Monday, March 01, 2010

Hoax Hoax Hoax

Some people seem to think global warming is a hoax.

Not that it's not happening, or that it is happening and can't hurt us, or that humankind can't adversely affect it one way or another. But that it is a straight-up scam perpetrated by government-bankrolled scientists to keep their jobs and make us all dependent on the socialists or whatever. Not to mention, hey, AL GORE!!

Can somebody please explain that to me?

It seems to me that, even in eco-conscious 2010, all the big bucks are still in fossil fuels. What little lip-service you see towards green energy is almost inevitably some TV spot about how Chevron loves the eagles and whatnot. So if the scientists really wanted to get rich, hitching up with Exxon-Mobil, et al. would seem to me the way to go. As it is, many have gone that way.

If green technology was anywhere near the racket that petroleum is, the Middle East would be all over it. Any idea how much sun and wind is in Saudi Arabia?

As for Al Gore, well, it's a pretty pathetic argument that he's in it for the money. He comes from a Tennessee political and economic dynasty; has he ever needed the dough? Not likely. Furthermore, Gore isn't making huge profits; he has said under oath that proceeds from his endeavors are reinvested directly into more research and development. Last I checked, that's the same kind of business model conservatives revere when it's anyone other than Al Gore or the other liberal-leaning rich guys using it for anything other than sheer profit and/or prison. What happened to entrepreneurship being the lifeblood of America? Or is that only applicable when it's Wal-Mart?

Only critics of climate change could be so compartmentalized in their beliefs that they would denounce their precious free market - the very one they claim is under fire from environmentalists - to make their point.

Climate change is just another issue, like the tea parties, where I wish the people involved would just say what they really want to say and be done with it: "I don't believe in global warming because doing so means I'd have to make some minor changes in my daily life. And that would take effort and probably cost money, too. As an American, I won't stand for that. Greed is good."

Except greed for a greener planet, apparently.

7 comments:

herb said...

Your posts don't seem to have any point anymore, it's like you're just trolling.

Ian McGibboney said...

You're right, Herb. I'm just trolling here on my own blog in the hopes that somebody puts a glib, sarcastic, ironic non-sequitur as a response. That's why I totally jumped topics throughout this post with no rhyme or reason.

You're gonna have to try harder from here on out, Herb. Otherwise, you'll join Alday and all the other trolls in the comment recycle bin.

herb said...

Don't worry, I'll leave. Your blog posts are basically the same quality as the comments section of a Youtube video anyway, nothing worth staying around for.

Ian McGibboney said...

To say nothing of what my actual comments sections are like...

Michael said...

One reason it doesn't look like anything much is getting done is that there isn't likely to be one singular answer to the problem. If there were, and we knew what it was (both highly questionable assumptions), then it would make sense to throw as much money at it as possible in an effort to spur progress.

Since we don't know what will work best, and since we know we're going to have to attack the problem on multiple fronts, the money is being spread widely. Five years ago, if you went to Grants.gov and searched for grant opportunities for alternative energy, you'd probably have found three or four, mostly concentrated in the Department of Energy and maybe one in the National Science Foundation. Try that same search now, and you'll find money all over the place: DOE, NSF, USDA, NIST. You'll also find easily twice or three times as many opportunities.

Then there's the second-level efforts. Until we come up with a few really good solutions for getting off of fossil fuels altogether, we also have to work on making the fossil fuels we still use work harder for us. That means greater fuel efficiency in cars and trucks, etc. A better power grid that doesn't waste a quarter of the power generated (or more) before it ever gets to a consumer. Better batteries. Better remediation to control for the effects of greenhouse gases and other pollutants. Improved power plant designs.

Apropos the resident troll, I'm forced to wonder just how much we could trim from our carbon budget if we eliminated all the conservacon gasbags' TV shows and taxed them every time they flapped their jaws to spread more bull.

NOLA Progressive said...

It's the 1950's again. The age old white man's wet dream. The longing for the Donna Reed fantasy world of "working at the plant" and "a chicken in every pot" etc, etc, ad nauseum. There is simply a resistance to change, especially a change in what is perceived as culture.

Reducing carbon emissions would equate to a significant change in culture. Far less Hummers (well they are dead now, but you get the point), dual wheel pickups, hot rod sports machines, and all. I know I harp on this topic a lot, but you have to look at the religous imiplications as well. Tackling this problem head on would mean that all of these "Christians" would have to accept that it isn't all just in God's hands. They do have a significant impact on their environment, and everything isn't simply "His Will". This is really hard for a lot of these folks to accept.

Pair all of that with the fact that the "government" will be involved with it, and their would be oversight and regulation on businesses, and you have the perfect storm of resistance. Also, consider that many Republicans and Democrats alike are heavily financially vested in Petroleum and other large Carbon emitting industry and bada bing!

heygetthis said...

Poor Herb.

Besides the minor inconvenience for some climate-change denialists, they would also have to affect a changed world view. That isn't easy after being clay in the hands of propagandists for years.

For folks who are simply confused, and who don't really have bad intentions (just weak science backgrounds), I offer 'Dead 'Ol Pits Society' and 'Dentistry & Glaciers', at the link. We can communicate to folks and make progress against the manipulative polemicists. Or, I hope like hell we can.