Posted by
BrianR on Friday, July 24, 2009 1:00:52 PM
In debating the issue of “climate change” with the supporters of government legislation, I always point out that in spite of their claims that humans are the driving causative force in causing any such change – such claims inevitably including driving SUVs, coal- or petroleum-based power generation, etc. – climate change is actually caused by much larger factors far beyond human control or influence.
For example:
The ice caps on Mars are shrinking. Too many SUVs?
The eruption of ONE volcano – Mount Saint Helens – spewed more pollutants into the atmosphere than mankind has done in his entire existence. The eruption of Krakatoa in the 19th Century was orders of magnitude greater than Mt. St. Helens. There are quite a few volcanoes in existence right now that could go at any time.
The phenomena that cause planetary climate changes are of such immense magnitude -- be they orbital variations, solar emission variations, terrestrial geologic events such as tectonic plate movements or massive volcanic eruptions, among many others including natural climactic “cycling” -- that anything we puny humans can do is simply meaningless by comparison. It's like trying to change the ocean levels by peeing in the surf.
Almost
thirty-two thousand scientists who specialize in the fields directly relating to climatology have signed a petition debunking the pseudo-science at the root of this proposed policy (
here).
Does that mean that our activities are transparent? Of course not. Everything that happens has SOME effect, no matter how small. The humidity levels in the San Fernando Valley here in LA County have risen over the last 40 years because of all the swimming pools that have been built, for example.
But we also have to accept that there ARE some costs that are assumed in order to enjoy the benefits of living in this modern era -- or in ANY era, for that matter. The Indians who originally occupied the Los Angeles basin when the Spaniards dropped by had created quite a "smog" (as we currently know it) in the area with the fires they used for heat and cooking in their villages. That was hundreds of years ago. We actually have a cleaner environment NOW than they did THEN.
Further, as technology advances we get evermore "eco-friendly" developments that are naturally incorporated into our products and lifestyle. But the key word is "naturally", not unrealistically imposed by Draconian government fiat. That's one of the reasons China and the developing world simply blew off Obama's "climate change" proposals last week. They'd rather keep developing and enjoying the fruits of the modern world than remain as Third World beggars, and I don't blame them. This kind of regulatory proposal is a luxury that can only occur in a nation that already enjoys so many benefits that it has a class that suffers from some weird guilt trip that motivates them to look to extraneous causes to champion as they take our benefits for granted. That's exactly the kind of thinking that has ultimately led to the downfall of the great nations in history.
There are costs to everything in life, and anyone who thinks we can somehow magically change our dependance on oil or coal or artificially impose a limit on pollution when the technology doesn't currently exist to do so; and make that happen without imposing very significant costs on society through artificial curtailment of activity or the types of products available, leading to a regression in production and/or lifestyle... well, that's worse than unrealistic. It’s naïve and ignorant to the lessons of human history.
The last and greatest problem with their thesis is that climate change is inherently and inevitably a bad thing. Why would they assume that?
All of Los Angeles County was buried under about a mile of ice a mere 10,000 years ago, and woolly mammoths and sabre-toothed cats were part of the local fauna. That's obviously no longer true, and that’s a GOOD thing.
I can live in the Santa Clarita Valley today because of the artificial environment we've created. Back in the mid 1970s, when I lived on the Westside of LA city, I used to drive out here to shoot my guns. There was basically nothing here except for a few small neighborhoods on what’s now the south side of town. This was nothing but one dry and hot desert landscape, dotted with a few onion fields and orange groves.
But now we’ve created a completely different landscape, built an infrastructure, imported water, built a mall, theaters, amenities, residential neighborhoods… an entire community capable of self-support in what was formerly a hostile landscape.
I have no doubt we’ve had an impact on the local mini-climate and ecology. Is that a bad thing? What’s the greater good? A thriving and productive community sensitive to local issues, that strives to protect its own resources while maximizing their benefit? Or a barren wasteland home to some lizards and coyotes and a few weeds?
As to the macro-ecology, there are extinctions all the time, and have been throughout history. As a matter of fact, paleontologists will tell you that our current era is one of the most stable and benign in the entire history of the planet. Unusually so, and it’s long overdue to change. Significantly.
The very idea that we puny humans are the determinant factor to the climatological future of the planet is not only unrealistic, but arrogant to the point of hubris.