Global warming does not matter.
We can debate the factual validity of man-made global warming for ages. We can argue the scientific "consensus" (link, link, etc.) for the next century. But you know what? It doesn't matter.
Because the most worrying, annoying, and plain stupid part about current Climate-Change-tology is its supporters think that global warming is the best reason to stop polluting - that because our future great-grandchildren might have to wear shorts more often we should all become vegan, that because polar bears might go extinct we should cap our industries, that because Holland might go underwater we need to all buy Priuses. Have ever you seen your future great-grandchildren? Or a polar bear? Or Holland? No. And most inanely, these environmentalists think that because we're all in this together, we need to all solve this problem together. Newsflash: High School Musical is fictional and Communism doesn't work.
HEY GUYS! Stop global warming or else our future is going to look like this!
Telling people to stop polluting because of global warming is like telling your roommate to stop farting because the air current caused by his fart might create a microscopic pressure imbalance across the room, which, given the right temperature differential, might resonate the windows imperceptibly and release dust particles from the window frames, which, at the right time of day, might slowly rise over the next decade into the stratosphere where, given the right humidity conditions, might seed a growing dust cloud that will drift at a rate of 37-62 miles/year to North Korea, where the dust might condense atmospheric water vapor, which, if it's typhoon season in neighboring Japan, could catastrophically amplify existing weather patterns in Pyongyang, which might make Kim Jong Il's great-grandson really angry and result in worldwide thermonuclear devastation in the year 2125. Finite possibility * infinite risk = still a bunch of crap.
You don't tell your roommate to stop farting because of the remote possibility of remote catastrophe in some remote future, you tell him to stop farting because A) it sounds disgusting, B) it smells bad, C) there's a limited amount of air in the room to dilute the smell with, D) you have a hard time breathing his fumes, and E) if he doesn't stop immediately, you are going to kick him in the nostrils. And similarly, you get smokers to quit smoking by telling them it causes cancer, and you get fat people to stop eating fries because you tell them Kate Moss is hot.
When you want to convince people to do something, you tell them about an immediate and tangible consequence, not some hypothetical abstraction. Do you think developing areas like India and Africa actually care how the coastlines are going to look in a few decades, or do you think they'd rather just get in on some of Uncle Sam's money through the Copenhagen Treaty? Thinking about a hypothetical future is a luxury enjoyed by only a few, and just because we are lucky enough to do so in America doesn't mean the rest of the world feels the same way.
What most environmentalists don't seem to be able to grasp is that "pollution", "sustainability", and "global warming" are entirely separate notions that are only coincidentally related. To explain:
Pollution is bad. Burning fossil fuels creates things like smog. Smog causes acid rain, which quickly and noticeably kills trees and animals. Smog significantly increases cancer rates. Smog looks like a blanket of feces covering the city. As Beijing has shown during the Olympics, when you suddenly stop burning fossil fuels, the smog goes away within a few days and your problems are solved. And when you suddenly start burning fossil fuels again, the smog comes back and you're back to living in feces. Hence, we should burn less fossil fuels. Effective immediately.
"Do you want to live in this?" would be much more effective than threatening us with dead polar bears.
Sustainability is good. We have a limited amount of fossils to burn. At our current rate of burning, oil will soon become very expensive, and soon afterwards we will run out of oil altogether. To find more oil, we are having to drill in places previously untouched by man, unnecessarily killing plants and animals in the process. Hence, we should burn less fossil fuels. Effective immediately.
Global warming is...possibly not great. We may have contributed to a gradual rise in the Earth's average temperature by burning fossil fuels. If we continue to burn fossil fuels, we might or might not increase the average temperature by a few degrees more. If we don't burn any more fossil fuels, the Earth's temperature might or might not stabilize. If animals aren't able to adapt quickly enough to the warmth, a lot of them might go extinct. If they are able to adapt quickly enough, then only a few of them might go extinct. Hence, we might want to burn a bit less fossil fuels. Effective in a hundred or more years.
So why the hell are we incessantly badgered about the one unproven, least immediate, and least tangible reason to conserve? Why are we adopting the most communist, and thus least effective, approach to environmentalism? And this is why global warming is completely irrelevant, because there are countless better reasons for us to curb our fossil-fuel addiction, and none of them have to do with Al Gore.
We can debate the factual validity of man-made global warming for ages. We can argue the scientific "consensus" (link, link, etc.) for the next century. But you know what? It doesn't matter.
Because the most worrying, annoying, and plain stupid part about current Climate-Change-tology is its supporters think that global warming is the best reason to stop polluting - that because our future great-grandchildren might have to wear shorts more often we should all become vegan, that because polar bears might go extinct we should cap our industries, that because Holland might go underwater we need to all buy Priuses. Have ever you seen your future great-grandchildren? Or a polar bear? Or Holland? No. And most inanely, these environmentalists think that because we're all in this together, we need to all solve this problem together. Newsflash: High School Musical is fictional and Communism doesn't work.
HEY GUYS! Stop global warming or else our future is going to look like this!
Telling people to stop polluting because of global warming is like telling your roommate to stop farting because the air current caused by his fart might create a microscopic pressure imbalance across the room, which, given the right temperature differential, might resonate the windows imperceptibly and release dust particles from the window frames, which, at the right time of day, might slowly rise over the next decade into the stratosphere where, given the right humidity conditions, might seed a growing dust cloud that will drift at a rate of 37-62 miles/year to North Korea, where the dust might condense atmospheric water vapor, which, if it's typhoon season in neighboring Japan, could catastrophically amplify existing weather patterns in Pyongyang, which might make Kim Jong Il's great-grandson really angry and result in worldwide thermonuclear devastation in the year 2125. Finite possibility * infinite risk = still a bunch of crap.
You don't tell your roommate to stop farting because of the remote possibility of remote catastrophe in some remote future, you tell him to stop farting because A) it sounds disgusting, B) it smells bad, C) there's a limited amount of air in the room to dilute the smell with, D) you have a hard time breathing his fumes, and E) if he doesn't stop immediately, you are going to kick him in the nostrils. And similarly, you get smokers to quit smoking by telling them it causes cancer, and you get fat people to stop eating fries because you tell them Kate Moss is hot.
When you want to convince people to do something, you tell them about an immediate and tangible consequence, not some hypothetical abstraction. Do you think developing areas like India and Africa actually care how the coastlines are going to look in a few decades, or do you think they'd rather just get in on some of Uncle Sam's money through the Copenhagen Treaty? Thinking about a hypothetical future is a luxury enjoyed by only a few, and just because we are lucky enough to do so in America doesn't mean the rest of the world feels the same way.
What most environmentalists don't seem to be able to grasp is that "pollution", "sustainability", and "global warming" are entirely separate notions that are only coincidentally related. To explain:
Pollution is bad. Burning fossil fuels creates things like smog. Smog causes acid rain, which quickly and noticeably kills trees and animals. Smog significantly increases cancer rates. Smog looks like a blanket of feces covering the city. As Beijing has shown during the Olympics, when you suddenly stop burning fossil fuels, the smog goes away within a few days and your problems are solved. And when you suddenly start burning fossil fuels again, the smog comes back and you're back to living in feces. Hence, we should burn less fossil fuels. Effective immediately.
"Do you want to live in this?" would be much more effective than threatening us with dead polar bears.
Sustainability is good. We have a limited amount of fossils to burn. At our current rate of burning, oil will soon become very expensive, and soon afterwards we will run out of oil altogether. To find more oil, we are having to drill in places previously untouched by man, unnecessarily killing plants and animals in the process. Hence, we should burn less fossil fuels. Effective immediately.
Global warming is...possibly not great. We may have contributed to a gradual rise in the Earth's average temperature by burning fossil fuels. If we continue to burn fossil fuels, we might or might not increase the average temperature by a few degrees more. If we don't burn any more fossil fuels, the Earth's temperature might or might not stabilize. If animals aren't able to adapt quickly enough to the warmth, a lot of them might go extinct. If they are able to adapt quickly enough, then only a few of them might go extinct. Hence, we might want to burn a bit less fossil fuels. Effective in a hundred or more years.
So why the hell are we incessantly badgered about the one unproven, least immediate, and least tangible reason to conserve? Why are we adopting the most communist, and thus least effective, approach to environmentalism? And this is why global warming is completely irrelevant, because there are countless better reasons for us to curb our fossil-fuel addiction, and none of them have to do with Al Gore.
Posts
