The Positive Externalities of Global Warming
Short of Al Gore's testimony, I haven't ran across compelling scientific evidence detailing the effects or reality of global warming. The proof is suspiciously missing from even university level texts (i.e. my environmental geology book). Global warming is being taught the same way creationism was taught in the deep south fifty years ago - gospel truth.
Here is an article that explains (and contains links to) a survey done at Yale detailing the positive effects of global warming. Notice that the representative from Greenpeace refrains from citing anything scientific, instead opting for fear and emotion... But I guess that science has never formed an integral part of state-sponsered religion.
posted by bob @ 6:45 PM
6 Comments:
When we discuss topics such as global warming, it is hard to find data or evidence supporting what is really going on. I think this is why "alarmists" have so much success in creating negative attitudes towards global warming. They simply have to share their fear with others and it spreads like wildfire. You could supply someone with all the scientific information on global warming that you want, but when you tell them simply that they, along with the planet, will die due to the rise in global temperatures, it grasps their attention immediately, and they then begin to act on their fears.
I agree, Chase. Those we can describe as "alarmists" use fear to motivate those around them, and the idea is by now so widespread that anyone who argues against it is discounted.
Ok, so if the science is lacking, how about plain ol' common sense? It's not too much of a stretch to accept that thousands of species are dying off, things are out of whack, and humans need to seriously cut back on the damage we're doing to the environment.
All the argument about the feasability of cutting back just takes the attention off the lack of effort doing it.
Common sense is good enough for demonstrating that there is a problem, but it doesn't show us what the problem is. We have no actual proof that global warming is a real, long-term problem; we have no solid evidence that humans caused the hole in the ozone layer and/or made it worse; what we have is a large number of theories with little more backing than your average UFO sighting or mind-reading trick, saying that big, heartless industrialists are killing plants and animals by pumping chemicals into the air. When we have actual proof about what the problem is, we can do something to solve it, but until then we are as likely to make the situation worse.
You know, maybe I'm a little pessimistic, but global warming seems to me like the last thing that we ought to try and tackle. First, as Bob said, the evidence is quite skectchy. But also, I have a hard time believing that if we cut the U.S. production of greenhouse gases that it will make much of a difference when we arent the only only ones producing. Yes, we may produce the most gases, but that's only 35 or so percent of the total. If we cut ours by 20 percent, that's still only a 6 percent cut to the global total, and thats assuming that China or India doesn't up their production, which is quite an assumption.
I agree that global warming isn't our top priority. Safe drinking water and sanitation (waste management) are. It's the most fundamental need for humans, so it should be the most fundamental project to invest in.
Post a Comment
<< Home