Transition Towns & Snowball Earth

Published Wednesday, January 16, 2008 by Dan Gainsford | E-mail this post

E-mail this post



Remember me (?)



All personal information that you provide here will be governed by the Privacy Policy of Blogger.com. More...


An email from my earth scientist pal Grant Buffett in Spain.

In the end I think Climate Change IS a moot point, and we should really all get down to business slowing down resource development, environmental degradation, cleaning up our water systems (as the glaciers melt regardless of cause, clean water is becoming a major issue around the world), reducing industrial toxins in our atmosphere, and regenerating the tonnes of biologically dead soil caused by industrial agriculture... Global Warming solutions, regardless of whether or not Global Warming is real, address many of these issues, so let's get on with it!

It's similar to politics, we spend so much time debating liberal versus conservative, that in the end, we usually miss the boat completely.

Some days I fear the ship has already sailed.

I like this comment posted in response to Bjorn Lomborg's TED talk (previous post). THIS is how we should be thinking, holistically, looking at the big picture and redesigning this outdated industrial paradigm.

peace,
d

  • Russell Austerberry – November 21 2007

    I would like to ask a few questions...

    1) WHAT IF... multiple problems have the same solution?
    Bjorn starts by assuming that each problem has a different solution, and of course with limited funds you must prioritise, as a matter of sheer logic. BUT if a raft of problems could be addressed with the same solution ... then we have a different kind of discussion.

    2) WHAT ARE THE EFFECTS IF ... a community grows it's own food, under a proven system such as permaculture? (I'll start the list...)
    * improve soils in the community (for farming)
    * increase carbon sequestration (good soil or humus absorbs carbon)
    * engage >50% people in primary production (full employment)
    * slash dependence on transport and transport infrastructure (food miles issue)
    * food grown for nutrition and taste rather than ability to travel well
    * health of community improves
    * security of farmers and citizens improves
    * malnutrition and hunger taken care of
    * very little need for trade

    3) IF this became a movement in developed countries... how many of the 'big problems' would this start to address? (list repeated here...)
    climate change, communicable diseases, conflicts, education, financial instability, governance/corruption, malnutrition & hunger, population migration, sanitation & water, subsidies & trade barriers.

    If any of this tickles your fancy, look up 'transition towns' on Google...
    I did just that:
    http://www.transitiontowns.org/
    http://transitionculture.org/
    http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/02/transition_town_1.php
    http://gaianeconomics.blogspot.com/2007/10/transition-towns-make-money.html


  • Thanks Russel Austerberry whoever you are!

_________

GRANT:Dan, been reading your blog and it came to mind to send this link:

http://www.snowballearth.org/

It is a quite plausible theory (in my opinion) about massive natural climate change. The earth is very dynamic and has gone through some major changes in temperature in the past, without a doubt.

Now, that is not to say that I am a climate change skeptic. As an earth scientist I am convinced that we humans are having a significant impact on the changing the biosphere. Nonetheless the media does a terrifically poor job at representing scientific thought. This is represented most effectively in peer reviewed journals. Rarely will a major media outlet cite a scientific journal. More often they just cite a scientist that is willing to give an interview that will make their segment on climate change all the more alarmist and sensationalized, thus improving ratings.

Science is a method, not a subject, as it is taught in school and as is nearly universally misunderstood. Scientists are inherently skeptics. So, in peer reviewed scientific journals one is likely to see a large swath of opinion on various subjects. This is good. This is healthy science. There are skeptics of climate change, then there are skeptics of those skeptics, and so on. Such is science. But, because of the potential impact, the public discussion and argument is becoming mainstream through the exposure in the media. There is much conjecture and pomp. But no answers, thus the debate heats up, and the ratings correspondingly.

Science seeks truth, but this truth is effectively made out of reach by the scientific method itself. That is, never does one truly "prove" a theory. At best, one can test and test and test and re-test theories until one can say that something is "highly likely to be true", or "we have a high level of confidence in such and such". Thus, such is the case made by the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) about anthropogenic climate change. That is, yes we are observing changes in the climate and it is "highly likely" that this is a result of post-industrial greenhouse gases. But... but, ultimately we will never know definitively. There will always be someone who will argue that the changes are non-anthropogenic and if we are able to mitigate the observed warming (insofar as this is possible) and we seemingly reverse climate change, people will say, "you see, climate guy, the sea level didn't rise like you predicted, etc..." to which he may respond, "yes, but that's because we did something about it".

So, the debate continues as it will, and should. Such is the scientific method. There are still flat earthers out there of course. What does change in scientific opinion is the burden of proof. Now, there is a high degree of consensus among a broad range of scientists in the IPCC who don't answer to corporate funding. So, I would argue that the burden of proof is on the climate change skeptics now. Maybe that's why they are acting so frantically to "disprove" anthropogenic climate change, thus eleviating the responsibility to do something about it. In the meantime, why don't we adopt the precautionary principle, take the advice of the IPCC until we believe otherwise and...

1) slow down a bit
2) reduce our consumption
3) get back to our roots as an integral component of this planet, not just passive spectators who act with impunity

Otherwise, like you so aptly say, Dan, all this climate change discussion is just a "moot point".

Peace,
Grant

Subscribe

Check this space for filmmaker updates from the road!


Links