’)I remember those “Ozone Man” cracks from Bush Sr. too.
If ever there was a time for the author of “Earth in the Balance,” Gore’s powerful 1992 book on global warming and other environmental threats, to say, “I tried to warn you,” this is it.
Gore’s book drew ridicule from the elder George H.W. Bush, who called Gore “Ozone Man” in 1992, and from the younger Bush in their 2000 race, who admitted without embarrassment that he’d never read it-as if the book did not have enough pictures for the former Texas oil man to color.
Today, with the evening news carrying poignant photos of rising gas prices and polar bears drowning amid crumbling glaciers, and Republican congressional leaders proposing a laughable $100 rebate check to compensate taxpayers for higher gasoline prices, Gore’s push for fuel efficiency and environmental protection sounds right on time.
Even Bush celebrated his love for hydrogen cars on Earth Day, in sharp contrast to his usual passion for fossil fuels. This is the same president, let’s remember, who watered down the Environmental Protection Agency, put the brakes on the Clinton administration’s push for fuel-efficient cars, and scoffed at the Kyoto treaty on global warming that Gore helped to negotiate as Vice President.
Big ideas in politics? I’ve heard that somewhere before.
But my gut, my gut tells me that global warming is a liberal fantasy …
To be honest, I’m a bit of sceptic on human-caused global warming. This plant’s been around for 5 billion years. How incredibly conceited of man to believe that two hundred years of the industrial revolution could have an impact on something so complex as the climate.
I’d tend to agree with Michael Crichton on this: global temperatures are rising, and have been since 1850 – not because of man, but because of the planet’s emergence from a “little Ice Age” that had lasted some five centuries. Eventually, I think, it will be proven that man had some effect on the rising temperatures, not because of greenhouse gases, but because of land use.
That’s not to say we shouldn’t conserve, or that we do not need to make changes to our lifestyle; especially Americans, who on average consume more than ten times the resources of everyone else on the planet, and contribute, per capita, more than twenty five times the waste of everyone else on the planet. However, we should do so not because of the fear of some impending man-made environmental catastrophe, but because it is the right and moral thing to do.
I appreciate your skepticism, Al, but for as much as it might be conceited to believe we have an impact, it’s naive to assume that we don’t just because the planet has survived for five billion years. If anything, the age of the planet is an argument against the ability of it to handle billions of people eating through resources and producing hazardous waste while doing so.
When a man of twenty contracts pneumonia, he’s better able to fight it off than a man of seventy. If a man of seventy comes down with an ailment that hadn’t previously been commonplace when he was twenty…well, that’s even worse.
The portion of this argument I don’t understand is why we refuse to err on the side of caution. Isn’t it more reasonable to assume that we’re having a larger impact on the climate, and then do what we can to reduce that, than to assume we’re having a minimal impact and press on exactly as we’ve been doing…just because we refuse to give up our obscenely-sized Hummers?
Big Gay Al, I usually appreciate your posts and find them spot on, but you lose something in this argument when you say: “I d tend to agree with Michael Crichton on” the role of humans in global warming. He’s a medical doctor, not an environmental scientist. Just as you don’t want me performing your brain surgery, you shouldn’t rely on Crichton to inform your thoughts on global warming.
Well, I hope Crichton isn’t the last word on the subject. He’s as much an authority on the subject as Dan Brown is on Catholicism, a la DaVinci Code (which is to say, more of an authority than we are).
I don’t think Crichton claims to be the last word on the subject, but his skepticism is borne of research into the subject (for his last novel, State of Fear). In any event, all anyone can give us at this moment are guesses…an informed guess is still a guess. I mean, think about it…we can barely predict the weather in a localized region for a five day period, yet some of the more alarmist purveyors of doom would claim to predict the climate of the entire earth one hundred years from now?
As the article Oliver links to points out, there is a real debate on about the cause of warming (I do not doubt that there is warming…the evidence of that is irrefutable), whether it is man-made or part of a natural cycle. My position is that until climate scientists can point to irrefutable proof that the current warming is caused by man, Occham’s razor would suggest our activities are an almost meaningless component of the complex and chaotic forces that shape climate.
I think we can all agree that, as Americans, we need to change our consumption and waste. habits As of now, we consume the most resources and are the cause of the most waste by far of any other nation in the planet. But if we want to convince Americans of this, we need to rely on inherent American qualities of conservation and fairness and morality, not on scientific theories that may turn out to be bunk. In other words, we can not base true conservation on junk science, which, when it is proven to be false, will undercut the whole rationale for conservation.
Regardless of whether or not you “believe” mankind is causing or merely contributing to global warming, why not consider the pollution being spewed into the air we breathe? Certainly even Mr. Crhichton can connect the dots between the increases seen in childhood asthma and the countless SUV’s caughing their black goodness into the air.
Michael Crichton is completely full of sh*t:
part 2
(there is a link to part 1 in that article)
I swear, the Earth could be engulfed in flames and there would still be people running about proclaiming, “yeah, but you can’t say it’s my fault (or humanity’s).”
A major misconception is that the Earth is just SOOOO old and little itty bitty humanity would have to be mighty arrogant to think it could have any affect on it. The problem here, and its a critical one, is that it ignores the Earth’s previous tendency to move towards equilibrium (steady state). It’s why there are so few predators for so much prey. Imagine if there were 100 lions for every 100 gazelle. In one day the food would be gone. Well, welcome to humanity (a newcomer, as we haven’t been around for more than 3 million years). We have effectively destroyed the old predator/prey balance. Let’s not forget the introduction of synthetics and other “unnatural” elements into the ecosystem. The Earth didn’t need to worry about the billion year wait to decompose styrofoam until we showed up. Add onto that massive agro business (including bird flu breeding grounds like the enormous chicken farms in Asia) clear cutting forest land (particularly rain forest land in South America), diverting massive quantities of potable water for irrigation, creating huge erosion and run off problems, and helping create problems with chemical fertilizers making their way into the water supply and out into the oceans, causing coral bleaching. How many Valdez level oil spills were there 100 years ago? Do I need to go on?
Human population growth
Take note of the rapid growth in population since the Industrial Revolution and the even greater expansion since 1950. Now track that against Global Warming indicators and I think you’ll have your answer as to just how such a little group of fleas could give the Earth such a massive rash.
The next time anyone feels the need to question human involvement in Global Warming, just take BD’s advice and err on the side of caution. If we take Globabl Warming seriously and work hard for change we suffer what? Cleaner air? Cleaner water? Clean energy? New growth industries in renewables (to counter the non-sensical argument that enviromentalism is bad for the economy)? Bio-diversity for it’s own sake? Where is the down side to behaving responsibly?
Now what’s the huge potential down side to ignoring Global Warming?
Coastal flooding, massive extinction events, collapse of the transAtlantic thermal conveyor (ocean currents that keep Northern Europe from freezing), huge increases in extreme weather events (droughts, monsoons and Katrina sized hurricanes as a part of everyday life), collapse in the supply of potable water, massive displacement of populations in certain regions of the globe thanks to a lack of resources, possible large scale resource wars for the remaining sustainable land, and so on. Oh, and don’t forget the ultimate example of a runaway greenhouse, Venus.
Again, to sum up, Crichton is a f*cking asshat.
I respect Michael Crichton, he’s been called out in the past and he’s stood his ground, but ultimately he’s completely wrong.
What is this “no such thing as global warming” shit anyway? Jesus Christ, people.