we treat those diseases, climate change will take care of itself. Much of the consumerism and greed with which we indulge ourselves in effect pollutes the temples of our bodies. We tend, for instance, to gluttony, to drunkeness, and away from chastity–(I won’t add to the list here.) Greedy consumerism is, therefore, more immediate–and more damaging to our souls–than are the secondary effects of global warming. There is, perhaps, method to my madness.
Classic use of the term “hard-right”
Rightwing Playbook:
Four hurricane seasons have passed without another Katrina and there’s 6″ of snow in my yard.
Proof Positive that Al Gore is an Idiot!!!
(Subliminal Message: Forget that he “lost” by getting half a million more votes in 2000 than our guy. Besides if the earth overheats in a few hundred years, who gives a damn. It’s not like any of us will have to deal with it.)
Frank, he did lose. Whatever the science may say about anthropogenic global warming, Gore did lose. And I’m not arguing that the current mocking of global warming is fair. I was just explaining why it’s taking place.
Frank to be fair I don’t think that’s what the critics are thinking. They honestly believe that the global warming situation is being played up in order to enrich certain individuals who have a lot to gain in terms of government/multi-national investments and contracts from corporations. I think some concern is legitimate especially since this could be a behavior pattern for the powers-that-be (see the Iraq war).
The truth is we don’t understand a lot about what is going on with our climate or what is causing it. There are some unusual patterns developing but if you corner any of these scientists and they have integrity they will admit that ultimately a lot of it is guesswork, educated guesswork, mind you, but the situation isn’t as clear as everyone would sincerely like it to be.
I think the most rational case to be made is that regardless of what is causing this, whether it is natural fluctuation or man-made, we should be proactive about protecting the environment and conserving our resources – what could be more “responsible” and “conservative” than that??
Pinky:
Frank, he did lose.
Exactly. And as I said, he lost by getting half a million more votes than his opponent.
It’s an unfalsifiable theory, and people who understand that resent it.
I can only echo Thom’s reply: Pardon?
Magdalena:
Lovely name btw, the name of my late saintly grandmother. But I digress. I have no ax to grind one way or the other with climate change but I do think if we err, it should be on the side of caution. Guess that makes me a (gasp) “liberal” since conservatives–at least the loudest ones–seem anxious to dismiss it outright despite the inherently conservative principles you mentioned. Sure, some individuals stand to be enriched by the world going green just as others would continue to be enriched by leaving things as they are. One way or the other, somebody is going to be enriched. That’s life.
Thank Heavens that someone else out there recognizes the hard right type that Peters is. It’s Republican Catholic Vote over there, and nothing more. It’s almost Repuplican first and Catholic Second. I love that you point out about situations in other countries and how water levels rising, means that they have no place to live anymore, because it’s under water. It always amazes me that Americans only seem to see what is relevent in their own circumstances, and place. They have no concern of other people in other nations. It’s like they don’t exist for them. I’m not saying all Americans are like this, but I will say that a majority of hard right wingers are.
Karl Popper said that for something to qualify as science, it must be falsifiable. Falsifiability means that it is possible for a thing to be proven wrong, not that a thing is wrong. The theory of gravity can be tested anywhere, and disproven if it’s false, so it falls within the realm of science. Aquinas’s writings about the angels are probably true, but they can’t be proven right or wrong, so they’re not science.
Anthropogenic climate change is based on models. Those models haven’t proven themselves to be accurate. On a popular level, anecdotes about the weather are used as proof of climate change. The problem is, neither the models nor the anecdotes are falsifiable. A warm decade is depicted as proof of an unprecedented new trend; a cold decade is written off as sunspots. A summer storm is depicted as proof of climate change; a winter storm shows that weather is changing, and is also used as proof.
The ironic thing is that you seem to be implying that Gore would have won if election rules were different. That’s also unfalsifiable. Every campaign decision is based on the goal of 270 electoral votes. No campaign in history more conciously targeted the swing voters in the swing states than the 2000 presidential run. If you want to say that Gore won the popular vote, that’s fine. It sounds like sour grapes, but it’s fine. If you want to imply that he deserved to win, well, everything about the campaign would have been different if the goal was 50%+1 voters instead of 50%+1 electoral votes.
As for the resentment I mentioned, that’s bound to show up when people change the rules. I said that badmouthing the theory based on a few storms is just as irrational as believing in the theory based on a couple of heat waves. GW skeptics are simply enjoying pointing out the obvious double standard of those who accept the supporting evidence and ignore the opposing evidence.
Pinky, I can’t believe I have to say this (only in America!), but (i) the greenhouse gas effect – that greenhouse gas emissions lead to warming – is indisputable, established science; (ii) that humanity has been spewing out these emissions at an exponential rate is also indisputable; (iii) the planet is measurably warming at an accelerating pace, and these are measurable changes, not anecdotes about the weather. As I said in the post, we can see the effects today, especially in Africa and other vulnerable reasons. That Americans would wilfully turn a blind eye to this so they can drive their SUVs with cheap gas without guilt is simply beyond me.
Of course, climate change models entail an element of uncertainty. Why in God’s name should this be an argument to bury one’s head in the sand?
MM – Only in America? The Czech president has called global warming a myth, and the Rudd government in Australia may be thrown out of office on this issue.
Your first point is indisputable. Your second point is wrong, as the primary greenhouse gas is water vapor, and we’re still unsure how much effect each of the gases has (separately and together). As for your third point, you can’t really say that the planet is warming at an accelerated rate, as it’s been cooling for about a decade. We can’t even say that the earth is on a trend line of warming at an unprecedented rate. And as the current models failed to predict the current cooling, there’s reason for healthy skepticism.
The primary greenhouse gas is water? What’s your point there?
Pinky,
You are confusing a denial that climate change is real, rooted in the dubious American dominant theology – think Calvinism with a whiff of voluntarism – and the political difficulties in putting a price on carbon, which are huge. This is exactly why we need a GLOBAL agreement.
But I must take you to task for one statement – the temperature has been cooling for a decade. Honestly, where do you get this stuff. Consider the analysis in the attached and look at the deviation in global surface air temperature through 2009 from the 1951-1980 baseline – you will see global warming at an accelerating pace over the past decade. And you can trace this directly to the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, as countries like India and Chian develop at a rapid pace. This is simply using reason.
I checked your links and other sources. It’s significant that the recent warming shows up strongest in data and graphs of five-year moving averages ending in the middle of the last decade. Annualized data is more ambiguous, with recent years showing a leveling off, with only a slight rise or decline.
“The truth is we don’t understand a lot about what is going on with our climate or what is causing it.There are some unusual patterns developing but if…”
Perhaps on a scale of 20 to 30 years,there seems to be unusual patterns, though when viewed on a longer timeframe these patterns are not so unusual.
With that said, we have opportunities to improve efficiencies and reduce our consumption, and in ways that can benefit our poorer and oppressed neighbors around the world. Imagine the health of our economy and growth if the desperate poor in Africa and Asia could benefit and enjoy some of the comfort and stability we take for granted in the West.
I don’t understand what this political dribble has anything to do with the Catholic voice??? Really, is being Catholic about going off with trendy scientists and thought? This is utterly ridiculous and one of the reasons why I feel the Church is being taken over by a bunch of socialist morons. Name calling other people because they do not agree with you is not very Christian in my book.
“This is utterly ridiculous and one of the reasons why I feel the Church is being taken over by a bunch of socialist morons. Name calling other people because they do not agree with you is not very Christian in my book.”
What!?!