This ain’t no technological breakdown
Oh no, this is the road to hell
- chris rea

I love global warming naysayers. Especially the really, really crazy ones. Not the sane ones mind you, some folks honestly have good motivations and valid questions about climate change. These folks should keep up their work. After all dissent makes us a better people. Rational people know that while the evidence is pretty much overwhelming, there are still variables we don’t fully understand. No, the ones that make me giggle are the ones who are so rabidly anti-global warming that they will blindly run down any alley to win an argument. Often not taking the time to see where their chosen alley is leading. Take this one for instance. . .

So here’s the headline. “Environmental guru slams carbon trading: ‘Most of the green stuff is verging on gigantic scam’…“. Ok, sounds like your normal anti-environmental headline. Especially when it follows this one, “Pew Poll: Global warming ranks dead last as priority…“. However once you dig into the article you start wondering why anyone who denies global warming would want you to read it. The actual article is titled, “One Last Chance To Save Man Kind” and quotes the originator of the Gaia theory, James Lovelock as saying among other things, “I’m an optimistic pessimist. I think it’s wrong to assume we’ll survive 2 °C of warming: there are already too many people on Earth. At 4 °C we could not survive with even one-tenth of our current population.” Yes, he does say carbon trading is verging on a gigantic scam but his argument is simply that it won’t do any good.

At first it’s hard to see why someone who thought global warming was all a big scam would point you to this article simply for one line of dissent. I mean if you read far enough you see phrases like “climatic apocalypse” for pity’s sake! Well, I think it goes to the idea that you have to attack from every angle. I guess referring to the article was meant to support the over-all argument that, 1. Global Warming isn’t real and 2. Even if it were, changing our ways is too expensive and ineffective. I’ll call it the “We’ll all go together when we go” approach.

The proviso of course is that if we do “all go together when we go”, that some of us feel they should “go” in the style they’ve grown accustom to. The rest of us, well, I guess we should just learn relax and enjoy it.

Related Posts:

1. Global Warming Two-Step
2. global warming & the mole people
3. irgendwo in der Tiefe gibt es ein Licht
4. maybe, maybe not
5. transactional analysis