You know, in talking to people about current events I have come to the realization that there are a lot of people out there that don't take the whole Global Warming thing seriously. As mentioned in the Newsweek article on the subject, sceptics don't like the label "deniers" but instead prefer "doubters." That's a subtle difference but I'm going to make it the crux of my argument.
Through the ages one thing in science has remained undisputably true: There is nothing that is impossible, only improbable. Label something beyond the realm of possiblility and you can rest assured that it will be found to be fact. As Tommy Lee Jones' character says in Men In Black, "a thousand years ago everybody knew as a fact, that the earth was the center of the universe. Five hundred years ago, everybody knew that the Earth was flat...imagine what you'll know tomorrow."
Now, for me the really surprising thing about the whole debate is that for the most part it seems to be drawn along liberal/conservative political divisions. I can't quite figure that out. Making the argument political seems to relegate it to a question of economics and maybe I should start thinking of this whole thing in those terms.
There are extremists on both ends and they have done their part to shape the discussion by polarizing the subject. The most common characterizations go that anyone that believes we are affecting our environment is a "treehugger" more concerned with bark beetles than people, and anyone that is a "doubter" would sell their grandmother to make a buck. However, the truth is that for the most part we are all centrist; as one person I know put it: "My wallet says I'm a conservative but my heart says I'm liberal."
Surely there would be economic ramifications to changing how businesses do busisness in a greener world. But haven't we seen some of the same dread before? Didn't the South make the argument that their industry couldn't survive without slave labor? Then the same argument was made at the turn of the century about child labor. With each sucessive change industry and our economy has adapted and we now look back and wonder, from a moral high ground, how those systems ever came to be in place, when we all know that the answer is pure economics.
Now, I'm not demonizing the doubters as proponents of slavery, child labor, or other evils (after all, that's the job of the "treehugger" extremists of this debate.) On the contrary, I take a much less drastic approach to the problem. The fact that the doubters avoid the title "deniers" implies that they are not 100 percent sure of their position; there is room for doubt. So, how can they afford to be wrong? I mean, if there is any hint of merit to the global warming concept, and we might possibly be headed for dire straits, do we dare take the chance to be wrong?
I am one who thinks the Global Warming(TM) issue is a bit inflated. Not only do I scoff at being chastised by Al Gore for wasting resources (right before hopping into his mega SUV to his own private jet) but have noted that there are a number of atmospheric or climate-centric anamolies that have cropped up over the past many decades that are similar to weather patterns that we are currently experiencing (ie...when your local weatherperson shows you the existing high temp from 30 plus years ago). Odd weather trends happen. The Galveston Hurricane of 1900 (the deadliest hurricane in US history) the Heat Wave of 1936 (quite similar to what we are seeing now in the south but in the midwest) or the Dust Bowl to name a few. I'm sure that Tom Joad used very few aerosol cans, might have considered recycling and may have possibly gone green had he been innundated by a media frenzy (ie mass hysteria) that we have experienced over the past year. However, it's more likely that he was not preoccupied with blaming his fellow man for his troubles but, perhaps, surviving. On top of that...being a fictional characer might have slowed him down a bit too.
ReplyDeleteTruth be told, I think Global Warming is a big scam by the insurance companies to be able to remove 'Act of God' from all policies to avoid having to shell out cash. They originally tried something based on the seperation of Church and State but were unsuccessful (only because of an atheist loophole). It was then decided that if all weather occurances could be linked to man's misuse of Mother Earth, then any mishap could be considered a breach of policy and claims could be universally denied. Think about it. You know I'm right.
okay....I kid. A little. I do think there is nothing wrong with being more environmentally conscious. Alternative Fuels sure sound promising. I'm on board. But all the talk of doom & gloom is a bit premature. Trust me...the "prognosticators" are seldom right. This year was supposed to be The Biggest Hurricane Season in Centuries(TM). But no. Not so much. Thank you for playing. IT'S. ALL. GUESSWORK.
Be cautious....sure. Will do. I'm just not ready to scream "The End Is Near!!", have my parents pack me in a rocket & send me to a distant planet and become a colorful superhero just yet. Maybe in a year or two.