A Convenient Falsehood: Al Gore and the Cult of Global Warming
As of late, global warming has been all the rage. Especially here in New England, where much of our unusually warm winter was attributed by folks to "global warming" (the actual culprit was the El Nino cycle we are in). As the global warming canard goes, the phenomena is being caused by Co2 (carbon dioxide) emissions being released into the air by humans via our industrial growth, beginning in the 18th century and continuing on thereafter. Global warming even has its own big budget movie, Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth.
The solution, then, it is argued by Gore and his allies, is to curb growth. By carbon credits, stop consuming so much, deny the third world its large scale development until technologies can be found to create "sustainable energy" and thereby "sustainable growth". How many people will unnecessarily die while we wait for that crucial development is, of course, never mentioned. The fact of the matter is that, undoubtedly, global warming is, undoubtedly, occurring. And undoubtedly, human beings are playing some role in encouraging it. But the idea, put forth by the global warming lobby, that industrialization and human economic growth is causally linked with the phenomena of climate change in a major way is truly ridiculous.
The fact of the matter is that the current warming period we are in began before the invention of cars and airplanes, and that most of the actual climate change occurred even before 1940, when industrialization was still confined and (relatively) small in scale. Some studies have even shown that Co2 emissions in nature lag behind changes in temperature by as much as 800 years. That is to say, changes in Co2 are symptoms, not causes, of global warming. Certainly there have been many fluctuations in the earth's temperature in the past that have not been caused by humans. The medieval warm period and the little ice age that followed are common knowledge. And indeed, it would not be false to suggest that the scientific consensus has been wrong before. In the 20th century, we were warned of the impending ice age, the population bomb, acid rain, and DDT poisoning, just to name a few. None turned out to have much substance. This is not because of some broad conspiracy or widespread stupidity in the scientific field. It is inherent to the nature of empiricism; if you lack all of the proper data, you can end up with conclusions that are wildly inaccurate.
We don't know for certain whether Co2 is a cause or a symptom of climate change. We don't know for certain whether industrialization is a leading cause of global warming, some would argue it is not a cause at all. We don't even know if we can reverse the effects of it by cutting back our economic development, or whether the effects will even last (that impending ice age of thirty years ago disappeared pretty quickly). What we do know is that people in the third world are dying in vast numbers because they lack access to the proper technology that would allow them to live longer, wealthier, and happier lives. We know that globalization and worldwide capitalism are, for the first time, giving them a chance to pull themselves out of the Hobbesian gutter. And we know that, if we choose now to retreat, to pull back in the face of a speculation, a possibility, they will fall right back down. The evidence ought be a lot harder and a lot more expansive than it is to convince us to to do this.
The sad fact is that (Al Gore excluded, at least I hope) much of the "global warming" movement is really just the same old Neo-Marxism, dressed up in green instead of red. And, just as before, it would send millions to their deaths in a failed attempt to achieve whatever the social justice flavor of the week is this time. We should know better than to be bamboozled again.
The solution, then, it is argued by Gore and his allies, is to curb growth. By carbon credits, stop consuming so much, deny the third world its large scale development until technologies can be found to create "sustainable energy" and thereby "sustainable growth". How many people will unnecessarily die while we wait for that crucial development is, of course, never mentioned. The fact of the matter is that, undoubtedly, global warming is, undoubtedly, occurring. And undoubtedly, human beings are playing some role in encouraging it. But the idea, put forth by the global warming lobby, that industrialization and human economic growth is causally linked with the phenomena of climate change in a major way is truly ridiculous.
The fact of the matter is that the current warming period we are in began before the invention of cars and airplanes, and that most of the actual climate change occurred even before 1940, when industrialization was still confined and (relatively) small in scale. Some studies have even shown that Co2 emissions in nature lag behind changes in temperature by as much as 800 years. That is to say, changes in Co2 are symptoms, not causes, of global warming. Certainly there have been many fluctuations in the earth's temperature in the past that have not been caused by humans. The medieval warm period and the little ice age that followed are common knowledge. And indeed, it would not be false to suggest that the scientific consensus has been wrong before. In the 20th century, we were warned of the impending ice age, the population bomb, acid rain, and DDT poisoning, just to name a few. None turned out to have much substance. This is not because of some broad conspiracy or widespread stupidity in the scientific field. It is inherent to the nature of empiricism; if you lack all of the proper data, you can end up with conclusions that are wildly inaccurate.
We don't know for certain whether Co2 is a cause or a symptom of climate change. We don't know for certain whether industrialization is a leading cause of global warming, some would argue it is not a cause at all. We don't even know if we can reverse the effects of it by cutting back our economic development, or whether the effects will even last (that impending ice age of thirty years ago disappeared pretty quickly). What we do know is that people in the third world are dying in vast numbers because they lack access to the proper technology that would allow them to live longer, wealthier, and happier lives. We know that globalization and worldwide capitalism are, for the first time, giving them a chance to pull themselves out of the Hobbesian gutter. And we know that, if we choose now to retreat, to pull back in the face of a speculation, a possibility, they will fall right back down. The evidence ought be a lot harder and a lot more expansive than it is to convince us to to do this.
The sad fact is that (Al Gore excluded, at least I hope) much of the "global warming" movement is really just the same old Neo-Marxism, dressed up in green instead of red. And, just as before, it would send millions to their deaths in a failed attempt to achieve whatever the social justice flavor of the week is this time. We should know better than to be bamboozled again.
posted by Ben-T | 8:29 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home