A comment on a recent bayblab article on global warming got me thinking: What if he's right? What if man-made global warming isn't a real phenomenon? And the answer struck me: who cares? So what if the polar ice-caps aren't melting, the world's oceans aren't rising and the mercury isn't slowly creeping upward? It still seems to me that many of the changes being pushed are good ideas regardless of whether the earth is warming. Reduction of carbon emissions? Sounds good to me! (Who enjoys smog?) A shift towards alternative fuel? Again, a good idea. Why maintain dependence on limited, and polluting, resources? I'm sure deniers have doom and gloom economic prophecies should Kyoto be enforced, but this article points out that even if it is a hoax, there is still money to be made from it. What do others think? If man made climate change were to be proven false, should we abandon environmental commitments and stick with fossil fuels?
Monday, March 12, 2007
What if Global Warming is a Hoax?
A comment on a recent bayblab article on global warming got me thinking: What if he's right? What if man-made global warming isn't a real phenomenon? And the answer struck me: who cares? So what if the polar ice-caps aren't melting, the world's oceans aren't rising and the mercury isn't slowly creeping upward? It still seems to me that many of the changes being pushed are good ideas regardless of whether the earth is warming. Reduction of carbon emissions? Sounds good to me! (Who enjoys smog?) A shift towards alternative fuel? Again, a good idea. Why maintain dependence on limited, and polluting, resources? I'm sure deniers have doom and gloom economic prophecies should Kyoto be enforced, but this article points out that even if it is a hoax, there is still money to be made from it. What do others think? If man made climate change were to be proven false, should we abandon environmental commitments and stick with fossil fuels?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Podcast
4 comments:
Everyone knows that 'global warming' is just a leftist plot to globally redistribute wealth in the form of 'carbon taxes'.
Sure we can do some good things using 'global warming' as a cover to convince the masses. It's like convincing the masses to get iraq's oil, using potential WMDs as a cover.
That's a good point, so I guess the question you raise is, if it is a lie 'do the ends justify the means?' My question was more 'is it a big deal if we're wrong?' Personally I don't think global warming is an elaborate lie designed to redistribute wealth and I also don't think the WMD analogy is quite apt.
Actually what you are attacking is not so much global warming facts but the carbon tax system. And to a certain point you are right, the end result is a redistribution of wealth because of the way carbon quotas are distributed. I'm not sure it is the best way to reduce emitions but it does something important, it gives a monetary value to the air we breather. It's actually a strategy taken out of the traditional right. Once you commoditize air, there is a financial incentive to take care of the pollution and it becomes in the shareholder's interrest to have a company reduce its ecological footprint. They are certainly not going to do it on their own, and the only other alternative is heavy governmental regulations, which would have been a traditional left strategy.
I just checked out 2 of your podcasts and figured that you could cut them down to 4 minutes if everyone didn't say "like" like a like million like times. Like the word like is like said like 30 times like a minute. Sorry guys, I just can't listen to your podcasts. Good information in them but not worth the annoyance.
Post a Comment