MucheDumbre

Image by Getty Images via Daylife

I would like, really like, to believe in some things that everyone else believes in. It’s tiring to have to constantly explain your views and be looked at as some sort of kook. I now know how a Scientologist feels.

But at least a Scientologist has to actually go out and seek his kookiness. I merely stood in place, while the rest of the world went gaa gaa over something that seems totally mind numbingly laughable.

No not American Idol, I’m talking about Global Warming.

Although I really don’t get American Idol, and have never seen an episode, at least it is on TV with lots of flashing lights and primary colors. Global Warming has none of that. There are no jerky camera angles, no bright colors, no music. It really just has Al Gore with a power point. But what a power point! To my knowledge, the first power point slide to win an Oscar. That sure beats the one I made that had the box that made the boing sound. It seemed cool at the time, but it was no Oscar winner.

So as I was standing still, the debate was suddenly over. Al Gore, Leonardo DeCaprio, and Larry David’s wife, accomplished scientists all, declared the debate over. Global warming had won, and all that was left was to figure out how to get the maximum amount of self righteousness from the least amount of inconvenience.

In spite of my youthful good looks, I’m actually old enough to remember other environmental fads that ran through the media and intelligentsia before burning out and losing interest. Some, I just don’t know what happened to. The media stopped reporting them. Did we ever get all of our wetlands restored? Or did they just rename them swamps and marshes and abandoned them? How about acid rain? Is all the acid gone now? That one I actually do remember. To my knowledge, the last appearance of acid rain in the mass media was a 60 Minutes story in which they said, “Oops, it’s mostly a natural phenomena; forget about the last 10 years of hysteria. Your children won’t burn to death in a spring shower.”

And then that was it. We all promised to never mention it again and moved on to the next catastrophe.

But we won’t be moving on from global warming anytime soon. Eventually yes, but for the next 20 years or so, we will be regaled by news stories on “Which Purses are the most Green?’ “How your family can stop breathing and save the earth” or “Bathing: The planet needs you to stay stinky.” Smelly bums in every bus station in America, after he takes your dollar, when he notices the tell tale curl of your nostrils can say with pride, “I’m not bathing so I can save the earth. What are you doin’?” Of course then he can also explain to you that the KGB implanted a chip in his head to keep track of his used tissue paper collection.

And why are we stuck with this particular environmental fad when the others have all come and gone? Because when it comes to environmental crisis’s, Global Warming is darn near perfect. It’s not just a problem for American tree huggers anymore, it’s gone world wide baby! Even the UN is involved. Unlike acid rain, it’s not primarily a Northeastern problem. The depletion of the ozone layer just isn’t sexy unless you live under the Antarctic hole. And wetlands? There are just too many homeowners to sue who have puddles in their yard for more than 3 weeks a year. But global warming effects the whole…what’s the word…globe. Everyone can take notice and get involved to avoid global catastrophe.

And catastrophe is exactly what we have been promised. Twenty foot higher sea levels, super storms ripping across the planet, and islands being inundated; leaving their inhabitants dogpaddling while waiting for a friendly continent to take them in. Who wouldn’t be in favor of stopping that? And apparently the solution is simple. Bike to work, or if you must drive make it a Prius, use only one sheet of toilet paper when you go boom-boom, use florescent light bulbs and bring your own reusable hemp bag to Publix.

In fact it’s so easy, I could take environmental credit right now. I telecommute so I don’t have to go to an office every day, and I already have a few florescent bulbs. However given the toxic levels of mercury in each one, I have my Hazmat suit ready when changing them. Such is the price of a green lifestyle. The toilet paper thing…not quite ready to go there.. My poops shouldn’t be limited like that.

So why don’t I just keep my mouth shut, take my green kudos, and nod sagely when someone mentions climate change? I would appear to be a lot smarter that way. But… I’m a little bit skeptical. Maybe skeptish. Whether it’s doubting the divinity of Jesus during Christmas dinner, or arguing that there is no conclusive proof that Uncle Otis has gone to a “better place” at his wake, for most things I hear, I’m just not buying it. Like that guy from Missouri, you gotta show me.

I’m not a scientist or have in any way the credentials to evaluate the raw data that the sciences generate to prove or disprove a hypothesis. I sometimes think that I am almost that smart though. I can watch a Nova special on String theory, and then explain it, in a most elementary way to someone else, but in reality, I don’t understand it at all. Understanding the universe at that level is impossible for a layman. It can only be properly explained and understood with an understanding of a level of mathematics that I don’t have or have little hope of obtaining. At least not without a grant from the National Science Foundation, in association with your local PBS station…

Luckily String Theory has no impact on public policy.  The public isn’t divided into “Stringers” and “Stringer Deniers.”  I don’t have to listen to Alec Baldwin and Gary Sinise arguing those cosmological points on Letterman.  It’s an extremely complicated theory that is important to how the universe is constructed, but makes no difference in my daily habits or how anyone conducts their affairs on this planet.

But Climatology is worse. The number of different weak and strong attractive forces that a physicist must take into account is minor compared to the possible inputs into a weather system that an atmospheric scientist must consider. And in fact, he (or she- not trying to pull a sexist card here) can’t. We can build a computer model predicting the movement of heavenly bodies that is pretty darn accurate, taking in what we know of Newtonian and relativistic physics. But right now we can’t even get an atmospheric computer model to give us the weather for fixed periods in the past, even though all of the data and inputs are a matter of historical record. So if they can’t predict the weather we’ve already had, how can they predict the weather we haven’t? I hardly need to point to our local “5 Day Forecasts” to show the flaw in the models. Day one is usually pretty close, but after that, things start to get a bit iffy. All of the minor differences that occur in day one add factors to alter the prediction for day two, which increase exponentially for day three, and so on. It’s the butterfly effect, minus Keanu Reeves’ time traveling.

I’m a simple guy, so usually my questions are simple. But for some reason I can’t seem to get the answers to break down this man made global warming thing. Maybe someone can fill in the gaps but this is my understanding of the greenhouse effect:

The greenhouse gases that we are talking about are about 95% water vapor, about 3 ½ % carbon dioxide and 1 ½ % methane and nitrous oxide.   So my question is (and it is by no means the only one), if carbon dioxide increases are driving the earth temperatures up, and they are only 3 1/2 % of the greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, why are we so worried about carbon dioxide and not about water vapor? And of that 3 1/2% of carbon dioxide, between 3 and 4 percent of that is human related. Is that an amount that is worth changing any behavior?

It seems to me, if we could do something about the water vapor, we would never have to worry about another cow fart; or my farts for that matter. On that issue my wife has accused me of singlehandedly altering the climate. I’m skeptical of this as well. We could set a thousand more coal fires in West Virginia, and I could run the AC in my car with the windows down and it doesn’t seem like it would make a difference to earth’s temperature. But still, we are getting ready to spend a great deal of money and make a great deal of sacrifice for something that doesn’t appear to make a great deal of difference.

Then again, maybe like with String Theory, I only think I understand the issue. But I do think I understand the people who think they understand global warming. They hate oil, and oddly enough, they hate carbon dioxide. Water vapor is uninteresting to them because it’s neither oil nor carbon dioxide, and there isn’t a damn thing anyone can do about it anyway. But they feel we are so important that all earth is a flutter at every Hummer that’s driven and every incandecent light bulb that’s left on after some one leaves the room.

I’m not willing to bet my home on a stock tip, even one that is a “sure fire” thing.  But considering what is being asked of us from Cap and Trade legislation, we are taking the chance that devastating our economy will save the planet. If I believed, really believed the planet was in that kind of danger and ruining our way of life would save it, then it would be worth it. But given the gaps in our knowledge, I’m willing to wait and see how the science shakes out.

That seems the safer bet.