Last night I watched the "Climate Change" episode of Cosmos.
It was heavy on ideology, and all the science in the show was presented to prop up that ideology- and there were holes. There always are.
I have enjoyed the series, and I even enjoyed this episode. It was interesting and informative- and I think I am able to tell which is science and which is ideology.
They probably could have kept the show more credible by leaving out the bit with Dr. Mole People, Dr. Frank Baxter- an English professor, not a scientist, by the way- warning his audience decades ago of human-induced climate change.
I still don't *know* if any change in the climate is due to human activity- and neither do the scientists who are so concerned. Show me a time in earth's history when climate wasn't changing, and I'll know you are cherry picking data to prove something that you and I both know isn't true. Even if the climate is changing, and it is due to fossil fuel use, we don't know it will be harmful on the whole. Yes, some species might have to migrate; some will die off. But some which would have otherwise gone extinct will probably survive due to any change. As we all find out through life- trying to avert one problem usually creates other problems. It's not something you can foresee or prevent, you just have to be ready for unintended consequences.
Much is made of the fact that the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is reaching levels not seen in 3 million years. So? Life was doing pretty well 3 million years ago. For a show which keeps presenting the long view, 3 million years is awfully narrow.
Don't get me wrong: I am all for solar power and wind power. But, there are downsides- environmental downsides- to both of these which will be used as an excuse to demonize them once enough people and industries are dependent on them. I am reminded of the campaign to promote fructose as a healthier alternative to sucrose/sugar- until fructose became ubiquitous, when the tide shifted and fructose syrup became Satan's ooze. It's all about demonizing things that taste sweet.
Solar cell production has toxic byproducts, and wind generators kill migrating birds- and that's just for starters.
There are probably even better solutions out there, but they will all have consequences, and none will make everyone happy.
Anthropogenic Global Climate Change (AGCC) pushers will become something else at that time. I don't think they will ever be against technology for themselves, but the rest of us need to accept that we harm Mother Earth too much when we have it. Just let them be the High Priests of Technology and dole out crumbs to the rest of us as they see fit. Just the way anti-gun bigots would like to do with guns.
The truth is that there are people out there who simply can't tolerate seeing people happy and comfortable, and they'll use any excuse to try to prevent it. And this is one example of how this mental problem manifests itself. Maybe it's because they feel bad because not everyone has access to the same things. The solution is to help those who want access, not to cut off access to those who already have it.
In the episode Tyson speaks of the risks of not changing how we live, but ignores the risks of changing. If AGCC is real, it still might not even kill as many people as immediately ditching fossil fuels would.
There are an awful lot of "ifs" in this campaign.
And, even if true, handing control to the various governments is the worst possible reaction. But it is what the AGCC promoters always advocate.
"Climate Change" has become a religion, and "Climate Change Denial" has become a competing religion. Like all religions, silly things are said and promoted and facts get pushed aside.
I don't advocate pooping in your own nest. I believe people should be responsible and clean up after themselves and not mess things up unnecessarily. But trying to force (by "law" and taxation) people back to pre-industrial lives is not the solution.
.
I still don't *know* if any change in the climate is due to human activity- and neither do the scientists who are so concerned. Show me a time in earth's history when climate wasn't changing, and I'll know you are cherry picking data to prove something that you and I both know isn't true. Even if the climate is changing, and it is due to fossil fuel use, we don't know it will be harmful on the whole. Yes, some species might have to migrate; some will die off. But some which would have otherwise gone extinct will probably survive due to any change. As we all find out through life- trying to avert one problem usually creates other problems. It's not something you can foresee or prevent, you just have to be ready for unintended consequences.
Much is made of the fact that the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is reaching levels not seen in 3 million years. So? Life was doing pretty well 3 million years ago. For a show which keeps presenting the long view, 3 million years is awfully narrow.
Don't get me wrong: I am all for solar power and wind power. But, there are downsides- environmental downsides- to both of these which will be used as an excuse to demonize them once enough people and industries are dependent on them. I am reminded of the campaign to promote fructose as a healthier alternative to sucrose/sugar- until fructose became ubiquitous, when the tide shifted and fructose syrup became Satan's ooze. It's all about demonizing things that taste sweet.
Solar cell production has toxic byproducts, and wind generators kill migrating birds- and that's just for starters.
There are probably even better solutions out there, but they will all have consequences, and none will make everyone happy.
Anthropogenic Global Climate Change (AGCC) pushers will become something else at that time. I don't think they will ever be against technology for themselves, but the rest of us need to accept that we harm Mother Earth too much when we have it. Just let them be the High Priests of Technology and dole out crumbs to the rest of us as they see fit. Just the way anti-gun bigots would like to do with guns.
The truth is that there are people out there who simply can't tolerate seeing people happy and comfortable, and they'll use any excuse to try to prevent it. And this is one example of how this mental problem manifests itself. Maybe it's because they feel bad because not everyone has access to the same things. The solution is to help those who want access, not to cut off access to those who already have it.
In the episode Tyson speaks of the risks of not changing how we live, but ignores the risks of changing. If AGCC is real, it still might not even kill as many people as immediately ditching fossil fuels would.
There are an awful lot of "ifs" in this campaign.
And, even if true, handing control to the various governments is the worst possible reaction. But it is what the AGCC promoters always advocate.
"Climate Change" has become a religion, and "Climate Change Denial" has become a competing religion. Like all religions, silly things are said and promoted and facts get pushed aside.
I don't advocate pooping in your own nest. I believe people should be responsible and clean up after themselves and not mess things up unnecessarily. But trying to force (by "law" and taxation) people back to pre-industrial lives is not the solution.
.
