I came across a really well written article on Global Warming in the Wall Street Journal recently that cleverly lines up Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) Alarmists with that of religious fanatics. To many, Al Gore is called the "Goracle" (not kidding), Gaia (mother Earth) is a replacement for God, Original Sin is simply breathing (our first breath after birth emits our first bit of CO2), other worldly sins include all forms of carbon release (driving an SUV, using an "old-fashioned" light bulb, etc.) and finally, the Apocalypse is Global Warming run amok to its final conclusion.
The media has helped to turn the world into billions of Chicken Little's running around screaming that the sky is falling. Whether it be the latest economic crisis (when wasn't there one?), the latest violence both here and abroad, or the "examples" of global warming (i.e. floods, fires, etc.), all are designed to keep you watching the news to find out what horrible thing will happen next. Well, Global Warming is the centerpiece and it is truly amazing how journalists and others consistently get away with publishing/spreading such nonsense.
Effects of "Global Warming" so far:
-Seattle may ban bonfires on the beach due to global warming.
-There is a global food shortage which has been helped by ethanol production sought by alarmists as a way to stop AGW.
-Al Gore has been able to charge $175,000 per speech on AGW, and while he only had $2 million in total assets seven years ago, he is now worth over $100 million. Scaring people pays good money, just ask Stephen King.
-Germany's famous Autobahn may have speed limits imposed on it to "fight global warming."
-Coastal insurance rates are increasing due to the perception that AGW is increasing the likelihood of hurricanes. (BTW, we didn't have a single hurricane hit the US last year...just saying.)
You get the point. The only action on global warming that has happened so far is the raising of taxes and the reduction of freedom. I wish a real debate would present itself soon, before we elect a government full of politicians all too eager to "stop AGW."
3 comments:
I agree that the global warming debate has in some instances reached the level of mass hysteria...yet perhaps this is what it will take to enact the lifestyle and cultural change necessary to preserve the earth and its resources for current and future generations. Technology is not the answer.
There is a lot of talk about Pascal's Wager on that article. I see a hint of it in maria's comment as well. It all comes down to a feeling of "Well, these polices aren't going to hurt anybody, so why not enact them? If we are wrong, then the world is still better off. If we are right, we'll all be that much safer!"
I can't help but think of Alan Dershowitz's response to Pascal's Wager. "Any God worth "believing in" would surely prefer an honest agnostic to a calculating hypocrite."
I have to agree with this. Why? The motivation is point here. Nobody is being faulted here for wanting to do something that makes the planet safer. I can remember learning to turn the faucet off while brushing my teeth from Captain Planet... indeed... the power was mine. Why did I do that? Because it was the right and responsible thing to do.
However, this mass hysteria is the most irresponsible part of the entire idea of global warming. There is an impending disaster, YOU are to blame, and only laws and restrictions from the government can save us!
It's condescending to be told that you are standing by idly as the world destroys itself. That article's comment section is littered (pun intended) with people saying that the author is whistling as he crosses his grave to make himself feel better. How can it not seem like a religion to those who are members of the "unenlightened."
Kyle, you've done an excellent job on this blog of demonstrating at least one very important thing. Not that global warming is false, or a sham, or anything so extreme. You have verily demonstrated that there is anything but a consensus. Keep that in mind. Would you want laws on any other part of your life to be decided upon when we don't even know for sure if they are necessary? The persecution of Galileo comes to mind...
Even though I don't agree with Maria's "if this is what it takes, then so be it" mindset. She hit on a major part of the problem. In order to better the planet, we need to enact lifestyle and cultural change. If there is one thing we can agree upon, it's that government is NOT the place to turn to for cultural and lifestyle guidance...
Thanks for the comments. I could have blogged about the benefits of this AGW hysteria (more recycling, more bike riding, etc. etc.) but the main difference is that those actions are based on free will. I have a paramount fear of the government forcing me to do such things, because who knows where it could end. I agree Maria, that we all could alter our lifestyle to help our environment, there's nothing wrong with that. However, I never want to be scared or forced into doing that. That, along with Jason's comment on disproving the myth of a "consensus" is my absolute point.
Post a Comment