Is Global Warming Real?
I have no idea. At this point, seriously, I really have no idea.
Hippies, dirt-worshippers, and nanny statists everywhere have convinced most of the public that global warming is very real. At first (I remember television movies about it) we were all going to be wearing SPF 6BILLION by the time I was old enough to drive. Now people just predict huge storms, very cold winters, and other climatological 'disasters.'
Of course, there are people on the other side (I can't really characterize them with funny names because there aren't all that many and I haven't noted any unifying lunacy among those originating the theory) who are saying that global warming isn't real.
And then there's the question of whether or not "global climate change" is a result of man's activities.
There are headlines flying around in both directions. There isn't enough detail and I'm not informed enough to assesss the information given to make a determination.
But I know one thing: I don't care.
I'm not a climatologist. I'm not interested in environmentalism. I barely recycle even when it's convenient.
If global warming is real, so what?
I know how to deal with a gigantic hurricane: run away.
I know how to deal with tornados: run away.
I know how to deal with very hot sunshine: stay inside with the AC on HIGH.
I know how to deal with very cold winter: stay inside with the electric blanket on HIGH.
I know how to deal with rising sea levels: Run away. (Or go Holland-style and get you a levee.)
I know how to deal with floods: run away... to a boat.
I know how to deal with the planet exploding into a million billion little pieces: run away... in a space ship.
I don't know of any viable alternative to the course of development of human civilization spurred by market mechanics. Attempts to regulate and force people into adopting more expensive, less efficient technology in an effort to protect the environment will only make the human condition worse in the long run and undoubtedly fail to address the environmental problem in the first place. That is just the nature of government regulations.
But I'll also throw this out there: I'm sick of hearing about Global Warming. I'm sick of every time there's a hurricane, someone screaming about Global Warming. I'm tired of people saying that Hurricane's J through Beta or whatever were a clear sign of global warming when, in fact, it is insufficient evidence for the claim. Al Gore, I'm talking about you.
It's all just so boring. Why I even brought it up on my blog, I just can't remember right now. Someone was probably talking about it and I was busy sighing audibly and rolling my eyes. Sooo over it.
Posted by: Flibbertigibbet at
10:40 AM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
Category: Mean Green Machine
Post contains 468 words, total size 3 kb.
1
The whole thing that makes me laugh is that people seem to look at the natural world through the peephole that is our recorded history; while at the same time completely ignoring the evidence that nature is cyclical.
Day and night, summer and winter, even hurricanes cycle in approximately 50-year increments. We've had warm tropical periods (think dinosaurs), and ice ages (think mammoths). All of a sudden everyone absolutely
loses their fucking shit when the average temperature rises a few degrees? Give me a break.
Posted by: shank at July 19, 2006 11:23 AM (bqqxA)
2
Trey,
Objectivist blogger Mike's Eyes has just posted three really good posts analyzing both global warming and global cooling. They might interest you:
http://mikeseyes.blogspot.com/
Posted by: D Eastbrook at July 19, 2006 04:17 PM (jWCY6)
3
Shank - yes, when I think dinosaurs and mammoths, I think they are extinct. And frankly I'd rather not be extinct.
I think science has shown that mankind has had a more dramatic effect on climactic changes on this planet than any other species ever to live on this planet. As for whether that means our own destruction as a species, who knows? Not likely in my lifetime so should I care? I do think we are the only species to have lived with the mental faculties to prevent the extinction of our own race.
I find the subject concerning. I think we absolutely have the power to correct any damage to the environment we have done as a species. We choose not to in the name of business. It's cheaper not to. Well if the "hippies, dirt-worshippers and nanny statists" are correct, it may cost us a lot more in the long run. I don't think businesses should be allowed to pollute the air and water simply because it's cheaper than not doing it. I think the government has the right to protect its citizens from harm.
I'm not sure the situation is as alarming as Al Gore says it is, but I am convinced this administration could care less if it is or isn't. Personally I'd like to at least find out one way or the other rather than wait around to see who was right.
Posted by: Britton at July 20, 2006 05:15 AM (OU6yK)
4
Britton,
I don't speak for Trey, but I'm pretty sure he'd be the last to think that government should "protect" people from "harm" by thwarting their every effort, and right, to live. Global Warming or not, no government has the right to treat individuals as sacrificial animals for the sake of "The Survival of Our Species". I do not owe my life to "Our Race", Society or "Nature" or any other collective; and if I had to choose between my life and the rest of mankind's, I would not think twice about choosing mine. "The Survival of Our Species" is not a value above and beyond each individual's life.
In any case, if there is anything that will ensur e the "Extinction of Our Race", it's the systematic violation of individual rights that Global Warming alarmists have been calling for. And I'm not so sure they're unaware of it. Judging by the anti-man comments many radical environmentalist have made from time to time, it may, in fact, be their aim.
Posted by: Tom Rexton at July 20, 2006 11:26 PM (AIXCr)
5
Given that mankind is the ONLY species to systematically manipulate his environment on such a widescale as cities and towns (the only other comparison I can make is to termites, but termite mounds aren't nearly as large as the small town in which I grew up) the fact that "mankind has had a more dramatic effect on climactic changes on this planet than any other species ever to live on this planet" is insignificant to the point of being meaningless.
What science has not shown is the extent to which man has had an impact on climatological change.
The point I would make about companies polluting the air would be this: If you can show how the actions of some particular company has harmed you in some way then you have a legitimate case to sue for damages. If you think the sun is shining too brightly for your taste, then best wishes in taking that up in the court of cosmic justice.
As far as I can tell, there isn't any rational means of determining how business/industry in general harms the environment. I think the environmentalists know this and their calls for action amount to little more than outlawing business/industry.
Pollution and waste is a sign of inefficiency. Business has it in its own best interest to seek to make production cleaner and thus more efficient.
I do not believe that it is for the sake of the environment that businesses do not have more efficient technology, though. I think that technology simply does not exist. Environmentalists would do better to produce clean, cheap sources of power and production than to oppose industry for what is beyond anyone's grasp.
Posted by: Trey Givens at July 21, 2006 03:53 AM (TGk/b)
6
Trey said:
"As far as I can tell, there isn't any rational means of determining how business/industry in general harms the environment. I think the environmentalists know this and their calls for action amount to little more than outlawing business/industry."
I don't think the idea of "harm to the environment" is valid at all. The "environment" is not some organism that seeks preserve its own life. It can't be "harmed". Excluding organisms that live in it, the environment is just inanimate matter. There really isn't anything special about the "environment". If valid at all, it falls under the category of property rights--and should be handled by the government as such.
Posted by: Tom Rexton at July 21, 2006 05:39 AM (AIXCr)
7
Tom: I think you make some valid points there.
For the sake of clarity, I would say that "harm" with regard to the environment refers to deviations from the ideal that make human survival more difficult. This may include changes in temperature, atmospheric composition, and even biological diversity. It is a decidedly broad realm of consideration.
As mentioned in my original post, I don't think it's something people should concern themselves with very much. I don't see any impending problems with the environment that are beyond the realm of our ability to confront.
My advice for humanity is to simply continue thriving.
Posted by: Trey Givens at July 21, 2006 05:44 AM (TGk/b)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
32kb generated in 0.1113 seconds; 68 queries returned 142 records.
Powered by Minx 1.1.4-pink.
