> Here on the east side of the Atlantic, I was not aware of the idea that
> America was regarded as mainly responsible although we are aware that you
> seem to have a larger lobby of climate change deniers than most, not least
> your President. It is however commonly noted that in the USA peoples' views
> on such matters (or abortion or environmental matters) appear to be much
> more closely linked to political allegiance than elsewhere.
Tribalism is getting more intense over here. There is not such thing
as a conversation with anybody that sees things even SLIGHTLY
differently than you. It will quickly devolve into a "if you voted for
Trump/Hillary I'm going to unfriend you" type of scenario. In fact,
there are people on this very list who have said that very thing and I
just shake my head and say to myself "you are such an idiot."
The problem with discussions about climate change, specifically, is
that the proponents of "human caused climate change" are wielding it
like an axe and present themselves as the keepers of all knowledge and
reason. By setting themselves up as the only intelligent individuals
in the room, they do little to actually have a conversation and try to
influence a change of minds. Instead, the attitude is "if you don't
100% agree with me or my solutions, you must die."
That's no way to have a conversation.
By telling the other side that they are morons and have no voice in
the solution, it causes the other side to bunker down and reject
everything the self-appointed keepers-of-all-wisdom have to say.
Many years ago, I was a supporter/member of the Sierra Club. I was an
innocent person who actually thought that this organization actually
wanted to be effective at real issues and concerns. Turns out that
their only purpose for being (at that time) was to defeat George H.W.
Bush. Instead of environmental issues, they became a purely political
organization with absolutely no redeeming value. This came to a head
when there was a "call to arms" moment on a specific environmental
issue that was very specific to their charter and they declined to
have anything to do with it because all of their money and effort was
being devoted to politics instead. We were literally told to "stand
down" on what we were doing because they didn't want that
environmental cleanup effort to be completed before the election.
BTW, some of us can remember when "Acid Rain" was all the
environmental hype. I guess that doesn't matter anymore...
> With regard to climate change itself, I think most people would agree that
> major climate changes have occurred in the last 4+billion years, but we
> have to remember that man has not been around for most of that time
> (according to generally accepted modern science), and while some people
> might survive another ice-age an unmoderated rise in temperatures would
> appear likely to be disastrous for many and those living near current sea
> levels (including major capitals like London and New York) amongst the
> first to suffer.
This would assume two things:
1. The human race is NOT adaptive to change.
2. The human race is unable to physically move.
An ice age will just mean that "Burlington Coat Factory" will sell
more coats. Global warming will mean that "Speedo" will sell more
swimsuits.
Rising waters just means that coastal cities will just migrate up the
hill over time. All you have to do is look at pictures and maps of
cities from 50 years ago and you can see just how much they've changed
in that period. Cities and people are NOT STATIC.
Honestly, if we're REALLY serious about climate change and energy
waste, we should totally ban Bitcoin and jail or kill everybody
involved in Bitcoin Mining.
AG Schnozz
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|