It
happens every time. I make it through an entire day with my temper
relatively unperturbed, I’m feelin’ good about life, and then I make the
mistake of seeing what the cable news people are saying. These pundits,
who seemingly spawn like rabbits, and engage the world with roughly the
same level of competence, are more effective at dousing optimism than a
cold bucket of ice water. Crushing hope for humanity is their most
reliable skill; does congress have a medal for that kind of thing?
“So
how ’bout this weather?” asked one of them during a recent broadcast on
– shock of all shocks – Fox News. “You know, this whole cult of global
warming ... I really think this is the year it dies, considering the
weather we’ve had this past weekend.”
Wow. Just ... wow. Open palm, insert forehead.
It’s
hard knowing where to start. In a lot of ways, it’s easier to
understand why an everyday John or Jane may not grasp the science of
global climate change, because even though that science is relatively
simple, it’s not a layperson’s job to follow it. One can certainly argue
– and I do – that it’s in a person’s best interests to keep abreast of
scientific developments, because it increases our understanding of the
natural world, and our place in it. But there’s nothing forcing anyone.
That’s disappointing, and can lead to frustration; but hey, if I’m the
only guy at the party talking about the quantum theory of gravity, I’m
that much more likely to score the phone number of the nerdy
bespectacled woman sipping tepid wine by the Barcalounger. This has
never once happened, by the way, but my random foray into fantasy has a
point.
Which
is simply that a TV pundit is supposed to follow these things closely, and to understand them
properly. They’re the ones disseminating ideas to the very public that
may not have the time, or the interest, to dig closely into the matter
themselves. And if they’re not going to impart proper information, then
their only ostensible purpose is to raise my blood pressure to levels
that would explode the heart of a Shetland pony.
In
the interest of full disclosure, I should point out that I’m a huge
dork. Considering my professed interest in space exploration and Batman,
this should hardly come as a revelation. Due in part to this nerdiness,
I know that the “warming” in global warming refers to worldwide
averages, largely focusing on ocean temperatures – it doesn’t mean you
and I will be wearing shorts in January anytime soon. It’s winter in
Maine, and it’s going to be cold. That doesn’t unravel decades of
climate research. Saying, “It’s cold today, so global warming is a
hoax!” is rather like looking out your window at night and saying, “It’s
dark out, so that must mean there’s no such thing as the sun!” And if
it happens to be an unseasonably warm day, then the whole argument
collapses under its own faulty interior logic. If five minutes of
unscientific observation makes someone an expert at something, then I’m
poised to replace Bill Belichick as coach of the New England Patriots.
So
what do rising ocean temperatures mean? Well, it means arctic and
Antarctic sea ice will start to melt (ahem), species of animals will
become displaced from their natural habitats (AHEM), and weather
patterns will change, increasing the number of extreme weather events
like hurricanes and blizzards (ahemAHEMcoughcoughcough). Turns out that’s what happens when you take
the sludge left over from dead dinosaurs and pump it into the
atmosphere. We call this the greenhouse effect. It’s like the planet is
swaddled in a blanket of triceratops farts.
This
is backed up by multiple reports issued by the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change, an international consortium of climate scientists.
This is a group, by the way, which is unburdened by make-believe
pressure from the “special interest groups” of cable pundits’ impressive
imaginations. Yet these “news” boobs persist in ignoring evidence, and
spreading the notion that global warming is somehow a matter of opinion.
It isn’t. It’s a matter of fact.
Somehow,
a combustible mix of cable punditry and anti-science nincompoops have
turned this into a political issue. A narrative has evolved that giving
credence to climate science is an inherently liberal trait, and
skepticism an inherently conservative one. So those who take their cues
from their favorite talking head programs – who hew unapologetically to
one ideology or the other, facts be damned – are influenced by politics
when politics aren’t the issue. This isn’t right versus left, red versus
blue. It’s truth versus fiction. And unless anti-science, pro-ignorance
forces eat some humble pie, truth is going to lose.
I
know I blow the trumpets of science a little loudly at times, but
that’s only because of how shockingly misunderstood it’s become in
recent years. It’s not a set of unchanging, arbitrary instructions
foisted upon countryfolks by an antiquated Greek god. It’s a picture
whose resolution gets sharper with each passing day. Lines become
clearer, smudges resolve themselves. There are missteps and
misunderstandings, it’s messy and imperfect, but the course always
corrects itself in the end, and we’re continually arriving at milestones
of understanding. The picture gains clarity. And then one day, we take a
step back, view it from a distance, and realize we’ve learned something
about ourselves. That’s really kind of beautiful.
It’s
a shame that doesn’t make for ratings-grabbing television, because if
pundits wanted to impart something positive and real for a change,
that’d be a nice place to start. A little something to warm our spirits
during a cold winter, perhaps.
So. How ’bout this weather, huh?
No comments:
Post a Comment