Finally, a pretty articulate counter argument in the global warming debate. It's entirely plausible that we have zero control over the situation, in fact, it may very well be likely -- but the thing is, that doesn't change the fact that something is happening on a global level that we are not prepared for, and many of us, are unwilling to admit. It doesn't have to be the doomsday alarmist scenarios for it to be worthy of our consideration. Just look at the Qori Kalis glacier.I can't count how many times someone points to the fact that it's cold outside as proof of global warming not existing (global warming is about extremes, not hot and cold). Almost all sides can admit that the world is entering some sort of period of change. The question isn't on that, it's whether or not we are making any meaningful contribution to it. I've shared my thoughts on this subject numerous times, but I'll do it again for good measure -- if it costs us little to nothing to change various practices and ensure that we are not contributing forces, and we benefit from these changes in numerous other ways, why not?
And what about the climate changes themselves? Nobody is talking about them. We're so busy pointing fingers and trying to make this issue a divisive political war instead of using it to unify an otherwise politically torn country. Examples of real world questions that need to be answered are insurance costs, costs of strengthening storms, potentially lost GDP from a changing business landscape, protecting inhabited low lying areas disrupted by melting glaciers, protecting countries dependent on fresh water that is quickly disappearing. These are all important, life altering possibilities. None of them are necessarily doomsday prospects, yet they all dramatically effect our national security and world stability. What do you think is going to happen when someone like Chavez runs out of water? What if we experience 2 or 3 more Katrina's? We can't even handle the first one.
Then again.. Brittany just shaved her head, and well, thats a lot more fun than talking about Al Gore screwing up our weather patterns.
Comments...
(Page 1)1. I beleive there is global warming, but the evidence does not show our activities are the cause of this warming climate. And yes, making the changes suggested by global warming advocates will cost trillions of dollars and drastically alter our life styles. Global warming is the new religion of the left. Socialism has failed, so tho socialist have now taken a new mode of operation. To get control of the world's econmies and peoples through global warming fixes.
10:43PM on Jun 12th 2007 by Anthony Morton
2. That's just it, this isn't 1980. It *won't* cost us trillions of dollars, and it *won't* drastically alter our lifestyles. We could cross our effects off the list of possibilities while at the same time bankrupting terrorist cells by reducing dependence on foreign oil.
It's not a left vs. right issue anymore.
10:48PM on Jun 12th 2007 by Alex Rudloff
3. I'm a seventeen year old student studying geography for A-level, so I'm rather new to this whole debate. I've been discussing with my teachers for the past year the fact that, yes there is global warming but we are 1% of the reason that it is happening. Humans hate any change it's a fact, so there is bound to be some moaning from the public and scholars alike about it. But why do we love to blame it on ourselves? It's like we want to show off our power, where, really, compared to the power of nature we are nothing. This has been happening to planet Earth for tens of thousands of years, and yet we think we are special enough to be the cause. The Earth has been in and out of ice ages and periods with vast amounts of volcanoes active on the surface with CO2 levels permitted to be called 'high' not a mere 22%. Has the Earth survived? Yes! We are not that important in the grand scale of things and also humans can survive on very little and different circumstances; we don't have to have our three 4x4 parked in our driveways. The environmental movement is a new fashion for the middle class and for politicions to look popular when really it will help a little, maybe slow the process by one hundred years IF they get anything right. It has all been too hyped up!
5:09PM on Aug 19th 2007 by Chris McLeod
4. Hey Alex Rudlof, nice post. I am currently trying to look at both sides of the table. I want to respect both the people who believe Global Warming is a threat, and the people who think it isn't. Either way, I gotta hand it to you, we could really use the change in our life styles. I mean, what do we have to lose, right?
So let's say, we are twenty years down the road and despite the many differences in our climate, there was really no need for the panic and agit-prop. However, we didn't know that in the last 2 decades so we made our changes anyway. Congress has passed new laws requiring better mileage in cars and the President has signed them, but they weren't really needed.
In the end, they were still useful tweaks in our standards of living. Like we could definately benefit from consuming as much Petroleum based products whether we need to or not. After all, they are becoming very expensive. We could also try and conserve water too by not leaving the faucets on too long or reducing the number of showers we took.
1:42PM on Mar 27th 2008 by Ryan