March 15, 2007

The Politics of Global Warming

Why does the global warming debate seem to carve itself along liberal and conservative lines? In general, it seems to me that the hysteria mongers are on the left and the serious doubters are on the right. Why is this?

Could it be that global warming is really an argument about more government vs. less because the enormity of the task to remediate GW can only be handled by government? Or, perhaps, folks believe that more taxes and elaborate energy credit schemes, carbon offsets and the like can only be done by governments. Is this the agenda of the left?

Or is this great debate more about capitalism vs. socialism? America is a capitalist society on a slow road to socialism as citizens and immigrants expect more from their government, rather than less. People look to their government to fix things (Translation: government can provide me with resources I am unable or unwilling to obtain on my own.). Meanwhile politicians push the global warming bandwagon arguing that man must fix this because man caused it. (Translation: If you keep me in power, I will wisely allocate your tax dollars to fix this problem.) The cynic would say that politicians are always prone to insert themselves into perceived problems for their own benefit, not necessarily ours.

The media, avowedly liberal, support the message of those fanatics like Gore, McKibben in Vermont, and 'scientists' who insist that we are in crisis and must take drastic action to reduce greenhouse gases or we are all doomed. Do we, the people, like sheep, believe this mongering because it's the 'in' thing?

Do the preachers of doom really think that man can adjust the climate of our planet? If so, to what level, if "average global temperature" is the measure. Perhaps the earth is warming, but it's done so many times before. The difference this time is there are six billion humans, some of whom will be negatively affected, while some will benefit greatly. Warming is not wholly a gloom and doom scenario.

If the panic-mongers are serious about ameliorating the negative effects of warming, they should support moving people away from low-lying areas threatened by rising sea levels. For example, why rebuild New Orleans if their GW future is inundation? Perhaps the alarmists should promote moving "Big Easy" people inland and northward if they believe that Mississippi delta areas will be under water.

Meanwhile, big companies like General Electric and others see a tremendous opportunity to cash in on this hysteria as they position themselves to remediate the negative consequences of warming.

Please, people, think! The science and forecasting of climate change is not yet settled. We measure temperature and compute averages, observe a slight rise, albeit in the range of recent normalcy, and conclude that disaster is ahead. Not necessarily so.

For many on our globe, warming and climate change may be a good thing as dry areas become wetter and agriculture is benefited in more northern and southern latitudes. Why is it that we don't hear or read about the benefits of warming in addition to the downsides? Surely the news cannot be all bad everywhere on the planet. Keep in mind that the media thrives on bad news, not good news. We should be skeptical of what the (liberal) media reports and should demand the full story, as best as it's known.

What I don't read or hear reported is the quantitative relationship of greenhouse gasses and temperature. For instance, how much carbon dioxide or equivalent greenhouse gas equivalents are required to raise the global temperature one degree Centigrade? What is the quantity that man adds? What is the net quantity produce by Nature? Where is the data about that? What is the 'right' temperature for the earth?

Suerly, if the earth warms we will experience change, but it cannot be all bad for humankind. Why don't we hear/read/see the trade-offs reported in the media? Could it be there's an 'agenda' to change our perception, our economy and our politics? Think hard before you buy into the present hysteria. I'm waiting for facts rather than loud political chatter. Why is warming on balance 'bad' for mankind?
Post a Comment