Tuesday, December 28, 2004
It boggles the mind. The director of Greenpeace UK and the director of Friends of Earth have both made statements attributing this year's natural disasters, including the recent tsunami, to "climate change" from human activity. And why not? With the science inconclusive at best, it is now pretty much taken for granted that global warming is happening, with the question being what, if anything, to do about it.
It seems to me, that with the earth cycling through periods of ice ages and hotter ages over the past few million years, an environmental status quo would be extremely odd. The dinosaurs didn't die because my Honda Civic only gets 45 highway. A recent speech by Michael Crichton goes into detail about how deeply flawed the science behind global warming is, which doesn't prove it's untrue, but I think the burden of proof is on the people who want to spend trillions of dollars to fix the "problem."
Just admit that you are an anti-progress Marxist who latches on to anything that could potentially be used to slow down the forward march of humanity.
Because if you really, really cared about the environment, you'd be championing a source of power that does not release greenhouse gases, is plentiful, and creates 100's of times more energy than the same amount of carbon based fuels. It's called Nukes. Don't be scared, there are probably a half dozen reactors floating in San Diego bay right now.
And if you really cared about the environment, you'd notice that economic progress is the only way to improve the environment. Rich countries have the resources and the desire to clean things up. The people in India burn camel shit, but is that the environment you'd like to emulate? So why would you trash our economy to reduce CO2 emissions by like 1%?
Frankly, it's annoying that the people with the best intentions but the most ridiculous counter-productive solutions get the most credit, while the people with the most efficacious (but usually not intuitive) solutions get scorn and opprobrium from Susan Sarandon. And all I really wanted was for Susan to like me...
It seems to me, that with the earth cycling through periods of ice ages and hotter ages over the past few million years, an environmental status quo would be extremely odd. The dinosaurs didn't die because my Honda Civic only gets 45 highway. A recent speech by Michael Crichton goes into detail about how deeply flawed the science behind global warming is, which doesn't prove it's untrue, but I think the burden of proof is on the people who want to spend trillions of dollars to fix the "problem."
Just admit that you are an anti-progress Marxist who latches on to anything that could potentially be used to slow down the forward march of humanity.
Because if you really, really cared about the environment, you'd be championing a source of power that does not release greenhouse gases, is plentiful, and creates 100's of times more energy than the same amount of carbon based fuels. It's called Nukes. Don't be scared, there are probably a half dozen reactors floating in San Diego bay right now.
And if you really cared about the environment, you'd notice that economic progress is the only way to improve the environment. Rich countries have the resources and the desire to clean things up. The people in India burn camel shit, but is that the environment you'd like to emulate? So why would you trash our economy to reduce CO2 emissions by like 1%?
Frankly, it's annoying that the people with the best intentions but the most ridiculous counter-productive solutions get the most credit, while the people with the most efficacious (but usually not intuitive) solutions get scorn and opprobrium from Susan Sarandon. And all I really wanted was for Susan to like me...
