Photo credit:
ookami_dou, flickr
Human-influenced climate change is a hoax. Did you know that? I sure didn't. The latest wave of climate-change deniers includes a group of scientists that argues that we're in the middle of a perfectly normal cycle and that we humans have no effect on the climate. There's also a report in the UK's Telegraph that pulls out numbers to try to show that global warming isn't happening.
The idea that global warming is some kind of conspiracy, crafted by a bunch of high-powered greenies to destroy the current petroleum-based economic model for their own profit seems far-fetched at best.
What would we call these so-called conspirators? For fun, let's call them "the Greedy-Greenies." But what exactly are the Greedy-Greenies up to? What profit would they get from false climate change claims?
The only gain I can see is overthrowing the stranglehold that the oil and gas industry has on the world-wide economy, and perhaps distributing some of that concentrated wealth across many sectors instead of just one. We all know how "redistribution of wealth" strikes some people. But seriously, my only response to the climate change debate is to send the skeptics to the Manpollo Project, which uses a risk management approach to climate change (note that I say climate change rather than global warming because I don't believe the effect we're having on the environment is limited to rising temperatures).In this risk management approach, there are four options:
- Human-influenced climate change is real and we do something about it.
- Human-influenced climate change is real and we do nothing about it.
- Human-influenced climate change isn't real and we do something about it anyway.
- Human-influenced climate change isn't real and we do nothing about it.
In situation number one, we face possible economic upheaval but we've saved the earth, woot! And according to the Manpolo Project, most economic models show that we'd actually improve the economy. Nice. Number two could mean, in the extreme, a total breakdown of world economies and civilization as we know it comes to an end. Situation number three has the same outcome as number one. And in the final situation (number four), we stick with the status quo and no one needs to change anything.
The deniers have chosen the last probability. But when you apply risk management, option number four has the highest risk. The idea that climate change is real or not is nothing we can control. It either is or isn't—no point arguing about it because we can't change the reality (whichever one it is).
Whether we do something or not is entirely in our hands, so even if human-influenced climate change isn't real, doesn't it make sense to act as if it does? Our oil and gas reserves are limited. We have to get off our dependency at some point, so why not let the Greedy Greenies have their way and do it now?
How to join the Canvolution
Comments (5)Add a Comment
Inappropriate or promotional comments may be removed.
In fairness, your four-part risk management approach is similar to Pascal's Wager, which argues that we should all believe in a higher power because it has the greatest reward attached to belief. That being said, there is an undeniable wealth of evidence that global climate change is happening, which would make option #1 the only legitimate choice.
The videos on the Manpollo Project go into significant detail on this topic. I just discussed the most basic. There are HOURS of video to watch and it's all fascinating stuff. He also goes into detail about how global climate change is undeniable. It's all great back up for supporting option number one.
What about the idea that by reducing our dependence on oil we are reducing our dependence on those who would commit terrorist acts and kill our fellow citizens? I really don't see how people who think global warming is bunk can then argue that we can't pull out of Iraq because then the terrorists would win. Ugh, I'm assuming they are the same group but frankly I can hear it all coming from my late grandfather so in my head at least the same groups believe that global warming isn't real and the War on Terror is necessary to keep us safe. I was so happy when our new President mentioned in his Inaugural Address that "each day brings further evidence that the ways we use energy strengthen our adversaries and threaten our planet." Bring on that kind of change!
Yes, hence the First Gulf War's nickname: the War for Oil. Funny how one dictatorship that's friendly to the US is left alone but one that isn't needs be liberated and made a democracy. But it has *nothing* to do with oil,noooooo...
Heh. I always said that if Iraq's main export had been broccoli (which Bush #1 was famous for hating) that we never would have had the First Gulf War.