Pueblog USa
Monday, February 12, 2007
Be Prepared!
...because you can’t turn back the clock.
Far be it from me to question anyone’s theology, let alone someone who actually attended a seminary (although he didn’t finish)*, but isn’t blaming global warming on man’s activities just a little…well…prideful? Isn’t it saying that Man is the king-all-high-muckety-muck of the universe, the instigator of climate change, and therefore capable of reversing that change if he so wills? And that there is no one or no thing greater than Man?
But isn’t it true that man has yet to develop a bomb capable of the devastation of one really big volcanic eruption? That you could set off every nuclear weapon in existence today and the destruction wouldn’t be as bad as a major meteor strike, like the one in the Yucatan?
When I took biology in high school the emphasis was on ecosystems. One of the main lessons was that things in nature are cyclical and that ecosystems are constantly changing. Most of the global-warming-is-the-fault-of-man folks seem to ignore this fact. They seem to think that ecosystems and climate are static, despite evidence to the contrary, and insist that the way the world was in 1930, or 1830, or whenever, is the way it was supposed to be forever and ever. It never occurs to them that maybe “normal” could be defined as the way it was when mastodons roamed Siberia, which was a lush garden capable of sustaining the huge animals. They refuse to accept that we might be on the warming side of a cycle, and that there once was, and will be again, a cooling side. They refuse to accept that previous cycles were not affected by man at all, and that his effect on this cycle is quite likely negligible.
H.L. Mencken speculated that man invented gods to explain the things in nature he couldn’t understand. (Sorry, I don’t remember the title of the book.) Man then invented religious rites to try to get the gods to do what he wanted, e.g., make it stop raining when it was time to harvest the crops.
Nowadays, science explains nature (or tries to), and man is replacing religious rites with laws to affect nature and make it do what we want, i.e., stop climate change.
I don’t care what your religious beliefs are, putting man at the top of the climate change ladder is just ignorant. Even King Canute back in 1000 A.D. knew that man cannot control nature. I doubt very seriously that passing laws to try to prevent climate change will have any real effect. Passing laws to help people cope with the inevitable changes might, although the changes usually occur so slowly that they won’t make much difference, either. Remember Oaks’ Law: Social legislation cannot repeal physical law. If it could, let’s outlaw gravity to make shuttle launches easier and cheaper.
Don’t get me wrong, we shouldn’t allow unchecked pollution, but don’t imagine that you’re permanently affecting climate change by cutting down on smokestack emissions. Don’t allow other countries to dictate our industrial practices, and make us weaker, because of “global warming.” It’s going to happen regardless of our puny efforts.
Instead, face the fact that the climate will change. When it does, be prepared to grow different crops, move away from the shore, use different building materials, whatever. We can’t stop it, but we can cope with it. “It is not the strongest of the species that survive, but the ones most responsive to change.”—Charles Darwin
But then again, maybe (King) Al Gore will invent a way to counter cosmic rays.
*Al Gore
Update: The incomparable Dr. Sowell writes in a similar vein today.
Next entry: Here There Be Monsters Previous entry: Is Politics Only to be for the Rich? Part Two-
“but isn’t blaming global warming on man’s activities just a little…well…prideful?”
No, “prideful” would be assuming one has an informed opinion about a scientific topic without the drudgery of actually reading the science. Unfortunately, the data are not impressed by rhetoric.
.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 02/12 at 05:34 PM -
TO: Zen Curmudgeon
RE: Pride vs. Ignorance vs. Stupidity“No, “prideful” would be assuming one has an informed opinion about a scientific topic without the drudgery of actually reading the science.”—Zen Curmudgeon
Actually….
....I think you’re describing “stupidity” better than mere pride. As I see it, having “...an informed opinion about a scientific [or other] topic without the drudgery of actually reading…” the material, sounds like ignorance to me.
And, Stupidity, as I like to define it, is best characterized as being (1) ignorant and (2) proud of it.
Of course, Al Gore qualifies for that, in my book, most days of the week.
RE: Back On-Topic
Lots of people have been making a LOT of noise about how mankind is destroying the environment vis-a-vis man-made ‘greenhouse gasses’. As a perceived result of these gasses, the average temperature of Planet Earth is supposed to be increasinug.
I’ve got news for the people who cry, “The sky is falling,” over this development….
...it’s not going to be ALL BAD.
Indeed, according to reports I’ve read, the mean temperature of Planet Earth was several degrees WARMER than it is today around 900-1100 AD. Because of this, people in Europe were able to raise more food—the growing season was longer. Furthermore, they didn’t need to build structures with fireplaces and windows, as the Winters were considerably milder.
I doubt if the people decrying man-made greenhouse gasses can account for THAT. It was certainly the Sun that caused that. One of many cycles it has that we have yet to discover.
And therein is the REAL challenge. How to anticipate and cope with these cycles.This is not to say that there will some problems relating to an increase in the mean temperature. But it is not the impending catastrophe that all too many are willing to make it out to be.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 02/13 at 02:26 PM