Tag: Global warming

Pascal’s Wager and the Environment

~ Joe Broadmeadow ~ 1 Comment

Blaise Pascal, a seventeenth century philosopher, theologian, mathematician, and physicist (1623-1662) proposed a wager as a way of defining how humans were betting with their souls on the existence of God.

Pascal said there were two choices one could make about God and each had its cost or benefit.

He posits that a rational person should live as though God exists and seek to believe in God. If God does not actually exist, such a person will have only a finite loss (some pleasures, luxury, etc.), whereas if God does exist, he stands to receive infinite gains (as represented by eternity in Heaven) and avoid infinite losses (eternity in Hell.)

This is not about you: Responsible actions protect everyone | Opinion | chinookobserver.com

One might make the same argument about Climate Change. If one changed the word God in the diagram with Man Caused Climate Change, it still applies.

I would argue that a rational society should strive to live as if anthropogenic activities are contributing to Climate change, work to develop alternative energy sources that reduce such impact, and eliminate dependence on fossil fuels.

If it turns out Climate change is not significantly impacted by human activity or beyond our ability to mitigate or limit it, it cost us little in terms of our future–and perhaps provides low-cost, alternative energy options and competition. Keep in mind, the fossil fuel industry has been purposely sowing doubt about climate change for decades to control the debate and stall any concerted efforts to find alternatives. (https://joebroadmeadowblog.com/2020/11/29/climate-change-altering-reality/)

Yet, if mitigation of anthropogenic activity contributing to climate change is effective and eliminates the acceleration of the process, we have gained a brighter, more naturally regulated environmental future.

Briefly, if we are accelerating Climate Change and do nothing, we lose. If we are not a significant contributor to climate change and our efforts to slow it are in vain, we still face an environmental catastrophe that may cause the extinction of man.  

Wouldn’t it be prudent to take the only course of action which presents us with an opportunity to change the course of our future?

As Pascal said, our options are to wager we can receive infinite gains by slowing our effect on climate change or suffer infinite losses because we ignored the evidence of a global climate catastrophe.

Keep in mind, we are betting with our children’s and grandchildren’s lives, it might make the safe bet more critical than any short-term financial burden.

************************************************************************

JEBWizard Publishing (www.jebwizardpublishing.com) is a hybrid publishing company focusing on new and emerging authors. We offer a full range of customized publishing services.

Everyone has a story to tell, let us help you share it with the world. We turn publishing dreams into a reality. For more information and manuscript submission guidelines contact us at info@jebwizardpublishing.com or 401-533-3988.

Signup here for our mailing list for information on all upcoming releases, book signings, and media appearances.

Virion: Is Global Warming Sending Us A Message?

~ Joe Broadmeadow ~ Leave a comment

Could it be the melting of the frozen Arctic Tundra is the source of COVID-19? Has climate change awakened a new plague on mankind?

In 1967 two scientists, Syukuro Manabe and Richard Wetherald, released a report that reverberates to this day. And like most evidence-based reporting perceived to impact business or economics in a negative way, it was ignored, demeaned, discredited, and challenged. Ultimately, more research confirmed the evidence, and corroborated the initial report. Leading to its wide acceptance.

They did not set out to establish the existence of global warming and anthropomorphic climate change. Manabe and Wetherald posed a question—what effect does the increase of Co2 have on the atmosphere—and followed the evidence. Interestingly enough, using mostly calculations on paper lacking access to sophisticated computers, they predicted a 2.36-degree rise in atmospheric temperature over fifty years.

Measurements taken in 2017, the fiftieth anniversary of their prediction, measured the actual rise at 2.57 degrees. The science predicting the rise was remarkably accurate and borne out by the verifiable numbers.

(Manabe, S. and Wetherald, R.T., 1967. Thermal equilibrium of the atmosphere with a given distribution of relative humidity. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences) and https://www.carbonbrief.org/prof-john-mitchell-how-a-1967-study-greatly-influenced-climate-change-science

In Cosmos |Possible Worlds| by Ann Druyan, she points out that, based on this initial report,

“The larger community of climate scientists predicted these impacts of climate change. Heightened flooding of coastal cities, check. The mass death of coral reefs by ocean warming, check. The increase in intensity of catastrophic storms, check. Lethal heatwaves, droughts, and runaway wildfires of unprecedented magnitude, check. The scientists warned us. The corporations with vested interests in the fossil fuel industry and the governments they supported acted just like the tobacco companies. They pretended the science was unsettled and stalled for precious years.”

Druyan points out an even more ominous consequence of our failure to heed the evidence provided by science.

“An outbreak may begin when a virion, a mega-virus, dormant for over 100,000 years, is awakened as the permafrost of the Arctic melts away.”

Since the consensus—despite the spin by those with a political agenda to make this some intentional plot by China to obfuscate incompetence within the administration—is that this virus is neither man-made or genetically modified, it is a naturally occurring phenomenon.

And likely to occur again.

So, could it be an ancient virion* — the complete, infective form of a virus outside a host cell, with a core of RNA or DNA and a capsid—long dormant in the once frozen permafrost of the Arctic, now rises from a cryogenic slumber to ravage the world with a new virus?

We have re-embraced the benefits of science. We look to scientists and researchers for a vaccine to eliminate the threat of COVID-19. Shouldn’t we be willing to heed the warnings long available to us to prepare for what will inevitably be the next challenge facing the world?

Suppose the virus is “man-made,” not by our intent but by our willful ignorance?

*https://www.differencebetween.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Difference-Between-Virus-and-Virion.pdf

______________________________________________________________________________

Follow this blog for upcoming information on all new book releases. And please share this with readers everywhere. All comments are welcome. Or if you would like write a piece to be posted on my blog please send me a message.

Signup here for my email list for information on all upcoming releases, book signings, and media appearances.

And for all my books to add to your memories of great reads…https://www.amazon.com/Joe-Broadmeadow/e/B00OWPE9GU

Nature in all its Gory

~ Joe Broadmeadow ~ Leave a comment

Tree huggers love nature. They love to update their status on social media with cute images of orangutan’s frolicking with puppies and kittens and baby goats and fat Vietnamese potbellied pigs.

They share stories of the bear raised with the tiger and the lion.

They show rainbow-diffusing waterfalls with elk drinking at the peaceful edge of the pool of water or snow covered bison roaming peacefully on the open ranges of Yellowstone.

But that is not nature, that is marketing.

What set this off was the following headline,

People love watching nature on nest cams — until it gets grisly.

(https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/animalia/wp/2016/05/19/when-nest-cams-get-gruesome-some-viewers-cant-take-it/)

The story was about how the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute had to turn off the webcam on an Osprey nest. The outrage of “nature lovers” escalated to vitriol and anger when the camera showed the mother Osprey neglecting and attacking the chicks in 2014. They wanted the staff to intervene.

In other words, nature wasn’t really to their liking.

Polar bears are another favorite. No matter where you fall on the man-caused/natural global warming discussion (although I think the science of man-caused is pretty clear if not the exclusive reason) there is much angst about saving the big white furry magnificent Polar Bear.

Whatever the cause of their decline, I remember one interesting fact about Polar Bears. They are the only known species to actively hunt humans. It’s their nature.

Polar Bears are majestic apex predators. Watch this if you have any doubt. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B0DCOTaZgtA

But that’s not my point.

Tell me your point, Joe, you say.

Okay, I will.

Nature is not cruel. Nature is not heartless. Nature is not brutal. Sometimes, nature seems downright chilling from our human perspective.

But overall, Nature is neutral.

Now, doing everything we can to minimize our impact on nature and the many creatures we share this planet with is a noble goal.

Complaining when a camera gives you a window on the reality of nature is not noble or caring. It is to be ignorant of the ways of nature.

Every moment of every day something in nature is dying by the efforts of some other creature. Whether it’s a Baleen Whale filtering microscopic plankton or a pack of lions chasing down and killing a gazelle.

That is nature.

Nature is not a Disney film. Often, it’s more Alfred Hitchcock with a script by Stephen King. But that’s because we are looking at it from an unrealistic perspective.