|
Yachtie -> RE: Who Worries about Global Warming? (4/7/2014 6:33:14 AM)
|
fr
Many people worry about global climate change from the warmist perspective and include, for instance, increasing storms of various types. "The theory of global warming is a gigantic weather forecast for a century or more." Is that true? Is that what the theory really is? A long term weather prognostication writ large? It does seem that climate change proponents do point at weather trends, such being the indicators as to the theory being true / not true. AGW, GCC, is quite alarmist. Is a few degree increase in global temperature, a rise of a few inches of sea level, and such a necessarily bad thing? Is it bad for plant life? Is it a lowering of food production? Is it even something so absolutely new that Man is about to be destroyed? Haven't we always been about conquering nature?
"Some of the utterances of the warmists are preposterously specific. In March 2009, the Prince of Wales declared that the world had “only 100 months to avert irretrievable climate and ecosystem collapse”. How could he possibly calculate such a thing?"
Either the Prince's data he relied upon is false or he's just a Chicken Little and one wonders just what his motivations were in such an utterance. If the science behind AGW is correct he's giving it a bad name. I don't remember anyone in the GCC camp chiding him for his remarks.
"Like most of those on both sides of the debate, Rupert Darwall is not a scientist. He is a wonderfully lucid historian of intellectual and political movements"
Neither is the Prince a scientist, yet people will condemn Darwall for his scholarship. Not the Prince. But what is being pointed to is history. Modern science seems to igonre such in favor of the new idea.
"The origins of warmism lie in a cocktail of ideas which includes anti-industrial nature worship, post-colonial guilt, a post-Enlightenment belief in scientists as a new priesthood of the truth, a hatred of population growth, a revulsion against the widespread increase in wealth and a belief in world government."
One might point to the UN's Agenda 21. Is it truly about saving Gaia or is about power and control using AGW as a vehicle. Is AGW, ACC, whatever merely a smokescreen?
"These beliefs began to take organised, international, political form in the 1970s. One of the greatest problems, however, was that the ecologists’ attacks on economic growth were unwelcome to the nations they most idolised – the poor ones. The eternal Green paradox is that the concept of the simple, natural life appeals only to countries with tons of money. By a brilliant stroke, the founding fathers developed the concept of “sustainable development”. This meant that poor countries would not have to restrain their own growth, but could force restraint upon the rich ones. This formula was propagated at the first global environmental conference in Stockholm in 1972."
Reversion to the lowest common denominator. One wonders why people like ALGORE utilize such a large carbon footprint as to help reduce others.
"The warmists’ idea was that the global fight against carbon emissions would work only if the whole world signed up to it. ...the developing countries refused. The Left-wing dream that what used to be called the Third World would finally be emancipated from Western power had come true. The developing countries were perfectly happy for the West to have “the green crap”, but not to have it themselves. The Western goody-goodies were hoist by their own petard.
Last week, the latest IPCC report made the usual warnings about climate change, but behind its rhetoric was a huge concession. The answer to the problems of climate change lay in adaptation, not in mitigation, it admitted. So the game is up." (underlining added)
So who worries? I'd say the absolutely fearful. The Kool-Aid drinkers. They worry about everything the elites tell them to worry about. Are there things to really be worried about? Of course. But I question if AGW, ACC, is one of them as such seems more political than science.
If it is indeed political and not actually science there is reason to be alarmed, but not for the safety of Gaia.
|
|
|
|
