The Smallest Minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities. - Ayn Rand
I, for one, do not discard the possibility of a limited man-made global warming, and we can discuss calmly about it. but as you point out, this is not what the hard environmetalists want.
The case of the scary commercial is another typical one: it takes much less time and resources to put together a pack of frightening lies (or half-truths) than to debunk them.
Whatever scientific legitimacy that might have underlain A.G.W (not much, I think) is entirely rendered corrupt and therefore forfeit by those who grab anything and everything they can as a means to power to bring forth unlimited Good.
Oh, and feather their own nests. Bringers of unlimited Good get to do that you know.
I stand by something I posted over at Barking Moonbat Early Warning System:
I’m all in favor of being kind to our environment.
Even someone who is not a scientist, merely fairly well read, can figure out that *GLOBAL* temperature fluctuations over the entire system must take a long time. When Krakatoa exploded, it was one of the largest disturbances ever recorded on the Earth’s crust. If memory serves, it was a larger energy release than every nuke ever set off in the history of mankind. And yet it was over a year I believe before anyone noticed any effects on the other side of the equator, and within a decade there were no measurable effects at all. That’s one factor to take into account.
Another factor is that, in a practical sense, ALL of the data collection on a global scale is *since* the space age, that is there is no *direct* evidence that is older than I am, and the vast majority of that data collection is since 1979. So for direct evidence, we aren’t even at the half century mark yet, arguably not even at 30 years. Basically ONE generation.
Factor 3 is that all the climate change hype is being pushed by politicians and the MSM. Yes, there are climate scientists on board with the idea, we hear about them all the time, but there are also many scientists with evidence to say man is NOT causing this trouble either. The MSM and the politicians who preach global warming try very hard to make sure you never hear about them, but they exist. It is documentable that those on the “yes, there is man made global warming” are trying to treat the issue as already proven when the *facts* suggest that it is a hotly contested THEORY with plenty of evidence to be sifted on both sides. One thing that *does* appear to be provable is that climate modeling is much more complex than either side thought.
And finally we have factor 4: It is documentable, easily provable, that both politicians and the MSM will not hesitate to lie to anyone for personal advantage (to get more votes, to sell more papers, to get more viewers, etc.) It is also easily provable that rarely does any politician or journalist have any kind of realistic vision extending any farther than the next election. With journalists it tends to be shorter still, extending only to the next edition/episode.
So, where does that leave us? We have compelling evidence saying that global climate has an immense inertia, not to be changed easily or quickly. We have absolutely inarguable evidence that our data on the subject does not go back nearly far enough with the accuracy needed to give us any confidence in the conclusions we draw from that data. We have compelling evidence that current knowledge of climate modeling is FAR too simplistic compared to the real thing to count as more than a wild-ass guess. And we have the utterly incontrovertible evidence that those who are trying hardest to have people accept this as proven fact are those who 1)do not have the scientific background to know in the first place, 2) can be counted on absolutely to blatantly lie to us if it serves their immediate purposes, and 3)consistently think in too short a time frame to make a realistic assessment of anything that takes place over such an extended time scale.
And on that basis we are supposed to panic to such a degree that we will agree to ANY abrogation of rights and freedoms, and allow those same politicians we know we can’t trust to completely redesign the global economy. All the while blandly assuming, in the face of the historical record, that they are only doing it because they care about what’s best for us.
If someone were to ask me what’s wrong with this picture, I would have to reply with “How long a list do you want?” And yet the very fact that I can see the flaws in this argument apparently makes me an ignorant selfish redneck who is not competent to decide anything of importance, not even concerning my own life.
Now that's a critical thinker!!!
I hate litterbugs and promote the use and conservation of Nature, but this is a pile of political eco-poop. It's long struck me that of all Mans' great hubris, one of the greatest is our belief that we can control and affect Nature - puny man - it goes back millinnia and is evidenced throughout every early culture.
Another outstanding characteristics of Baby Boomers is an egocentric feeling of total Hollywoodish self-centeredness reflecting this same underlying modern-tribal Me(man) at Teh Center of All Tings viewpoint.
DirtCrashr -- It's a testament to the sheer insanity of the progressives that, having failed to control the economy, they move on to trying to control the climate.
What stuns me the most about the far left's approach to environmentalism is that they are so consistently anti-technology. The most elaborate, arguably the highest technology in the world is the space program, and there is always an ongoing grumble about "wasting money on space instead of fixing the problems here on earth."
Apparently many people fail to notice that "reduce, reuse, recycle" isn't a 'lifestyle choice' for someone aboard a space station. It's the difference between survival and death. NOBODY understands resource management and waste management like someone in the space program.
It's a testament to the sheer insanity of the progressives that, having failed to control the economy, they move on to trying to control the climate.
No, they're still trying to control the economy. They're just using the climate as the excuse.
You don't honestly think that putting the Polar Bear on the endangered species list is about protecting habitat, do you? It's about regulating every aspect of human life in the U.S.
Pave the rainforest!!
Not all of it, but a nice 4-lane blacktop would certainly help the locals improve their economic conditions...
One of the things that interests me is that the "marker post" for the record of climate change is about the year 1870. This was when Europe was undergoing a mini ice age (which occurs about every 500 years or so - I'll elaborate if anyone is interested) when the Thames froze solid for 3 months of the year. Charles Dickens wrote about this.
However, to get back to the reasons WHY this topic is being flown as the latest scare story (acid rain having quietly faded, apparently) take a look at this link which may be of interest.
Once again IT'S ALL AMERICAS FAULT! or something like that.