Mom had the Today Show on this morning when I came down to make breakfast. They were doing a big shindig on climate change. Al Gore was on and an interviewer asked him to comment on a quote from a climatologist who disagrees with the human-caused theory of global warming. Gore was incensed. "It's irresponsible for the media to give attention to this sort of argument" he said. Wait. So we shouldn't be -allowed- to hear dissenting opinions? Not only is that horrendously undemocratic (no surprise as Gore is a communitarian) but this only makes Gore and the whole man-caused global warming argument look weak - that he is afraid of dissent because it might just reveal that his Nobel Prise winning self is full of hot air - even if he isn't. Gore continued to criticize the quoted scientist by saying that he was not a member of the International Panel on Climate Change. Well of course he isn't. You're not ALLOWED on it if you disagree with the man-made global warming theory. (of course they might put your name on there anyway and claim that you support it even if you don't.)
There's some merit to the whole global warming thing as the planet has undergone several climate shifts since life appeared in the primordial soup. While I believe that human activity has sped up the recent climate change. I don't think there is anything we can do about preventing it from occurring. It's going to happen. It's just a matter of when. Nothing Al Gore can do or say will change this. Of course if we're lucky a gamma ray will just wipe the planet clean taking Al Gore with it.
Don't know why Gore said that - but if it was me commenting on the press on climate change. I would be upset because the two scientists that are opposed to the theory get as much time in media as the remaining 98 together that are convinced that's what's happening. Media naturally love controversy and in an ideal world indeed all sides of the argument get their voice heard. But we both know that more often than not media don't use their right to give us the full picture.
Frankly. I was amazed that any time was given to a dissenting opinion at all. The climate change issue has taken on an almost religious sanctity. If I had to guess. I'd say that 90% of the attention given to the climate change issue agrees with the theory that it is the fault of industry. For those who dissagree. I would like to point out that no scientists are suggesting that we aren't experiencing climate chage. They simply don't agree with the explanation aspoused by Gore et al.
I have to point out that just a couple years ago your government was forging evidence to the effect that climate change is not happening. The acceptance of the current theory has happened ovewhelmingly fast considering how long it took for it to break through so I can see how it might seem suspicious.
I'm not so naive as to think that equal time has or will ever be given regardless of the plausability of any individual or group's argument. However there is a mountain of peer-reviewed scientific evidence to show that the human-caused theory of global warming is in fact a crackpot theory. But it's a theory that's great for big business and western governments. For one politicians love to have a monster in the closet to say "I'm going to protect you from this" / "my opponent won't protect you from this." Secondly it's been a successful marketing tool for established industry. "Our product is greener than their product." And most importantly it endeavors to keep China from developing more than they already have and hold back India and to a lesser extent. Africa by seeking to hold them to emissions standards that are prohibitively expensive for a developing country. This way they remain a source for cheap labor and do not pose a threat to established Western economic power.
Even if this impending climate change isn't cause by humans but the natural way of things don't you think it would be smart to lessen the impact? I mean ice ages giant hurricanes the rise of sea level 10's of feet aren't good for the human race. So why not try and stop it somehow?The way I see it the penalty for ignoring it and it actually happening is far greater than putting steps in place to solve a problem that doesn't exist. Which would you rather have billions dead and homeless when the ice caps melt? or trillions of dollars wasted to try and solve a problem that doesn't exist?
Letting them develop with environmental restrictions isn't exactly trying to keep them in poverty. I know we've messed it up for them but it would be irresponsible to just sit back and let them fuck it up some more with the information we have now. It does suck to be them but it would suck even more if they were underwater. It's hard to develop any sort of economy when your nation's ports and large cities look like New Orleans post Katrina. It is also irresponsible for us to impose environmental regulations upon these developing nations only to turn around and break all the regulations ourselves. I suspect it would take something drastic and obviously linked to global warming to happen for us to change our ways. Something foreboding and dramatic like something you see in disaster movies. It's too bad Comets and Asteroids aren't linked to global warming those make for good enemies to rally against.
It's harder to sell someone on a "evacuate New York to save mankind" t-shirt than to sell a t-shirt made out of recycled Chinese public hair. Green is really good for business. I read an article about a car wash that put in some solar panels and business just came pouring in because they were "helping the environment". Their entire roof of solar panels barely created enough electricity to power the soft drink refrigerators in their waiting room.. oh and they were being "green" about wasting tons of fresh water (another impending cataclysm we're ignoring). It's all about making a buck getting old and dying.
Related article:
http://mycroftholmes.livejournal.com/137688.html
comments | Add comment | Report as Spam
|
