I would like to respond to Jon Miller’s comments on the content of his geography course and his thoughts on global climate change and recycling as voiced in the editorial “Don’t force your liberal ideals on us”. Although I have a lot of respect for Miller as an individual I disagree with many of the views that he expressed.
I am hoping that if Miller looks back over his geography notes he will find mention of possible causes of global climate change including variations in solar energy, Milankovitch cycles and anthropogenic causes. But yes, Miller was taught that human activities are a factor in global climate change.
Miller’s skepticism concerning human contributions to global change is not surprising. An October 2009 national survey by the Pew Research Center found that there was a “decline in the proportion of Americans who say global temperatures are rising as a result of human activity, such as burning fossil fuels. Just 36 percent say that currently, down from 47 percent last year.”
In direct contrast, the day before the Pew survey results were released, 18 leading scientific societies and organizations signed an open letter to the US Senate summarizing the scientific consensus on climate change.
Their opinion is strikingly at odds with that of the general public: “Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver. These conclusions are based on multiple independent lines of evidence, and contrary assertions are inconsistent with an objective assessment of the vast body of peer-reviewed science.”
The letter was sent by scientific groups including the American Geophysical Union which represents more than 50,000 individuals. Other signatories included the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Chemical Society, the American Meteorological Society, the Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics and the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research.
As a member of the Olympic College faculty who teaches Geography 101 and 102 as natural science classes I feel it is my responsibility to represent the work of the scientific majority rather than the opinion of the public. To do otherwise would be a disservice to OC students.
With regards to recycling and other efforts to reduce the amount of carbon that we take out of storage and put into the atmosphere, I agree that reducing the amount of the so-called ‘green-house’ gases is a large task. But past events have shown that we are capable of making significant changes to the atmosphere’s composition.
It appears likely that we are in the process of reducing the size of the ‘ozone hole’ (the thinning of the stratospheric ozone layer) through actions to reduce release of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). The atmosphere is, after all, a very thin layer.
So please don’t give up on recycling and other efforts to reduce the amount of carbon and assorted chemicals that we put into the air; we can make a difference through both our ingenuity in devising solutions and by engaging with the wide variety of options that already exist.
Reducing emissions does not have to be painful but we do need to engage our brains and work towards solutions. Action on our parts is not a political choice and the choice of action does not fall solely into the terrain of liberals or conservatives. Choosing to ignore science and do nothing is a gamble that humankind cannot afford to take.
Yours sincerely,
Susan Digby, PhD
Be the first to comment on this article!