Ok, I will post on this at the request of my wife (she said I should in the comment section of my last post). This will get sort of redundant, as I think she is the only one that is going to read this, but hey- I do what I am told lol.
As Laura well knows, I have a very STRONG opinion that the theory of AGW is complete bunk. I believe that it is another attempt by the left-wing environmentalists to impose socialism, this time not to save "the workers," but "the world." The "science" is all founded on mathematical models that assume an exponentially growing amount of CO2 in the air, when that assumption cannot be made, and then assumes that any warming is going to have catastrophic effects.
A few points against this- first, there has been NO WARMING SINCE THE LATE 1990s. That's right. None. It's actually gotten .25 degrees farenheit cooler, and this is as CO2 has continued to increase in concentration. AGW theorists say that their models expecting a 1 degree increase by now failed to take the oceans into account as a giant "carbon-sink," even though the exact opposite is true- the oceans actually produce a lot of CO2 from the volcanoes and other pheonomena they contain under their waters. Second- it was actually much warmer than it is now back in the middle-ages. This enabled the Viking sailors to actually settle and grow crops in Greenland, which is now a huge ice sheet. Which begs the question- warmer temperatures world wide actually increases the amount of food, which in turn increases the amount of animal life, and generally makes many basic needs more abundant. Why would that be a bad thing?
Another thing- now, the technical term for "global warming" is "climate change;" in true Orwellian fashion, this "newspeak" term now includes everything that doesn't conform to "normal" parameters, such as that China had the coldest winter on record last year. Oh, THAT is also due to climate change, sorry, it's not just warming. Fact of the matter is, as any paleontologist will tell you, is that the climate has always changed. It doesn't STOP changing. The fact that we drive an SUV cannot change climate one way or the other. There is growing evidence to support the fact that- and this is a novel idea- that huge, heat-producing thing we call the "sun" might have a lot to do with how the climate is here. Gee-whiz, that's amazing! Why didn't we think of that before?
For those interested, I can point you to a number of articles and books that deal with these and other issues much better then I can, or have. If you are a strong adherent to this theory, you will decry them as "biased" and "sponsored by the big-bad oil companies," though they aren't- at least any more "biased" that the largely political IPCC report is (and Al Gore, by the way, has hundreds of millions of dollars invested in companies that "fight" global warming. No wonder he wants to scare-monger some more- he laughs all the way to the bank).
Sorry, this has taken somewhat of a polemic form, but honestly this is something I feel strongly about. I do not want to wreck the progess that the modern industrial age has made, which has moved more people out of poverty than any other institution, to tilt at windmills. I do favor protecting the environment, don't get me wrong- and I know that you are going to laugh at that "throw-away" line at the end of this post- I don't want to squander natural resources and pollute to no end in the name of "progress." I just want that defense of the environment to be based on actual science, not the delusions that CO2 is going to kill us all.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Steve I love your random raving and ramblings :D you and scott think so much alike on a lot of issues. Just to let ya know...we always read your postings too so its not just your wife :D
Oh Steve, we should worry about those poor, poor polar bears! LOL! I laughed all the way through your article. Like I always say: if you're worried about CO2 output, then just stop breathing. HA!
I agree it is frustrating that so many environmental issues are shrouded in subjective science shrouded in objectivity. It seems contradictory, however, that you claim that global warming is a conspiracy to promote socialism while you also accuse Gore of using the fear of global warming for personal profit. It seems Mr. Gore has taken a page from the best capitalist playbook.
Your example seems to highlight one problem with the so-called "free" market. Specifically that morality is superceeded by profit. It is acceptable to pursue higher profits despite the possible negative consequences to other members of society. So, while you worry that attempts to corral debased industries is titling at windmills, maybe the world doesn't need another defender of the already powerful but rather someone willing to stand for those quixotic morals that improve life for all and not the priveledged few.
Cory-
I am a little confused by your argument, but the idea to me that imposing socialism while Gore gets rich using a quasi-capitalist "carbon offset" scheme does not seem contradictory to me at all. Socialism, in my opinion, is designed to make everyone poor, save the elite. In the capitalist system, though far from perfect, the rich get richer by making everyone else's lives richer as well. I am glad that concern for the environment led to industries changing some of their more polluting habits, but environmentalism now is becoming more like a religion then anything actually rooted in science.
I agree that Enviromentalism is used mostly as a scare tactic. Spend the Eighties saving the whales, the ninties saving the rainforest and set you sights higher in the new millenium by saving the whole world (or at least accuse those who don't put their drop in the bucket as being evil.)
But on to the capitalism thing. I consider myself a critic of capitalism. When I read "The Wealth of Nations" by Adam Smith, I was inspired (and assigned by a professor) to write a paper on it. I titled the paper "A Sad Indicator" You said that "the rich get richer by making everyone else's lives richer as well." Adam Smith makes the same point and says that one seeking to get rich is led by "an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention."
It is sad that the main motivation for "making everyone else's lives richer" is a byproduct of a purely selfish action. As benvolence is not necessarily part of the intention of the successful capitalists motivation, and 'virtues' such as shrewdness, competition, and efficiency are, the lesser of these becomes part of the capitalists main focus. These 'virtues' are close to being tainted shrewdness becomes dishonesty, deceit and greed, competition becomes resentment, malice and hatred, efficiency becomes exploitation and oppression. It takes a great man (or board of directors) to cling to benvolence and other pure virtues when it must wholly embrace the principles that hang so closely to the fringe.
This is just Bob, not Holly.
Capitalism creates powerful individuals, but makes them monsters in the process. Monsters bred to destroy all competition. It promotes survival of the fittest (businesses) and death and slavery to the rest.
Low prices are given to us by the invisible hand, while the hand of intention destroys honest individuals that are quite as shrewd, competitive or efficient.
Bob, I doubt you will read this months after your comment was posted, but I have to ask-what other choice do we have? Government-mandated benevolence, in the form of communism, has only produced poverty and desolation inasmuch as it has been tried in different parts of the world. I am sure you could argue that it was a perverted form of Marxism or Leninism or whatever system that was supposed to bring absolute equality to the people of a given nation, but still-the problems of trying to redistribute wealth from one person to another are many fold, and in the end, all it does is destroy wealth, creating none in the process.
Capitalism does have its faults, there is no question about that. But as long as contracts are maintained, and as long as people have a free choice in what they choose to buy or not buy, then the greater good will be served by otherwise self-interested individuals. And I use a broad term in the sense of "contract," meaning false advertising, lying, etc. is a form of a breach of contract, and would be subject to punishment from the government, whose purpose is to enforce contract obligations and provide for the common defense, and to very occasionally take care of negative externalities and other such blips in the capitalist scheme.
Capitalists still give to charities, and I still pay my tithing and fast offerings. This is not unusual, and I don't know any capitalist that thinks that charitable giving and providing for the common good should be thrown out the window. I just believe it can be done far more efficiently through organizations such as the Church, and not through the sucking maw of the government, where waste and inefficiency know no bounds.
Post a Comment