In today's Post:
Many climatologists, along with policymakers in a number of countries, believe the rapid temperature rise over the past 50 years is heavily driven by the burning of fossil fuels and other human activities that have spewed carbon dioxide and other "greenhouse gases" into the atmosphere. A vocal minority of scientists say the warming climate is the result of a natural cycle.
Be it a manmade problem or just mother nature kicking it up a notch. Maybe someone, somewhere in the next 100 years or so will come up with a solution for this small problem. In the meantime I'll keep driving my small efficient hatchback and cutting my lawn with a pushmower and recycle of course. The next generation might thank me for my small effort.
Thursday, October 13, 2005
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I lean heavily toward the "natural cycle" argument. The vast preponderance of real evidence, (as opposed to an endless stream of computer models--also known as wild guesses), points to a change in climate driven by an upward recovery from the previous ice age cycle.
Anthropogenic warming is an extraordinary and as-yet unsubstantiated claim. In all science and legal precedent, the burden of proof rests clearly on the shoulders of those making an extraordinary claim. In climatology this is doubly true, because we have such an incomplete understanding of the base processes involved.
"Precautionary principle" is a fine theoretical and academic concept. So is Marxism. But they both suffer from the same mortal flaw: they don't work. Both cause massive economic hardship, which leads to poverty, which leads to pandemic disease, and eventual political and military instability. On the other side of the coin is a possible 1.5 degree centrigrade increase in mean temperature, which may or may not be anthropogenic in nature.
Given those choices, I will always believe that wealth-production and techology are far, far better paths than neo-Ludditic, overly cautious reactionism.
/clambering off of soapbox
I think that maybe the disasters in Louisiana and the soaring gas prices may have some effect on this. I know in Washington D.C. they have HOV (high occupancy vehicle) lanes. And, if you drive a "green" car, you can travel in those lanes even if you are alone. I see more and more "green" cars on the road. I think I should probably get one. Better yet, kill two birds with one stone, I could bike or walk to work. The snow may cause a problem for me but if I really wanted to I could.
Thanks jaregghead, I do think economics are an important part of the equation but that doesn't mean I'm going out to buy myself a Hummer tomorrow.
Thanks carnelian, in Dallas we also have an HOV lane, so we have some progressive thinkers in at least two parts of the country. I've also seen more small cars and green cars on the road here in North Texas, so that is a good trend.
Post a Comment