Irregular Times Diaries: Unfit Discussion
In a time of the spring, old paths are obscured and new growth begins.
Irregular Times Diaries: Unfit DiscussionIn a time of the spring, old paths are obscured and new growth begins.
Right wingers, loathe to accept the idea that people will need to exercise self-restraint in order to continue to thrive on Planet Earth, are lashing out at the science of climate change much as many people once rejected the idea that the Earth is round. At the 60 Minutes site on Yahoo, one such person comments,
“There is no global warming and sea levels are not rising. This is coming from the communist Left, which is incompetent at science and hates technology. Yes that’s what has always been behind 60 Minutes. They won’t let you hear the other side. Do not worry. Global warming is not proven by localized events.”
The fact is that global warming is already causing sufficient increases in sea level to cause localized events around the world. Coastal communities in the south of England, for example are already being forced to make decisions about which areas will receive sea wall protection, and which areas will be allowed to flood. Michael Byrnes at Reuters writes that local adaptation to rising sea levels is “already happening in the south of England, where local councils and governments could not afford to protect all areas from sea water erosion as land continued to sink.”
There is a massive amount of evidence of the reality of global warming. There is no evidence, however, of international Communist plot involving 60 Minutes to trick people into accepting the idea of global warming.
(232 votes, average: 3.17 out of 5)
Irregular Times
New Button Designs
72 queries. 1.038 seconds
Top Article Last Week
March 25th, 2007 at 4:29 pm
This is probably a philosophical, rhetorical question more than anything but here it is.
Public officials have to make decisions about a great number of things that are partly proven, maybe provable in the future, or totally improbable. I would count the following among those policy decisions that face us now: global warming, terrorism, bird flu. In the past similar decisions have been made about terrorism, swine flu (Gerald Ford’s term), and Katrina. Officials that fail to plan or anticipate events were held accountable for their lack of foresight and failure to protect the public from harm. But officials are also criticized when a potential event does not turn into the disaster that was predicted (Ford was ridiculed for the swine flu vaccines).
In past pieces, IT writers have accepted global warming, but discounted bird flu as possible future harmful events. In the face of future that is unforseeable, how should public officials determine policy, or maybe easier to answer, as a writer, how do you decide which of these unprovable futures to buy off on and use the nation’s resources to try to prepare for?
March 26th, 2007 at 6:08 am
There is a difference between the degree of uncertainty with global warming and with bird flu.
With bird flu, several unlikely things have to happen before H5N1 could pose a threat.
With global warming, the danger is already here, causing serious damage around the world. Coastal communities are already going under water. Thousands have already died in a single unprecidented heatwave in Europe. Look at the science and you’ll see that the changes that were once predicted are now taking place. The massive negative impact is already observable. There isn’t much to doubt about it. Also, with global warming, the worldwide impact takes place if things do not change. In fact, even if we stop the pollution that’s caused global warming, the problem continues.
It’s not an apt comparison at all.