I couldn't resist putting up a post on "man-made global warming," the new fad amongst the socialists, er, environmentalists. Anyone who knows me knows that I am very skeptical of any theory which demands the destruction of our economy, and the economies of developing countries around the world, as a cure.
We've seen this before. Carson's "Silent Spring" proclaiming the destruction which would surely pass due to DDT (including instant cancer to humans) resulted in the ban of DDT across the world. The results? Millions dead. Malaria continues to run rampant throughout Africa, causing the deaths of so many. And the worst part is that it could be prevented through the use of DDT to eradicate insects which carry the disease. For evidence of this, look at the US and Europe, where malaria was wiped out decades ago through the use of DDT. And what about the instant cancer? Subsequent studies proved no connection between DDT and cancer, and even indicated that it had a minimal impact on the ecosystem. For more, see Give Us DDT.
It's all the same with "man-made global warming." The most alarming fact is that there are hundreds of scientists suggesting that this is not what it has been made out to be. And the response? Ridicule, death threats, and accusations of being in the pockets of big oil (rather than in the pockets of big corn or big government?). But there's a consensus! The debate is over! This is just lies, and anyone with an elementary education in debate psychology knows the fallacy involved in the Bandwagon Effect which has been consistently used by the environmentalists.
"Man-made global warming" is dangerous. But not because of melting polar ice caps. The "cure" involves stopping development in the developing world and grinding our economy here at home to a halt. This is unacceptable, and real lives are in the balance, not that doomsday fiction you see so often. If you want to promote the environment, fine, go ahead! But don't force people who a) disagree with you and b)can't afford to sacrifice what little they have.
See The Great Global Warming Swindle for a little bit of balance in this debate.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
You have hit the nail on the head Free. The issue with the 'environmentalist' bloc (with the socialist tinged spelling for you :) is their seeming rejection of compromise and debate. For who can argue with the scientific consensus anyway?
The average American is environmentally conscious to some extent, but the radicals have, in a sense, 'hijacked' environmentalism. (Sound familiar?) The moderate base who would like to see further research into minimal footprint industry and infrastructure are pushed to the side with demands for immediate doomsday action.
Work does need to be done. As much as the Libertarian in me cringes at such government 'intervention' the environment is a public good which no one will care for unless they have to. I really don't want to breathe smog and drink filth when I don't have to. The issue is that I don't have to with small steps and regulations that encourage competitive cleanliness among the big 'culprits.' Pollution markets make sense, zero tolerance enforcement of silly requirements do not.
Post a Comment