The Simplest Test for Global Warming

James Lovelock is a scientist who’s come up with some remarkable stuff. Perhaps is most pragmatic invention was the technology that led to the development of microwave ovens. Perhaps his most powerful idea was his idea of Gaia Theory way back in the 1970s suggesting that the Earth has ways of restablizing when under duress. That theory would suggest that the Earth would address climate change in some unseen fashion to mitigate the worst effects.

Well, that was the 1970s. He doesn’t dispute his own earlier theory, but he qualfies it. Indeed, he now says enjoy life while you can, because in the next 10 years the ecological shit is going to hit the fan. It’s too late, in his mind, for efforts toward sustainability to have enough positive influence to prevent ‘the shit’.

Such thinking has led his to be a fierce advocate for nuclear power, as he believes ‘windmills’ hold little more hope for us than they did for Don Quixote. Same reason, too little too late.

He’s a terrifically interesting fellow, at least.

But one of my favorite things about the man was his explanation about global warming. Real simple. If it’s getting colder globally, the oceans will lose volume as more ice is formed, meaning the sea levels will fall. Conversely, if the ocean levels are rising [which they continue to do today as they have for the last 30 years], we’re getting warmer.

Now that doesn’t address the whole notion of cause. Some still argue this is a completely natural phenomena, and a normal cycle for the Earth. Maybe. Maybe not.

Presented for your consideration: If you take billions of tons of carbon-based fuels [coal, oil, natural gas], formed over millions of years, and burn the shit out of them for a few hundred years, you’re going to have some impact. Do are climate change issues of today reflect that? You tell me.