Planetary Motivations

Earlier this year, the IPCC released its Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) on the state of global climate change.  It is another contribution to the discussion of this hot-button issue, featuring the latest findings of scientific research into this phenomenon.

Many scientists are declaring that they have evidence that global climate change is definitely happening, and action is needed now to avert catastrophic consequences.  Others in the arena, including politicians, and other citizen/advocates, are calling for drastic action, too, all because a doomsday scenario on its way.  Some are going so far as to say "the debate is over", and viciously shutting down any one who would dare express skepticism or try to say global climate change is a sham.

I don't necessarily have expertise in climate change, even from my studies in meteorology as an undergraduate, because meteorology is focused more on hourly or daily conditions, whereas climate focuses more on weather that occurs over months, years, decades, and centuries.  Nevertheless, I garnered enough ideas from my studies to recognize that climate change is complex, affected by many factors.

One thing I've noticed in the past few years is a change in the verbiage used by climate change advocates.  They used to refer it by the phrase "global warming", saying temperatures across the planet are on the rise, with dire effects in store.  But I've noticed a shift toward the phrase "global climate change" recently, which I applaud, because it hints at the great complexity of the matter.

For example, it could be said that the extremely cold and snowy nature of the 2014 winter in the central US was caused by global warming, but such a statement doesn't sufficiently explain the whole picture.  Increasing planetary temperatures most affect the polar regions.  When the polar regions warm, the cold air that is normally based there gets dislodged and travels toward the Equator.  In the case of last winter, this brutally cold Arctic air headed far south into the United States.  So temperatures are not necessarily warming uniformly across the planet.  As such, it would be more accurate to say that global climate change caused last winter to be especially cold, rather than "global warming".

I also know from my scientific studies that we can hardly claim the debate is "over".  Science is never something that is firm and set in stone.  It's constantly changing, as new observations reveal new findings about our universe.  Global climate change is no exception.  So while findings suggest something is going on with the planet's climate, I'm not convinced we can make such firm conclusions yet.  (Notice also that the change in wording from "global warming" to "global climate change" also corroborates the idea of how science changes.)

And I feel that's why I take issue with those who say global climate change is a reality, because they're so vicious in their rhetoric, insisting they're right, and anyone who disagrees is outright wrong, which I sense hints at some kind of ulterior motive that doesn't respect science.

I also detest the fear-mongering employed by people who promote climate change.  When I was younger, I used to hear reports on the news about scientists announcing that global climate change was happening and it would lead to drastic consequences, like polar ice diminishing, sea levels rising, and more intense natural disasters.  And I would sit there, filling up with fear that the Earth was headed toward a doomsday.

At a certain point, I wanted to stop being afraid, and so I began denying climate change was a reality, embracing the rhetoric of climate change skeptics.

But now, I feel the real issue holding me back from joining with climate change advocates is their tactics.  They spend so much time publishing reports and talking about the terrible effects of climate change, both in the present and future, but they don't spend nearly as much time talking about what kinds of practical solutions we should act on.  If they really think the Earth is headed toward doomsday, why don't they talk up practical solutions like there's no tomorrow?  They should also spend much more time in civil dialogue with climate change skeptics.  The reality is that the solutions to global climate change are as complex as the phenomenon itself.  We should spend much more time in conversation about the solutions instead of endlessly discussing the problem itself, especially what actions I can personally take in my own daily life, as much as what governments and corporations can do.

And ultimately, I feel we'll be better served by these kind of motives, because it will spur us on to take the right kind of reasonable actions.  Let's be motivated by a healthy desire to care for this beautiful planet God has created, and an awareness of our responsibility to be good stewards of it.  Let's do our part in the little things of our lives to take care of the environment.  Let's take reasonable steps to stop unreasonable pollution of the environment, without taking impulsive actions motivated by fear-mongering or other extremist rhetoric that disrupt people's lives.  This, I feel, will be better for us, and for the planet.