It is an apt title for the news coming out of Scandinavia this week. On Monday, after much ado, the UN Climate Change Conference finally got under way in Copenhagen as an early blizzard prepared to sweep through most of the United States in what has already been dubbed the “December to remember.” The subsequent cold wave that dropped local temperatures below zero got a lot of people asking “What global warming?” Of course, the politically correct terminology has learned to sidestep paradoxical weather patterns by further obscuring the alleged crisis under the alias of “climate change.” With reports that earth’s temperature has stabilized and last month’s controversial revelations from East Anglia University, the United Nations conference comes at a time of heightened scrutiny and skepticism.
For some time, my parents have been encouraging me to watch Ben Stein’s Expelled. So, last night, I sat down with them to see it. While the movie hoists the banner of Intelligent Design, its thesis that true scientific progress can only be accomplished through the unfiltered analysis of data applies equally across all fields of study, including climate change. Once a hypothesis is taken for granted, adopted by politicians, and promoted in the media – once a movement is created – proposing an alternate interpretation of the facts becomes risky business with serious consequences that have nothing to do with science. Even the Speaker of Denmark’s own Parliament, Thor Pedersen, recently remarked on the danger of mistaking theory for truth.
For my part, and for what it’s worth, despite a personal interest in climate studies, I don’t think that climate change – or lack thereof – should be what motivates public policy. Without denying the observable trends (for example, see the “NSIDC” link in the blog sidebar), there are simply too many unknowns to conclusively interpret existing data on such a broad scope. Greenhouse gases may or may not be significantly contributing to those trends, but whether they are or not shouldn’t keep us from rethinking the degree to which we are comfortable with polluting the planet. The number of detrimental effects that have already been proven should be enough to point us in that direction without having to push an agenda that is based on doubtful theories about how much humans are effecting climate change.
I speak in degrees because pollution is inevitable. The ramifications of a citizen, corporation, or country attempting to reduce its so-called “carbon footprint” reach quickly down from global ecosystems into respective societies and economies. Restrictions on emissions should not, therefore, be mandated from the top down – as the UN appears to be proposing – but grown predominantly from the bottom up, as exemplified by the Pickens Plan. This approach engages the general public, considers the needs of individual communities at local, provincial, and national levels, and solves a broader scope of problems than can be accomplished by a narrow focus on the inscrutable phenomenon of climate change. Though perhaps for reasons different than his own, I think President Bush was right for not committing us to the Kyoto Protocol, but rather making room for voluntary participation by local governments.
In other news, we head north from Copenhagen to Oslo, where President Obama arrived on Thursday to accept his controversial Nobel Peace Prize. Many – including the president himself – were surprised by the announcement that came in October. While living in Norway, however, I witnessed first-hand the admiration Norwegians had for the senator while he was still on the campaign trail. The induction of his new administration followed several years in which Norway had felt increasingly ignored by the United States. As inappropriate as the setting may be, given Norway’s relatively few means of international influence, the prize appears to be Oslo’s invitation to Obama for renewed relations. So far, he is off to a wobbly start: while several of my Facebook friends were clearly excited just to welcome the president, headlines told a different story of many who were hoping for a bit more gratitude. Honestly, it’s hard not to take a little offense myself.
On the same day Obama arrived in Oslo, reports started coming in from the city of Tromsø that a strange blue light had appeared in the sky. Norwegians who live that far north would certainly recognize the northern lights when they saw them. But what was this? Was it a meteor, a UFO, a celestial omen signifying the arrival of Obama as the new savior? It turns out, Russia had it’s own plan to welcome the Peace Prize laureate: by test-firing an intercontinental ballistic missle. The photos and videos (bottom) on this page capture the frighteningly beautiful display Norwegians woke up to just before the dark hour of eight o’ clock.
No comments:
Post a Comment