It would not be hard for journalists to unearth this information were they not so dead set on finding the opposite for political purposes. Dyson attributes it to laziness on their part, but he doesn’t follow politics enough to understand that the type of institutions who turn out our journalists also hire domestic terrorists as teachers. Our colleges really are little more than political indoctrination camps these days.
And there has never even been the beginning of a rational discussion on global warming before governments leapt into the business of trying to correct it. Here are just a few of things that would have to be proven or considered before it would make sense to spend any money tilting at this particular windmill.
Here is the list:
1: We would have to prove the climate is warming.
2: We would have to prove that this warming is due to man introducing CO2 into the atmosphere and we would have to know what proportion of the warming is due to man’s influence.
3: We would have to show that the warming that would result from our pursuit of the modern standard of living is something of a scope outside of what the earth normally experiences.
4: We would have to show that there would be harmful effects from this warming.
5: We would have to know what the beneficial aspects of warming are and then compare them to the harmful effects.
6: We would then have to know the costs of fixing things before deciding to take action. For instance, if the benefits of warming and the costs of doing something about it outweigh the effects of doing nothing then we should do nothing. As Freeman Dyson mentions, about 15% of our current crop output is likely due to the increased concentration of CO2 in the air. It would be the height of stupidity to spend untold trillions of dollars just to make it more difficult for us to feed ourselves. I know such a thing is not exactly unheard of in the annals of leftism, but hopefully we have matured somewhat as a species since then.
7: We would also have to add in the fact that we would have to give governments huge powers to meddle in our lives. Those costs are less easy to quantify but we do know that all of the mass murders of humans in the past that have totaled in the millions have been due to governments being too powerful. Short of that, there are real liberty and quality of life concerns that cannot just be dismissed out of hand.
8: We would have to determine how to spread the costs around… by ability to pay or by the amount of damage a particular country is doing for instance.
9: We would have to examine if there are ways to remediate the damage or correct it that are cheaper than giving up the benefits of the modern world. And if we are forced to give up those benefits how are we going to decide who gets to keep certain aspects of that life? Will the president and his family still be able to take multiple jet trips, on multiple vacations every month? Will Al Gore get to continue living in his multiple houses, a single one of which uses more energy than an entire factory?
Precisely none of these things
have been done to any satisfactory degree, which is why it is so clear
it is all a scam. None of the people behind ginning up concern over this
putative crisis act as if they believe it truly is a crisis by
modifying their behavior. None of the solutions they propose would cost
them anything but would instead garner to them more power and more
benefits. The focus has been almost entirely upon whose ox is Gored (so
to speak) and whose ox is fattened.We would have to have a good, solid answer to every one of the questions above before it would make sense to spend a dime on climate change. The fact that we do not, underscores the sheer folly of taking any action at this point.
No comments:
Post a Comment