With the wrapping up of, from what I've read, a somewhat useless G20 summit, I thought I would take a quick stab at the highly complicated and politicized subject of global climate change. I was reminiscing about an article that I first heard on my local National Public Radio station. The story was about a 16-year-old girl who had become the poster child for skeptics of global warming. If you're interested, you can find the story here, or if you really want a laugh, check out this totally ridiculous version. The young girl had written several papers that tackled issues of climate change, with the main theme of her work being that current models of climate trends are inaccurate and that activists have taken information and data that is full of holes and run with it, in what has come to be known as 'global warming alarmism.' Her website includes a slew of information, including a critique of Al Gore's famous documentary, An Inconvenient Truth.
Now, as much as I appreciate scientific debate, I find the climate change skeptics to be boorish (use of this term is my own personal jeer at the recent comments of Peggy Noonan). And to explain why, I'll start by explaining my thoughts on climate change activists. I'm not an expert on climate change, so I'm not going to address the scientific talking points, but I do fully understand what climate change activists are asking of the public and our society. They are, in essence, asking us to become more responsible members of our planet; to consider the harm we do to our environment as well as to our own health; to think of the impact we will have on our children, and our children's children; to remember that we are not the only species on the Earth struggling to survive. At the root of all of this, they are really asking only one thing: for all of us to consider the consequences of our actions.
If these are the things that climate change activists want, then it's safe to conclude that the anti-alarmists and skeptics would like us to do the exact opposite; to be irresponsible and self-serving; to think nothing of the environment and human health; to let future generations fend for themselves; to utilize the Earth's organisms as a resource that can be depleted, much like our precious fossil fuels, without worry. Basically, I can only conclude that they would like us to act before thinking, addressing major problems only after they are beyond the point of correction, all in order to destroy the Earth, us along with it, leaving behind a smoldering, lifeless chunk of rock to circle the Sun.
Dramatic? Of course. True? You decide. But for as much flack as Al Gore, for example, receives for his viewpoints, it doesn't really matter if the scientific data that he brandishes like a weapon is true or not. Because at the end of the day, he's really only using it for one purpose, and that's to make us better people. The alarmists may be off-putting, but that's because it's always off-putting to hear someone tell you that you are acting like an inconsiderate and thoughtless cretin. So instead of arguing over whether the data is accurate and who's right, why don't we leave that up to the experts, and the rest of us roll up our sleeves and get down to becoming more responsible and humane people. You know...be, like, better.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Hey Cody,
ReplyDeleteSpencer Fuller here. Good to see you're bloggin. I'm into the whole reading/writing kinda thing. I'll say up front that my general impression is that humans are contributing to global warming. Seems plausible and the evidence that I've seen seems to have won over the majority in the scientific community. There isn't any debate as to whether or not global warming is actually occuring. I'd just like to point out that the arguments I've heard coming from the other side aren't as thoughtless as it may seem, or at least some of them aren't. The thing is, the kinds of changes that we would have to make to avert the global calamities predicted by the "alarmists" is so immense that it doesn't seem at all realistic. We are going to have to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by something like 80% by 2050 according the the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, in a time when developing nations like brazil, china, and india are all startin to suck up that stuff just as much as we are. This would completely redefine life as we know it, and I just don't see that happening. If your argument is that humans are not playing a signifigant role in global warming, or that our influence is at least not enough to avoid disaster, these kinds of changes are going to cause major economic havoc at a time when the economy is looking to be our biggest vulnerability. When economies fail, nations fall, which is why we need to get the hell out of the mid east and cut back our defense budget for the sake of our own defense. Of course, I think we're fucked about any way you slice it, but I do respect an attitude of problem solving and far sightedness. I try not to use as many paper towels, and I have reusable grocery bags etc, but I'm not going to stop driving, because I wouldn't be able to make money. We would all need to drive way way less to have even a chance of making an impact, and for that to happen massive governmental reform would be necessary. Sooner or later there's going to be a supervolcanic eruption thats going to send us right into an ice age again though, and it won't really matter too much what we're emitting or not. Population, Global Warming, Economy, a big weildy unmanouverable political boat. Its not lookin good. I think we have to keep trying to come up with solutions in the hope that some of the "alarmists" are not as accurate in the severity of the potential damage as some of their models predict. Maybe we can get there, but I'm pretty sure we wont hit the numbers by 2050.