Anna's not convinced of global warming - but definitely climate change

Okay, I'll admit, this is a rant of sorts - but it's keeping me warm, my fingers moving and the blood boiling.

As I sit here doing research for another project, one a world away in terms of importance to the eventual legacy of humankind, I'm shuttling forth and back to the kitchen every half hour to switch out the magic elixir, the sugar water of life for a trio of flying lilliputian. Three Anna's hummingbirds, along with a host of other avians have decided, or perhaps by my maintaining their food supply, been coaxed into staying the winter. This week they may be seriously reconsidering their decision. In a bone-chillingly rare bash of icy windy weather the temps have plummeted into the teens at night and disparately grasp for the 30 degree mark by day - this is far from the norm for Portland. Or am I dillusionary and this is the new norm and I clinging to an old norm out of denial?

This morning on NPR's Morning Edition was a story with climatologist, some would say evangelist, James Hansen:

Scientist: Urgency Needed On Climate Change Action

Just as I was finishing his op-ed in the NY Times, the NPR story began I was clicking on the BBC online news to a story on the same topic:

This decade 'warmest on record'

According to the World Meteorological Organization the first decade of this century is "by far" the warmest since instrumental records began some 160 years ago.

Well, the tiny Anna's hummingbirds sitting at the warm sugar water feeders outside my window would adamantly dispute that fact. They would surely ask - "Where's the heat? Bring it on!"

And that's the issue. I have been saying for years that until people wake up in the morning, put their hand on the door and get burned because it's too hot out (or alternately freeze) then can't leave their homes for days on end, they are never - NEVER - going to get it, climate change.

In reaction to Hansen are other, not all conservatives as you think - like Paul Krugman, in his own piece

Unhelpful Hansen

What is clear to anyone who has traveled this planet for the past quarter century of more - and I'm not just talking about to one frigg'n conference after another - really traveled the back roads, back alleys and forgotten corners - is that we are in deep climate change shit! And the only way to even hope of shifting the course is stop the bullshit conversation about "what ifs" and get on with changing the way we function with our planet. Millions of people, poor people, die everyday on this planet because of the changes we have brought about in the last century, and Mr. Krugman they don't give a damn your thoughts on cap and trade - "What the basic economic analysis says...", or what your magical chart shows - to them it's all "crap and trade offs".

And that is the crux part one - it's climate change - not just warming. A year ago I was in India and farmers were complaining about drought in one part of the country and too much rain in another - in each case the experience was not the norm. This is no longer about economic survival - it is about survival.

Part two - we don't really give a shit. If we really did there would be no doubt where to spend the $700 billion the Obama Administration just got back from the bank bail out - DEVELOPMENT OF NON-CARBON RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCES. It's, as Hansen says, about too much carbon being pumped into the atmosphere. And the average person in the developed countries (read - over consuming) and developing countries (read - trying to consume more) has no clue WTF is going on - or cares frankly. This week is the UN Climate Summit in Copenhagen, another summit where rich nations will promise to do a little and promise to give just enough to keep poor nations from complaining too much. And the pontificated proclamations on changes regarding the climate? At least Copenhagen will benefit from all the week of hot air - it's just above freezing there this week.

Which brings me back to that possible case of - clinging to an old norm out of denial? Denial: "a state in which a person is faced with a fact that is too uncomfortable to accept and rejects it instead, insisting that it is not true despite what may be overwhelming evidence."

Krugman closes his blog post with:

"Things like this often happen when economists deal with physical scientists; the hard-science guys tend to assume that we’re witch doctors with nothing to tell them, so they can’t be bothered to listen at all to what the economists have to say, and the result is that they end up reinventing old errors in the belief that they’re deep insights. Most of the time not much harm is done. But this time is different.

For here’s the way it is: we have a real chance of getting a serious cap and trade program in place within a year or two. We have no chance of getting a carbon tax for the foreseeable future. It’s just destructive to denounce the program we can actually get — a program that won’t be perfect, won’t be enough, but can be made increasingly effective over time — in favor of something that can’t possibly happen in time to avoid disaster."

In this case I agree with you - sorta. "...this time is different." Neither of you should be professionally in this discussion - it's not about economics or physical science - it's about biology! You should be only in it as living human beings. The only discussion we should be having is about things living and dying. Other wise the dieing will eventually be very tormented and excruciating because we run out of drinkable water, clean air, arable soil, livable space. So, "a program that won’t be perfect, won’t be enough," - sorry, this time is different, we need perfect and we need enough.

And what about real change on the climate - the only real change will be too uncomfortable regardless if we accept it or reject it - hotter hots, wetter wets, drier drys and tomorrow it will be clear and friggi'n cold again here and the Anna's better evolve in a hurry - I'm running out of warm sugar water.