Come on…The Cord

I thought The Cord was above joining other media sources by giving space to Global Warming Junk Science – then I read Alanna Wallace’s February 4^th column “We need to be wary of Global Warming.”  Her entire piece, other than being contradictory, was insulting to those that have studied climate change (and are not paid by oil) and to those who have watched more than two documentaries on the issue of the climate crisis.

            After being scared into action by Al Gore’s rhetoric, action that does nothing but help reduce ones impact on the earth, Wallace was easily swayed by Martin Durkin’s documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle which works to discount Gore’s message and the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).  It is much easier to continue with the destructive status quo after the television tells you its okay.  It is inconvenient to change.

            Wallace points to natural climatic fluctuations to discount the worldwide phenomena of unstable climatic systems, totally discounting the role of greenhouse gas emissions directly and indirectly caused by human actions.  It is as if the increased levels of carbon, methane, and water vapour that humans are responsible for, have no effect on our life allowing biosphere - another regrettable example of the Christian-Capitalist idea of being separate from nature, above the natural world and not restricted by its unavoidable limits.

            Climate Change could be caused by the sun cycle, it could be the natural cycles of the galactic core, but by discounting the IPCC and aligning with Durkin, Wallace seems to miss the point.  She wrote ‘the rise in temperatures is not happening at all levels of the atmosphere, (and) this is the basis of global warming.’

            The basis that Wallace postulates is not the basis of the international community regarding climate change at all.  What is happening is that humans are causing an unnatural spike in CO2 (among other noxious gases) which will drive temperatures up in many areas, most notable in Arctic areas.  This northern temperature spike will melt the permafrost and the arctic sea beds and release the massive stores of methane and gaseous carbon held within.  Since methane is an uber-effective GHG, this release will push us into a cycle of further heating and continued release - a feedback loop that ends with an overall world climate which is unlike that which allowed us to evolve and prosper as a species.  This goes beyond politics and greed.

            Wallace also says that some IPCC scientists have quit but does not state the numbers.  How many out of the 2500 have quit?  What were the reasons?  The idea that the IPCC scientists are a bunch of greedy intellectuals was also brought up.  Of course there is money in climate change science, understanding human impact and atmospheric evolution is important for human survival, only the most intentionally ignorant tyrants would question that. 

There is a lot of money floating around in academia and the media which comes from the dirty energy industry as well.  These funds are funnelled into projects like Durkin’s junk science documentary.  Who are you more willing to trust; people who wish to discover new knowledge to understand human impacts on our home to ensure our survival; or scientists who are paid by the ultra-rich oil companies who prosper from adding toxins into Gaia’s breath (the winds and the atmosphere)?

            Wallace refuses to believe that humans are causing any of the variations in our changing climate and calls science supporting the IPCC propaganda.  She ends with saying we should continue questioning climate change science, but does not question her claim that the info in Durkin’s documentary is reliable.  She in fact uses the internationally disgraced film as her new baseline of information.  She more than questions the work of the IPCC, she flat out dismisses it.

            Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth may exaggerate some points of climate change science, and certainly there is not 100% consensus in the academic community in climate change, or any other issue.  

There is nothing wrong with critically analyzing the science but thinking that drinking tap water, turning off your lights, and installing a programmable thermostat will rectify the damage our harmful industrial existence has caused to the rest of the world, all based on a doc funded by the same companies who rely on being able to pollute for profits is not an example of critical thought.  It is instead an example of believing corporate - for power and profit - propaganda.  Continuing questioning the destructive powers of humans will bring us no closer to moving to the required system of life that must be sustainable.