Jul 22 2008
Let the Debate Begin
The Earth is warming, isn’t it? Our carbon emissions are causing this warming, right? As much as some would want us to think that there is a consensus on this topic there is not. More and more we see dissenters rise up only to be labeled and dismissed. There is no room for debate when that is exactly what should be happening. I am no scientist so I do not claim to have any definitive answers on this topic but what I would like to see is some actual debate. If you don’t agree with human caused global warming then you are labeled a world-hater. How about instead of labels we let people debate what is actually going on here. I don’t think anyone in their right mind would think or say, ” You know, I really don’t like this planet I live on. I want to destroy it.” No. I think everyone can agree with responsible conservation. The question then is what does that look like? Well, let the two sides talk about it, give us research and then we will go from there. Instead, people act like there is only one side despite growing opposition and research that doesn’t agree with the status quo.
If you are interested, here is an article that gives a view of the other side of the debate. I find news items like this one that would seem important to knowing the truth on this topic but it is largely ignored. Why?
Why is this important? It is important because world leaders are using information (that has never been verified and is now being taken apart) to base policies on. The two sides won’t even talk mostly because one side simply ignores the others existence. Let the debate begin! Take down the smoke and mirrors and give us a bit of truth.
Brian
3 responses so far
Welcome all! My name is Brian and I am glad you found your way here.
I still have a sort of “Pascal’s Wager” re. environmentalism:
If those worried about global warming are right, and we ignore their advice, we risk some pretty horrific results, especially for those living in poverty on costal areas.
If those worried about global warming are right, and we follow their advice, we risk loosing a bit of money but living in a world with less smog and more trees.
So as long as the evidence remains controversial, I’m all for mild pro-environment measures.
This is another common misconception about people with my view. I have no problem with less smog and more trees. In fact I welcome it. The sooner the better. My problem comes with how those who tout man made global warming want to do it: more government. I welcome the debate because it doesn’t exist yet and so that we can get clarification.
Also, has there been a correlation in the past with global temperatures going up or down and many people suffering? Why would this time be different? (I don’t know the answer to these questions, by the way) We have always acclimated to our current conditions and I think we will continue to do so.
I’m generally a fan of small government, but I think there are a couple of cases where the laws of economics break down.
One is monopolies, hence antitrust laws.
Another is an unfortunate tendency towards extreme wealth distribution, hence progressive tax rates and other such policies.
A third is environmental concerns in which the airborne waste production of one factory affects everyone in the world (to some degree.) Hence environmental legislation.
Now there has to be some balance–and even when government is necessary it ought to be treated with extreme distrust–but that’s why, in general, I don’t have any problems with the principal of environmental legislation.
As far as the climate change and adaptation, here’s the deal:
As a race, we always acclimate ourself to environmental changes, and the fact of the matter is that changes bring good as well as bad. Global warming is no different, though scientists will go crazy arguing which is more prevalent (and many seem to prefer pessimism.)
As individuals, however, at any given moment we tend to occupy the situation that works best with the current climate environment. If we live somewhere where it is cold, we’ll probably have heat rather than air conditioning. If we live somewhere on the coast with little historical erosion, we’ll probably build along the coast without expectations of further erosion. If we live on a tropical island whose climate supported its native floura and fauna, we’ll probably assume we can always get such a bounty.
When things change, the rich can always adapt. Is Las Vegas a desert? Build a dam and put in lots of casinos and shows. Is your private island no longer growing mangos? Ship in the hardiest breed of pomegranites, which grow well in the new climate. Money has power, and power (generally speaking) means adaptability.
The poor don’t have such adaptability. If the one breed of rice that grows on a subsistence farmer’s land no longer grows, he and his family starve to death. If a poor villager’s coastal cottage collapses due to erosion, he sleeps in a friend’s house, at a mission, or under the nearest bridge–because he lacks the funds for materials to rebuild his house. (Or, for that matter, to reinforce his foundations in accordance with the latest scientific research before his house collapses.)
So basically, climate change may offer good and bad (and it’s an ill wind indeed that blows nobody any good), but by and large it is only the relatively wealthy who have the power to take advantage of the good and escape from the bad. And since mankind is generally clever enough to be in the ideal situation for his current climate, any significant change in climate will overall have an immediate average negative effect. Especially on the poor, who lack the resources for expensive alterations.