I wonder sometimes if the authors of SF novels that base
their plots on the certainty of anthropogenic global warming are as likely to
be “right” about their futures as George Orwell and Jules Verne were right
about theirs.
Anthropogenic Global Warming, or AGW, was a precise
descriptor but was downgraded to the meaningless phrase climate change. It’s virtually
impossible to find AGW still in use anywhere. Perhaps the science has sharpened
to a point where the consensus now believes that climate change is natural. I
never had any argument with the idea that the climate changes. My objection has
always been that 2.867E11 kg of people can totally alter the climate of 5.972E24
kg of planet. I understand that this isn’t a perfect comparison, but “climate”
is a complex thing no matter how simplistic we try and make it sound when we
talk about stopping AGW.
By definition “Climate is a measure of the average pattern
of variation in temperature, humidity, atmospheric pressure, wind,
precipitation, atmospheric particle count and other meteorological variables in
a given region over long periods of time.”
How can Humans have gained such power to alter all of these
variables over such an incredibly short period of time? With a population of
just under a billion and the dawn of the Industrial Revolution in the
mid-1700s, Humans supposedly gained the power to alter the climate of the
entire planet. So in the space of 250 years, we completely mastered the planet
to the point we are at today. We can extinguish the planet or we can save the
planet.
The choice, according to the consensus of essentially 100%
of the scientific community, is ours and ours alone. There are no other factors
to consider. We can stop global warming. We can cause global warming. You can
find an clear history of the discovery of global warming here: http://www.aip.org/history/climate/summary.htm.
You can also find counter arguments here (which has the advantage of linking to
climate change discoveries in order to refute them) here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/
Getting back to science fiction, Orwell and Verne clearly
got certain things right – sometimes uncannily right. Ubiquitous surveillance
and submarines leap to mind. But you can find as many things they got wrong. A
simple internet search will bring up plenty of articles enumerating both. (http://www.zmescience.com/other/science-abc/things-jules-verne-got-right-and-he-didnt/ , http://john.a16z.com/2013/06/21/where-orwell-got-it-wrong/)
It seems logical that “predictive science fiction” regarding
climate change would be the same. However, it sometimes seems that the SF
community insists that it gets things spot on when it actually doesn’t. For me,
a glaringly obvious manipulation regards my favorite of all pastimes, watching
STAR TREK.
In the Wikipedia article: “Climate Change in Popular
Culture” one of the Star Trek: The Next Generation episodes, “The Inner Light”
(Season 5, episode 25, 1992) is used as an example of how anthropogenic global
warming might destroy an entire civilization: “The issue of climate change and
global warming, its possible effects, and related human-environment interaction
have entered popular culture since the late 20th century.” In this episode, “Jean-Luc
Picard lives a lifetime on a planet experiencing Global Warming and
aridification. Ultimately, the climate change becomes serious enough to
threaten all life on the planet. This Hugo Award winner is among the 5 most
popular out of all 178 episodes in the TNG series.”
The truth of the matter is quite different, which I
cross-checked using the STAR TREK geek’s “bible”, Memory Alpha, where it says
something quite different regarding “The Inner Light”: “Ten years have passed
on Kataan, and Kamin, together with his adult daughter Meribor, have found that
the soil in their yard is simply dead. The sun's radiation has sterilized the
dirt making it incapable of supporting life, a process that is implied to be
wiping out all plant life on the planet.
“La Forge has managed to trace the alien probe's path back
to the system of Kataan, which contains no habitable planets as the star went
nova approximately one thousand years earlier.” (http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/The_Inner_Light_(episode))
How did this little faux pas happen? (And why hasn’t anyone
protested it? It seems that wiki articles get slammed all the time!) Why would
anyone take a bit of fiction and twist it to advance a political/scientific
agenda? It’s a TELEVISION show – an old one at that.
As I tend to read “space opera” and have a usually passive
interest in near-future SF, I wasn’t even aware of the newest category
alliterated here http://www.salon.com/2014/10/26/the_rise_of_climate_fiction_when_literature_takes_on_global_warming_and_devastating_droughts/.
While I certainly think it’s important for SF to look at the
future and imagine what it might be like and what our responses to the future
might be like, I wonder if the climate change scientists are moving to coopt SF
as a medium for their message. In 2013, Curry at NPR books noted, “‘You know,
scientists and other people are trying to get their message across about
various aspects of the climate change issue,’ says Curry. ‘And it seems like
fiction is an untapped way of doing this — a way of smuggling some serious
topics into the consciousness’ of readers who may not be following the science.”
Funny, in any other instance, the climate change agenda
infiltrating fiction might be called propaganda. I’m almost certain that if,
say, the dreaded creationist theories turned up in SF like this, there would be
a massive hue and outcry that “they” were trying to sway the public. The
difference being of course that essentially 100% of all scientists believe that
AGW is a clear and present danger.
Resources: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2014/11/anthropogenic_global_warming_and_the_scientific_method.html,
http://monthlyreview.org/2008/07/01/the-scientific-case-for-modern-anthropogenic-global-warming/,
http://www.npr.org/2013/04/20/176713022/so-hot-right-now-has-climate-change-created-a-new-literary-genre
2 comments:
Pretty good post. Climate always changes. How it will change is long-term unpredictable. How much each driver to the change is responsible for it (people included) is also unpredictable. The only predictable thing is that people who want to believe we're wrecking the planet will also believe we're changing the climate.
Jeff -- thanks for stopping by and commenting! I completely agree. We believe what we want to believe, sometimes despite evidence against or even lack of evidence.
I include myself in this assessment as well!
Post a Comment