A new Irish film claims that climate change guru Al Gore is an alarmist and that those who think they are saving the planet are only hurting the poor... IN BRIEF, THEIR other main assertions are: there has been no global warming since 1995; the polar bear population is not under threat from climate change but from human hunters; they also say that the Arctic and Greenland glaciers have been receding since 1850, long before the invention of SUVs; and, finally, that the UN's International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) takes issue with Al Gore's contention that sea levels will rise by 20ft (more like 19 inches, says the IPCC)...Both Lindzen and Akasofu know far more about climatology than Al Gore. Despite being outspoken over the last few years, most US media consumers have never heard their names.
The views are certainly contrarian. But there are some eminent scientists among the contributors, including Dr Syun-Ichi Akasofu, former director of the International Arctic Research Centre and Prof Richard Lindzen, an atmospheric physicist from MIT, both of whom are sceptics.
That's because man-made climate change is a topic that can't be rationally discussed or debated. It has been politicized, made a shibboleth in our politically correct culture. Originally a Maoist concept, "political correctness" holds that certain points of view are simply beyond critique, and anyone who does so is immediately labeled a pariah (or worse), whatever their credentials.
All us skeptics ask is to concede that 1) the theory might be wrong and 2) the law of unintended consequences be considered in deciding what we do. In response to skeptics, Gore & friends dismiss this humble request with ad hominem attacks and claims that man-made global warming is "settled science" -- itself an oxymoron.
One reader emailed me today with another interesting criticism of skepticism, using an updated version of Pascal's Wager: "Why not combat global warming? If it is wrong, you still improve the planet and our quality of life."
Opposing global warming alarmism and the rash, statist measures being advocated as its solution does not mean that one opposes conservation and environmental protection. We should do all we can to economize on our use of natural resources, reduce pollution, and live more self-sufficiently. Those are just good ethical practices, and very much in our self-interest, too.
But let's also stipulate that doing so will require trade-offs (e.g., wind turbines kill birds, nuclear power may be necessary to sustain our economic growth as the move away from fossil fuels requires more and more electricity). And let's avoid new taxation and regulatory schemes (e.g., Cap-and-Trade, Kyoto) that will disrupt the economies of the world and people's livelihoods.
For example, I wonder if any of the "eat local" advocates who want to regulate what foods can be imported to certain regions of the country have a solution for the thousands of truckers, food growers, import/export copmanies, and restauranteurs who would be damaged or put out of business?
Ah yes, of course they do: Re-train them for "green jobs."
No comments:
Post a Comment