I just read a posting on an email list to which I belong, and I come away from it a little concerned. The email was sent from an individual to a friend, which was then passed through a couple of other friends until it ended up on my list. This individual, let's call her Barb, was flying to her high school reunion and struck up a conversation with the man next to her. We'll call him Fred. It seems Fred was on his way to present a paper on global warming, but Fred isn't a field scientist -- he's a theoretical mathematician. I want to say right off the bat that I have nothing against theorists in general, but I do have a problem with those who discount observational data without giving any clear reasons WHY the data are incorrect. Fred appears in Barb's personal account to be completely enamored of his computers and his calculations, but his conclusions rang an alarm bell for me. Let me explain.

First, Fred said that today's predictive models of global warming " . . . are simply not sophisticated enough to take into account all the positive and negative feed-backs that might be important. The computers can only solve simplified versions of the equations that
exclude most of the complexity." OK, I'll grant him that, but that is true of most predictions of natural systems. When Barb asked when we might expect equations that can make accurate predictions, he responded that if computer technology continues to advance as it has in the past (to which I ask in the 1950s or in the 21st century?), we won't see any accurate models for at least one hundred years. Fred continued by saying that he believes that the Earth and her systems have "attractors" that keep everything in balance. After much lengthy discussion, the conclusion Barb makes is this: " . . . the appropriate policy toward climate change is probably not to try to prevent it, because it is so unpredictable, and we simply don't have a good understanding of the laws of cause and effect as they apply here, but rather to prepare for whatever may come, by developing our capacity to respond to crises, building responsive and competent institutions which could handle whatever the future may bring to minimize its impact on human society."

These conclusions, drawn by someone who doesn't know much about global warming or science in general, probably mirror the conclusions any John or Jane Q. Public might make after hearing Fred speak, and THAT, my friends, is what scares me. So many people want to cram their heads in the sand up to their buttholes and pretend that humans are having no negative impact on the Earth, or if we are -- "It won't happen in my lifetime, so why should I worry about it?" There's still oil for our cars right now, so why try to develop electric cars? There's still gas to heat our homes, so why try to efficiently extract energy from wind and solar sources? Global warming may not be really happening, so why try to limit carbon dioxide and particulate matter emissions? Let's just deal with the problem when and if it really happens. Competent institutions? By whose standards?

This kind of attitude really pisses me off. When you build a house, do you wait until after it rains and soaks your bed to put on a roof, or do you put on the roof before the rain to prevent your bed from getting wet to begin with? Most folks see people starving in a third world country and think it's perfectly alright just send them food rather than stop deforestation so their soil won't become infertile. Those few thousand trees are just so friggin' important. Yes, yes, I know -- there have been great strides in the last twenty years or so in sustainable farming and responsible logging and yada yada yada. How many decades of fighting by large-scale environmental groups and grass-roots environmental movements did it take to get people to take those steps? And just how long do you think it would take for companies to revert to those older, "easier" ways if given the excuse? When America starts feeling the "pinch" of less oil coming out of the Middle East, does it band together and say, "Hey, let's think of an alternative so that we're not dependent on foreign oil sources"?? You'd think so, especially considering how xenophobic most Americans have become the last couple of years. I don't think I'll ever be able to figure out why people find it so much easier to react to a problem rather than take a couple of small steps to prevent the problem in the first place. Are lower emission cars more expensive than higher emission cars? No. Is recycled paper more expensive than brand-spanking new paper? No. Is electricity from wind sources less reliable than that from fossil fuels? No. Do vegetables sprayed with pesticides and meat treated with butt-loads of steriods and antibiotics taste better than those that aren't? Quite the contrary. Yes, these last ARE more expensive, but so was recycled paper until it was widely distributed and made available to everyone.

Come on, people -- let's pull our heads out of the sand. We only have one home, so why not take preventative care of it now rather than reactive care of it later? We just might save ourselves a lot of trouble.