Monday, February 9, 2009

Going Too Far

The theory of man-made global warming has created so much wealth and self-import for individuals across the globe that continued talk of its pending disastrous consequences will not be tamed. The most vocal about global warming often profit from its publicity (investment in certain technologies forced upon manufacturers; litigation; selling books; speeches; etc.). Publicity of global warming results from excessive victimization of Earth's organisms and from endless attacks on "developed" nations' consumption.

Last year, a doctor in Melbourne diagnosed a 17-year old lad with "climate change delusion"
(http://www.boston.com/lifestyle/green/articles/2009/02/09/climate_change_takes_a_mental_toll/?page=2). What?! Legitimizing ailments of the psyche due to man-made global warming is absurd. Do these revelations open new opportunities for money-making lawsuits? Do they benefit the doctor's business? What drug companies are profiting? Do similar dignoses provide justification to advance climate change legislation? I question the motive of any doctor attempting to draw a causal link between an individual's mental health and global warming. I think it is irresponsible and misleading for the patient. Ultimately, the only ways to treat the "delusion" and "anxiety" associated with climate change is to (1) tell God to slow down on the number of natural disasters or (2) attack the evil-doers who are warming the Earth.

Children are the newest target for global warming zealots. Jonathon Porritt, chairman of the UK's Sustainable Development Commission, recently claimed that having too many children is irresponsible because it increases the family's carbon footprint (http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/families/article5627634.ece). Porritt suggests a two-child limit. True, additional children cause more consumption and more driving, but to deny an individual the right to procreate is ludicrous. If this concept jumps the Atlantic, don't hold your breath waiting for the ACLU to take action.

Bottom line:
Pollution is harmful to our health and bad for the environment.
Technologies should be sought to reduce anthropogenic emissions.
However, any miniscule change in Earth's temperature cannot be unequivocally linked to man's activities (science debate for another blog).
I find many fear mongers of global warming hypocritical: they expect the commoner to ride our bikes to work/school (which I like to do), while they ride their private jets and limosuines; they expect the masses to live in modest, energy-conserving homes while they live in massive energy-consuming mansions. Their credibility is lost before they open their mouth.
Lastly, I think the fashion and hysteria surrounding man-made global warming is a profit-making business and clouds the minds of legislators, judges, politicians, and educators.

3 comments:

Nate said...

Mr. Toby, Finally someone injected some emotion in these blogs. The diagnosis of "climate change delusion" is hilarious at best, and the limit on children is an idea the western world will not succumb to any time soon I imagine.
I have talked to many people about climate change in the last year, and I have observed that many of those whom readily question its occurrence cite the hypocritical "many fear mongers" as you did. My question is, besides Al Gore, who else fits the description you blog about? Furthermore, I am disappointed when the seriousness of potential climate change consequences are written off b/c of an individual(s) whom is hypocritical on the issue. Ignore them, they do not matter. Do not ignore the issue however, nor the scientific pursuit of the answer.
Lastly, yes there is money to be made by adapting to/mitigating climate change. Every situation provides an opportunity for money to be made, but I doubt (more like hope and wish) there are many people promoting action simply and solely b/c they see dollar bills.
Climate change science has many uncertainties, and there are questions that need to be resolved to fully understand the phenomena. My only suggestion to those who question it, is do it objectively. I would hate for reason and logic to be thwarted by hatred for an individual or fear of greed in the air(though both are concerns). Good post though.

Corey James said...

Toby has the courage to say what I believe a lot of people are thinking but will not admit. Great post. It is frustrating to see those who champion a cause so important while they are clearly hypocritical. These include movie stars, celebrities, dishonest politicians, and of course, our nobel winning former vice president, Al Gore. This could potentially be another example of the greed we have witnessed in our society.(Wall Street, athletes, politicians) I agree that humans of all countries have a long way to go in cleaning up our lives with regard to our pollution of the environment. But, like you Toby, I am skeptical of those who are clearly in the tank for global warming because of the potential for monetary gain. It is funny to me how we could have such a crisis on our hands when, according to a senate minority report from last year(December 11th), over 650 accomplished and respected scientists from all over the world are skeptical about global warming. Don't get me wrong, I do believe we need to curb our dependence on fossil fuels and clean up our emissions, but I agree(and so do many others) that the hysteria is a little too much. I also agree with Nate that applying a negative label on a cause due to some of it's more selfish proponents is not fair, but this goes beyond that and I do question the sincerity of many of global warming's biggest proponents, while still being objective about the potential problem. Evidence is appearing from many sources...even more than the 650 scientists referenced above. I would say I am not a passionate proponent of either side, but instead an honest person waiting for overwhelming evidence to apply the right resources to the problem if it does exist.

iheartgas said...

Some of the largest proponents in DC in the last 12-18 months regarding a cap & trade bill have been Wall Stree banks, Goldman Sachs in particular. Interestingly, GS holds a financial stake in the Chicago Climate Exchange. Toby, you are right, there are lots of groups that stand to make a ton of money by commoditizing what we exhale. My employer is actively looking for opportunities to earn and sell credits for CO2 emissions we are able to capture through, in particular, land mgmt techniques. The banks have been beating down our doors and salivating in mtgs at the prospect of monetizing some our activities. Something to consider though - the banks have historically had a lot of credibility and lobby muscle in DC. These days however "the greedy folks on wall street" arent going to be able to carry a lot of weight in the climate debate. Cap and Trade may have just lost one of it staunchest supporters. I doubt this derails Democratic plans to pass a cap and trade bill but its worth thinking about...