global warning part 2
As I said in Global Warning Part 1 I am an unequivocal global warming skeptic. But. Here’s the deal. I am going to do them a favor and show all the climatologists (I never even knew there was such a thing until this entire climategate email thing and global warming discussion) how they can get me off the skeptic “no action ignore the buzz” space to skeptic “I am going to start doing my part” space. The reported sections below are actual published statements.
REPORTED: Several polls indicate that all these email and scientist disagreements <crap> have contributed to a growing skepticism of climate science in the USA. In a national poll of 1,000 likely 
voters released last month by Rasmussen Reports, just 35% of respondents said they believed human activity was primarily responsible for global warming, down from 47% in April 2008.
Ok. Lesson one. “Primarily responsible.” One would have to be nuts to think we (people) are primarily responsible. All they have to do is change it to “contribute to global warming” and maybe point out that the last time the good ole globe had a climate swing that there were maybe 2 billion people and now we have 6+ billion (so possibly the people impact may be more significant).
REPORTED: Mead says the backlash has been especially strong because many politicians in the USA and elsewhere had said the content of the IPCC report was “unequivocal” and used it to support legislation that could dramatically alter the way the world produces and consumes energy.
Lesson two. Look. In business, if your primary source for your recommendation becomes invalid you are screwed. I get that. But. Production and consumption are two different things. In the energy consumption world most of us little folk are sheep. I will use what you give me. Please stop talking to me about “dramatically altering the way I consume energy.” (unless you have figured out a way to make energy bars stop tasting like chalk) Those kinds of words kind of scare me and make me look for objections to changing. When in reality in the big energy scheme of things me, as a person, won’t have to do shit but buy whatever the producer happens to be offering. Plus. Who trusts politicians anyway? “unequivocal.” From a politician? Yeah. Right.
REPORTED: “The fundamental problem is that these scientists are asking people to change the way the entire world’s economy works based on what they’re telling us.”
Lesson three. Scientists are asking businesses (that are made up of people) to change the way they do things so that maybe the world is a better place to live. Scientists are asking people to consider doing some things they are currently doing differently so that maybe the world is a better place to live.
Regardless of environmental issues is anyone debating that these new energy source ideas aren’t better for the world? Is anybody questioning that using recyclable material is better for the world?
Scientists are not asking us to do anything. They are simply providing information so that we can judge what to do. All this finger waggling (good visual there huh) at scientists is simply a way to deflect the real discussion.
Lastly. The world economy will be fine. Current companies (production) are pissed because they will have to change. But seeing the words “change economy” scares people (but it shouldn’t because while media makes a big deal out of it the world’s economy changes all the time).
REPORTED: “Global Warming” (the words)
Lesson four: for lack of a better phrase (at this time) we are stuck with this pairing of words – this is unreasonable but – throw it away. There is no bigger fuckup in this world than the way we mangle the environment. The world is going to hell in a hand basket and we are focused on global warming “causes”. With all the ways we have to help combat “environment mangling” (which leads to pollution, global warming/cooling/whatever, diminishing resources, social security bankruptcy … oops .. wrong post) somehow people are STILL arguing over what caused global warming in the first place. Does it really matter who or what is to blame?
While no one is 100% sure exactly what caused global temperature changes, I think we can all agree that humans have only added to the problems and we have to believe we have sped the process along. The fact is that climate change may result from both natural and human causes. So now what? Well how about we stop debating who or what is or isn’t responsible and start working on slowing it down.
Oh. Last thought.
What is the downside to developing more environmentally responsible energy sources and have more environmentally responsible individual habits?
April 29, 2010 - 10:10 am
“What is the downside to developing more environmentally responsible energy sources and have more environmentally responsible individual habits?”
Virtually nothing. But environmental responsibility is not what this is really about. This is about the attempt to create a new global commodity carbon trading market based on a Cap&Trade system (the EU already has C&T). Initially only the primary carbon emmitters will have a cap, like power utilities, but over the years it will be broadened to eventually include individuals. We will all become carbon traders; we will be issued a carbon credit card and if we use too much carbon, by law we will need to buy more on the carbon market or pay high taxes or fines. We will simply swipe the card when the price is low and hold off when it’s high. We will also become carbon borrowers just like we borrow cash with our cash credit cards, it’s the same system. Carbon will eventually become a global currency. The rich will be able to afford all the carbon they want while the poor will struggle. What else is new?
In addition, according to the Copenhagen Treaty, the UN IPCC will use carbon profits to build offices in every developing nation to control the spending of carbon money, given to them by the West. In other words, the UN will finally begin as a fledgling world government, and we as doners of the money will have a say in the governing and soverignty of other nations.
That’s what’s really at stake with global warming, environmental responsibility is only an unintended benefit.
April 30, 2010 - 6:24 pm
Wow. Great comment. Great information. So. Let me try and respond in parts.
1. I talk about some of the economics of the issue in part 2 (maybe not to the extent you have). Yes. Economics is involved. And ,yes, in general I believe we will figure that out (carbon cards and all). The global economy has shifted a variety of times to accommodate innovation.
2. UN as a fledgling world government. Well. I guess at its worst it could happen that way. But. As a result of the new state nations being built globally the UN is playing a larger role in supporting a variety of initiatives. Many functions that used to be solely controlled by governments are now shared with international bodies. That’s not bad. It just is.
3. Rich versus poor. That’s not necessarily a bad thing. what would be bad is if the poor lose their window of opportunity to be ‘not poor’ (not necessarily rich). I have another pops coming up talking about how poverty is significantly declining globally. There are so many productive economies globally the poor are shifting into a productive workforce. As long as the rich assume the responsibilities that come along with being rich the world will benefit. Sure. It will be abused by a minority but the majority needs to make those types of actions unacceptable rather than not do a program for fear of the few.
4. Environmental responsibility. Wow. This is a chicken or egg discussion. My fear (that I tried to communicate) is that because of experts disagreement there is everyday confusion which ultimately leads to everyday inaction. And that is a shame.
Love the comment. Keep it coming.