In response to Garret…
- August 28, 2002
- No Comments
Garret at dangerousmeta! has posted a response to my articles supporting the NY Times Lomborg article.
chris, i think environmentalist scientists have hitched themselves to this ‘global warming’ wagon, and it’s going to be very hard to prove their point definitively because of the nature and size of the world’s ecosystem. there are billions of points of data, and what, a few thousand researchers? even i, leftie that i am, catch a lot of square pegs being shoved into round holes in the media. but certainly, we know that man and industry affect the environment ... which is why the market is bringing us things like electric/fuel cell cars, alternative energy sources, etcetera. the market is driving a push to sustainability, because of pollution in urban areas - *not* the environmental movement. sustainability and development are local, regional issues too ... not just linked to global warming.
I agree that the environmental scientists have jumped on the global warming bandwagon. I think the whole global arming issue is WAY over-hyped and has actually done more harm than good for the world. I DO agree that man-made gases affect the environment, but not near as much as the environmentalists say it does. One volcanic eruption can release hundreds if not thousands of times more gas than man can in one year! Even cow farts are a major contributor to “greenhouse” gases.
I think the reason the automobile industry is moving towards fuel cells is more because of political pressure and potential lost sales in the future. They don’t want to lose customers and money. I think it’d be better to move to fuel cells anyway or some kind of other alternative fuel like that fuel made from corn. I can’t remember what it’s called.
Garret goes on to say:
i’m attacking lomborg as a source. his statements are very controversial, some have been proven wrong by others (better than i). but he also gets some things correct, too. my concern is that his book is mainstream, and for the average person reading it, they will not be questioning *any* of his statements. his publishers have done the world a very poor service. if the book were edited for accuracy, it would be a much better witness against the ‘environmentalist’ agenda. as it is, it wallows in mediocrity with the rest of the genre. my primary thrust is, take him as a whole, he’s unnecessarily misleading. i can’t forgive that, in a scholar, or a scholarly work.
In terms of Lomborg, I guess I’m more forgiving of him as an author because he at least gets people to think on the flip-side of the issue. Right now, global warming scare tactics are so prevalent, you’d think we were all going to die in a few years. He may misquote things, but then again, so do the global warming gang.