I promised a while ago to write my take and thoughts on climate change, and so I will try to do that...
at the houseparty last weekend I was asked what it would take me to start believing that humans were in fact mainly responsible for climate change. I don't remember having a good answer then, but I have one now: when there is ample evidence for it. as long as there are professors at acknowledged universities (university of bermuda does not count!) claiming it's simply not true, rather than politicians and alarmists/activitists, I will believe them. scientific facts show that other planets, e.g. neptune and mars, are getting warmer with natural causes (we're not affecting those planets now, are we?) and patterns very similar to the earth. world climate report is a very interesting blog dealing with many issues in this regard.
I think one of my main concerns is that this whole climate debate has turned into a witch hunt, where anyone the least sceptic is basically declared a heretic. it slightly reminds of a few centuries back when the church vehemently refused to accept the theory of the non-flatness of the earth. even though there were only approximately two people (galilee and copernicus) believing the earth was round, they turned out to be right.
the consequences, as I've written before, are that many developing countries are not being able or allowed to develop, since they are being forced to be experimenting with renewable sources of energy, which are often more expensive and less efficient. sure, they might be cleaner, but is it worth it?
here's a bit more on climate change and the moral aspects of it.
now, I'm not saying that the minority is always right or that we shouldn't be doing anything at all about the effects of climate change and completely ignore it. the climate *is* changing, people just can't agree on whether we have anything to do with the big picture or not. here's an interesting video about it:
the point he's making is simply very similar to pascal's wager. do we want to risk doing nothing at all to see what happens in the end? how morally justifiable is that really?
I kinda don't agree with his second video though, as it gets too much on the side that claims anthropogenic (human-caused) climate change is true:
there have been proven cases of human-caused climate change which have led to collapses in society, societies that were in their peak and prime. easter islands, the maya are two historical examples, and there are plenty more. and these are societies and civilizations that lasted for more than 1000 years, which is far more than what our current civilization has been around. (I'm reading a book about it now, and will review it later.) and if nothing is done or considered, we do face the risk of sealing our own fate, regardless of the major climate changes happening in the world.
it's never responsible to let out pollution so that it makes people feel ill and hurts the environment, and it's never acceptable to use less efficient means just because it's easier or cheaper, we have to always consider the consequences of all our actions.
as for climate change, what I think is needed is unbiased research by scientists without any political agenda involved. as of right now there are too many biased people involved who want to skew the facts so that it fits with their plans and programs. that will naturally prove very costly in the long run.
at the houseparty last weekend I was asked what it would take me to start believing that humans were in fact mainly responsible for climate change. I don't remember having a good answer then, but I have one now: when there is ample evidence for it. as long as there are professors at acknowledged universities (university of bermuda does not count!) claiming it's simply not true, rather than politicians and alarmists/activitists, I will believe them. scientific facts show that other planets, e.g. neptune and mars, are getting warmer with natural causes (we're not affecting those planets now, are we?) and patterns very similar to the earth. world climate report is a very interesting blog dealing with many issues in this regard.
I think one of my main concerns is that this whole climate debate has turned into a witch hunt, where anyone the least sceptic is basically declared a heretic. it slightly reminds of a few centuries back when the church vehemently refused to accept the theory of the non-flatness of the earth. even though there were only approximately two people (galilee and copernicus) believing the earth was round, they turned out to be right.
the consequences, as I've written before, are that many developing countries are not being able or allowed to develop, since they are being forced to be experimenting with renewable sources of energy, which are often more expensive and less efficient. sure, they might be cleaner, but is it worth it?
here's a bit more on climate change and the moral aspects of it.
now, I'm not saying that the minority is always right or that we shouldn't be doing anything at all about the effects of climate change and completely ignore it. the climate *is* changing, people just can't agree on whether we have anything to do with the big picture or not. here's an interesting video about it:
the point he's making is simply very similar to pascal's wager. do we want to risk doing nothing at all to see what happens in the end? how morally justifiable is that really?
I kinda don't agree with his second video though, as it gets too much on the side that claims anthropogenic (human-caused) climate change is true:
there have been proven cases of human-caused climate change which have led to collapses in society, societies that were in their peak and prime. easter islands, the maya are two historical examples, and there are plenty more. and these are societies and civilizations that lasted for more than 1000 years, which is far more than what our current civilization has been around. (I'm reading a book about it now, and will review it later.) and if nothing is done or considered, we do face the risk of sealing our own fate, regardless of the major climate changes happening in the world.
it's never responsible to let out pollution so that it makes people feel ill and hurts the environment, and it's never acceptable to use less efficient means just because it's easier or cheaper, we have to always consider the consequences of all our actions.
as for climate change, what I think is needed is unbiased research by scientists without any political agenda involved. as of right now there are too many biased people involved who want to skew the facts so that it fits with their plans and programs. that will naturally prove very costly in the long run.
No comments:
Post a Comment