“The only true test of a climate change plan, after all, is whether carbon is going up or down. A commitment to UNDRIP played a profound role in my decision. First Nations opposition to the Kinder Morgan expansion was decisive for me.”
“Homeowners do need to take more responsibility,” said Westhaver. “Most of these things can be accomplished by homeowners with a rake, a pair of pruning shears, and a simple understanding of how fire spreads.”
The new and growing trend of Tories encouraging Canadians to accept “carbon” credit scams is disturbing.
I heard the Canadian and British prime ministers ring the bells of doom and gloom yesterday:
“Neither of us will be accused of exaggeration if we acknowledge that the most immediate test confronting us all is to avoid the devastating consequences of a return to global recession,” he said. Governments must commit to cutting their debts and deficits and to resisting protectionism or a recession won’t be avoided, he warned.
In his speech, Cameron issued similar warnings and said Canada and Britain must face this year’s biggest challenge together: securing global economic growth.
This neo-con plee to support government intervention in the economy parallels what I recently encountered from the global climate warming change crowd. Actually, we hear this urgency from them all of the time but a very curious article about a physicist named Ivar Giaever who resigned as a Fellow from the American Physical Society to condemn the group’s official stand on global warming went on to quote from the APS group’s website:
The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring.
If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.
Sounds desperate — like the desperation of the neo-cons trying to print more money and expand credit for their own benefit.
I can assume that global warming is occurring. However, the final statement from the APS quote does not logically follow from the preceding statements. The global warming crowd aggressively promotes ethical conclusions based solely on natural facts. That is insane on the face of it and insulting to anybody who understands the nature of science, philosophy and logical reasoning. There is no need to even question the integrity of their research because an ethical conclusion can not be deduced solely from science. These scientists are out of their league when they make policy prescriptions.
Both the neo-cons and the climatologists may be right. I am not sure. One thing of which I am certain is that I do not support the neo-con policy interventions. I thought it was an interesting parallel. I have attacked the hypocrisy of neo-con strategy of printing money many times before. Now, I want to dissect the climatological hysteria.
Why must we reduce emissions?
That is not a rhetorical question. I am not suggesting that emissions are all good. I am just questioning whether the pros of reducing emissions outweight the cons. There is no universally objective reason why we should reduce emissions.
I know this will sound callous and heartless but I do not believe that the responsibility for making these changes are with the general public. Thus, it is unfair to compel the public to finance or accommodate those changes because the underlying premise — i.e., global warming is bad — arguably is false if people are choosing to contribute to the problem. It is through human choice that we can identify what people prefer.
What if global warming is inevitable?
Maybe there is nothing we can do to stop these significant disruptions because maybe the global warming can not be stopped no matter what we do? That is a likely possibility because opponents will delay global warming policy interventions. Enough delays means that the doom and gloom scenario will happen sooner or later.
If global warming is inevitable, efforts to stop global warming would be wasteful. Those efforts would be put to better use if people were re-located to newly temperate parts of the planet.
Just like the neo-cons, the global warming crowd seriously insist that something must be done now. Not next year. Right now. If you question that urgency, you are treated like an evil demon. God forbid that they should continue to force their agenda — it is actually just a wily scheme to enrich the pocket-books of the elite parasitic rich class but for the sake of argument, we can pretend that their motives are genuine — on all of us, you can bet they will drain every last penny out of us to stop their imaginary apocalypse.
The burden of proof is on the global warming advocates that their policies really do achieve their goals. That is a huge burden. Currently, the climatologists are incapable of predicting the future with any precision nor can they predict the outcome of any preventive measures. Nobody has any idea what temperature changes will occur with any particular policy. Nobody has any idea what to do to hit a target temperature. The science is not mature enough yet to meet that burden of proof.
This will sound callous but I honestly do not believe the majority of the public really cares either. If my perception is right then who are we to insist that everybody does anything about it?
I tell you, I love the comforts and the accessibility of modern technology. I would hate to have grown up with the generation of my parents and I am sure that my children will say the same one day. My parents had to move away from their native land. Had they stayed in their homeland, they would be dead. So, the challenges of people in coastal regions today vis-a-vis the coincidence of global warming are the same that most of our forefathers faced before as did their forefathers before them. People moving away from destitute parts of the world represents the entire history of mankind. Yet, we are leaving them with more material and informational wealth with each passing day.
I keep hearing people say that we should leave the planet to the future generations in the best shape possible. Well, I think we can arguably say that we are doing that in spite of the environmental degradation. In balancing the pros against the cons, I think our choices in life are much greater now than before and that they will be even greater in the future.
Imagine this: One day, there will be a cure for cancer, the development of which was dependent on the same industrial economy that produced this supposedly man-made global warming. Future generations will be cured of cancer in exchange for having a degradation of the coastal regions. Maybe that is a reasonable trade-off for these future people — who knows? By the way, a lot of previously cold barren lands will likely become fertile and habitable. People may be happier and life may possibly be easier with the changes. The science says nothing about how people will judge the changes for themselves.
Imagine now this: one day BEFORE the cure of cancer is found, the industrial economy is stunted by anti-global warming policies and the cancer research institute had to be shut down.
My point is that with so much unknown in the economy and in the field of meteorology, it is foolish to insist that the future will be worse. We have no idea how people will subjectively evaluate their lifestyles.
One thing about global warming and economic interventions that bother me is the moral dissonance. In a culture where an obligation to protect a future person’s survival is not even extended to somebody as real and concrete as an unborn child, there is a bit of a dissonance in policy that demands EVERYBODY has a moral obligation to protect the survival of people who do not even exist.
If global warming is really a threat worthy of being stopped, then go ahead and keep convincing people of this incontrovertible science but promote interventions in a voluntarist manner. For instance, take the owner of a polluting industrial plant to court. Sue him for dropping soot on neighboring land. Sue him to the point where his only response is to stop operations. Alternatively, buy up industrial plants and then shut them down. Keep doing that. Buy surrounding properties and limit access to the plants.
People should pay for their own charitable campaigns. We generally have the same attitude towards the diversity of religious practice. Dealing with global warming should be no different.
Message to producers of consumer advocacy news-magazine-show “Marketplace” broadcast on CBC television:
Cook your chicken before you eat it. Duh. Yeah, you knew that already just like everybody else.
There is nothing exceptionally dangerous about Canadian chickens just because there are anti-biotic resistant bacteria on their flesh. The premise of the CBC program starts on the wrong foot: “Canadians are becoming increasingly resistant to antibiotics.” and is a completely ignorant statement at best. Knowing the CBC, my bet is that the motivations behind this program are at their worst: deliberate fear-mongering and dishonest sensationalism.
The fact is that humans do not develop resistance to antibiotics. Only microbes develop antibiotic resistance. The premise of the “Marketplace” program is probably chosen to mislead the public into demonizing poultry farmers who use antibiotics.
There are probably better reasons to demonize the modern poultry industry — cruelty in the elevation is one of them — but antibiotic resistant bacteria is not an intelligent one.