Today’s debate about global warming is essentially a debate about freedom. The environmentalists would like to mastermind each and every possible (and impossible) aspect of our lives. Vaclav Klaus.
Footer
About Me
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Read morePayPal
Yes, I agree. A very big part of the global warming debate is about freedom. But there are at least two other considerations.
For religiously indifferent, wanna-be True Believers, Anthropogenic Global Warming Disasterism (AGWD) is a dream come true. It’s an opportunity for people to wrap their lives around a glorious secular cause that gives meaning to their existence.
For me, there’s a fascinating question that few seem to be asking. Why are so many scientists willing to go along with the obvious codswallop? The obvious answer: AGWD is a multi-billion dollar industry. Speaking your mind can jeopardize funding for your future research projects. There’s also a not-so-obvious answer.
A very real problem that we’re beginning to face already is dwindling supplies of non-renewable and semi-renewable natural resources. Some people have already heard about Peak Oil. Peak natural gas is equally imminent, but apparently less newsworthy. There’s concern about the reserves of platinum–used in catalytic converters–and about other metal ores. In the drier parts of the U.S. and other countries, agriculture and industry are mining aquifers faster than nature can refill them with new water. Yet this doesn’t really register on the radar screens of most people.
Back in the late 1970s, Jimmy Carter was talking about a coming energy crisis that’s above and beyond the Oil Shock of 1979. But most people didn’t want to hear about it. Why? Because they didn’t want to make reasonable sacrifices for the sake of future generations. A popular meme at the time was: Oh, we’ve got plenty of oil. Translation: I don’t give a hoot; I’ll be dead long before the fit hits the shan.
The minority of scientifically literate Merkin politicians who are aware of the long-term problems are very mindful of what happened to Carter’s presidency. And they don’t want to make the same mistakes.
Western Europeans (and Australians) are less myopic. People in these countries can see the logic behind high petrol taxes, and other environmental measures. Generally speaking, Europeans and the Japanese will be hit hardest by spiraling oil and natural gas prices. In contrast, the Americas are the Saudi Arabias of tar sands and coal. (Relative to population size, Australia is well-endowed with coal, uranium, etc.) To a certain extent the Europeans may be making a virtue out of necessity.
On the other hand, Norway still has some offshore oil. There have been oil discoveries in Albania. And the Swedes have a plan to become significantly less dependent on Middle East oil by 2020. My guess is that they’ll be using part of their vast forest reserves (compared to the relatively small population of less than 10 million) to make bio-butanol.
Some big questions. How many countries are poised to make ‘soft landings’ when world-wide oil and natural gas production are both declining, in the face of increasing demand? What kinds of sacrifices will be necessary to ensure soft landings in the coming era of sky-high oil and natural gas prices (after we pull out of the current world-wide recession)? Is it political suicide to make realistic preparations?
Observation. There’s considerable overlap between measures for mitigating both AGWD and Peak Oil. Example: energy efficiency is a least-regrets approach that makes sense in either scenario.
Apparently it’s tempting for the world’s political leaders to invoke the AGWD bogeyman, in order to scare the bejesus out of their constituents. Apparently laying the known facts on the table, and explaining the various options in a rational way is not considered to be an option. Too much political risk. And much less fun. But there’s a downside.
If the present short-term global cooling trend continues, the IPCC, Al Gore, James Hansen, and the other AGWD prophets of doom will end up with a lot of egg on their faces. More to the point, the entire scientific profession will be tainted by the AGWD fraudsters. And long-term, evidence-based environmental management will become an even tougher sell.
I just had to leave a few comments after I read your post. Yes this global warming thing is a sham. The major party that will benefit from it is Al Gore. His company will be collecting the money from the carbon credit taxes that will be forced upon us. That notwithstanding there are other issues: the so called oil shortage is a lie.
In the early 1970’s a well was drilled on Gull Island off Prudoe Bay it had at test almost 3 trillion barrels in it. This well was shut down by our government the same day even though it could have provided Americans with enough oil even if our use doubled … for three hundred years. The well was made Top Secret and the oilmen were told that they would be shut down if they took one drop out.
Last year the US Geological Survey Service told Congress in April that the Bakken reserves in North Dakota, South Dakota and Western Montana contained approximately 3 trillion barrels on land in the US. Between these two huge deposits there is more oil than all of the Middle East countries all put together. That does not include the huge discovery made a year or so ago in the Gulf of Mexico. After it was first announced the news put a cap on that one so that no one talked about it. We are being sold a bill of goods about oil and being charged outrageous prices for it when … if we used our own oil it would cost $19.00 or so dollars a barrel and would be very cheap at the pump.
It’s time to take our country back from the environmentalists who want to shut this country down. Have you ever followed the money that flows through to them.. the sponsors have ties to other countries. I bet you can guess which ones!
Time to tackle our representatives and rattle their cages about this oil thing .. prices are going back up again. We need to re elect people who will really represent the average Joe and his family here in the USA.
My best. Patti