"Whether you burn coal in Delhi or burn coal in Denver, we all get warm together", said Timothy Wirth on Thursday's PBS broadcast of "The News Hour with Jim Lehrer". Wirth, the UN Foundation President, was arguing the necessity of uniform global emissions control. The current controversy surrounds the United States' continued refusal to sign the Kyoto protocol, which demands a decrease in greenhouse gas emmissions of 5.2 percent since 1990 for the top 35 industrialized nations by 2012. Admirably, the U.S., seemingly on principal and practicality, has decided not to participate. Speaking idealistically, the current conservative government is trying to preserve economic liberties; a world of self-reliance and individualized decision-making without the complications of third-party totalitarian intervention. Speaking skeptically, the U.S. just wants to make more money in order to further its gluttonous capitalist agenda at the expense of environmental sustainability. Either way, however, we seem to be holding our ground in a just cause, despite the accusations of the UN. Dr. Harlan Watson, the Senior Climate Negotiator for the U.S. State Department, pointed out that the United States spends more than $5 billion a year on efforts to slow the deterioration of the earth's atmosphere by supporting climate change research and technology, and that Bush had committed to cutting greenhouses gases some 18 percent by 2012 (see link at bottom of page). This is effective, individualized control. Watson also said that the goals of the Kyoto Protocol are unobtainable. "I think that making up goals without the basis to achieve them is pointless, and in my opinion, rather cynical politics," he said.
No basis to achieve them and no basis to measure their success, so it seems. How do we measure emissions depletion when the first year of comparison was seven years before the protocol was even drafted? How does each nation accurately measure their domestic greenhouse output and compare it to readings taken twenty-two years prior, even if their were such readings taken? How do we "put a price on carbon" as Timothy Wirth so obstinately insists is necessary? Do we punish those who transgress the Kyoto strictures? Do we punish the nation as a whole, the company that refused compliance, or the factory worker who unknowingly destroyed the world while just doing his job? Is there any way to determine fault? Do we "cap" production by levying fines or do we shut the factory down entirely? Perhaps we can automate worldwide production and manufacturing with a centralized "emissions monitoring system" that pumps out the same thin stream of carbon from every factory everywhere at the same time so that everyone everywhere can enjoy the communal (and automated) notion of a healthier planet. Do we want the imagined greater good or do we want freedom?
It seems we have let these absurdities escalate to the point that we may only allude to global warming's uncertainty. Watson defends his country’s stance on global warming because he says, “the science is still just getting solid.” Massive beurocratic layers, political partisanship, and widespread anxiety have all been constructed on top of a twisted illusion, flawed reasoning and some bizarre sense of futile responsibility. Now, to the mainstream population, it seems foolishly naive to just carve through the lunacy and say "look, you're wrong, but why have such a heffer even if you're right?" The world has impetuously moved past the point of controversy with reckless acceptance. The question now isn't "why are we doing this?" but "how should we do this?”. Fifty years from now, in hindsight of the global warming scare and all other post 9/11 insanities, we will ask another question: "What have we done?"
Saturday, September 29, 2007
Sunday, September 23, 2007
Take Down Those Shutters, The Weathermen Were Wrong Again
I may be premature in celebrating yet another case of media inaccuracy resulting in pandemonium, but it is hard not to grin at every satellite image that shows NO disturbance in the tropics. Hurricane season draws nearer to its end with every passing day, and every weather report assures us of its benign passage. In previous years, the months of June through September have seen at least some threatening activity that closes schools needlessly, or in extreme cases actually blows a few trees over. Granted, the 2005 season was undeniably destructive. In response to the unexpected mayhem that ensued, experts at the National Hurricane Center and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) began issuing ominous warnings concerning future hurricane seasons. This year was supposed to be especially tumultuous, with the "El Nino and El Nina" cycles causing an "above normal" hurricane season (see NOAA link at bottom of page). If the years of Charley, Wilma and Katrina were "normal", then imagine an "above normal" season! Interestingly enough, NOAA also sites "warmer-than-normal sea surface temperatures in the Atlantic Ocean" as a cause for 2007's intense hurricane activity. As any concerned Earthling can see, if Global Warming doesn't flood the world, it will rend it to pieces with sheering gale-force winds. Yet here we are, almost to October, with only a few named storms and nothing even remotely threatening stewing in the Atlantic. Despite the fact that NOAA'a and the NHC's predictions are based on top of the line meteorological projections and intruments, they still fail to accurately assess the threat that lies just a few months ahead. However, with my luck we will all be evacuated from our homes to escape a barrage of five or six major hurricanes in the next few weeks. Then you all can say "I told you so". Until then, have no fear.
Saturday, September 15, 2007
Fearmongering Media Spotlight: Newsweek and PBS
As a followup to last week's dicussion of Newsweek's flimsy display of unabashed scare tactics, this week's blog will critique the recently aired PBS documentary "What's Up With the Weather?", which caught my attention last week. The NOVA program, which claims on its website to "investigate...the truth about global warming" (see PBS link at bottom of page) seems to engage in more "telling" than "showing", spending a majority of its airtime inventing possible cataclysmic scenarios that may or may not play out in the future. This would deviate horribly (and unethically) from NOVA's supposed commitment to forensics. It is indeed terrifying (albeit somewhat humorous) to watch as a highly realistic model of New York city is engulfed by rising waters in a matter of seconds, or as acres of lush countryside explode into flames spontaneously. Is there any doubt that these simulations are intended to scare people? Is there any doubt that they are based on speculations, theories, and exaggerated projections? However, as with Newsweek's folly, NOVA errs not only in its predictions but in the logic and statistics it uses as support. Another computer-generated simulation of apocalyptic conditions depicted huge plumes of flaming methane exploding from under the oceans, which, according to the narrator, occured millions of years ago when global heat was peaking. The implication was that the ever-intensifying impact of "human carelessness" and "destructive industry" is leading us back into the hellish and volatile conditions of the prehistoric world. I am still waiting to hear news from the archaeological community regarding the smelting factories and manufacturing plants employed so carelessly by the dinosaurs that led to their demise. Such ruins have yet to be uncovered.
I believe that the problem here is acceptance. As a society we are uncomfortable with anything less than omniscience and omnipotence. As far as global warming is concerned, we can make only vague predictions, and that which we actually can assert with relative certainty is beyond our power to prevent or control. Psychologically, it is easier for many of us to believe that we are not at the chaotic will of nature. We wish to be in control, so it is more "convenient" (not "inconvenient", as Al Gore would have us believe) to assume the blame for the problem and to propose solutions. We feel more responsible as citizens of Earth if we take upon ourselves the burden of our salvation, even if, realistically, this lies far beyond our control.
I believe that the problem here is acceptance. As a society we are uncomfortable with anything less than omniscience and omnipotence. As far as global warming is concerned, we can make only vague predictions, and that which we actually can assert with relative certainty is beyond our power to prevent or control. Psychologically, it is easier for many of us to believe that we are not at the chaotic will of nature. We wish to be in control, so it is more "convenient" (not "inconvenient", as Al Gore would have us believe) to assume the blame for the problem and to propose solutions. We feel more responsible as citizens of Earth if we take upon ourselves the burden of our salvation, even if, realistically, this lies far beyond our control.
Monday, September 10, 2007
Fearmongering Media Spotlight: Newsweek and PBS
Since the conception of my first blog one week ago, I have noticed a drastic increase in media coverage related to global warming. Often I wonder if this trend is coincidence, serendipity, or a mere solipsistic illusion my skeptical psyche is producing. Never once have I worried that the recent media frenzy might actually indicate an increase in danger; an increase in stupidity seems to be a more accurate assessment. This blog will be released in two installments - the first discussing written global warming propaganda (Newsweek) and the second discussing televised versions (PBS documentaries).
While casually thumbing through magazines at a local physician's office, I stumbled across a Newsweek cover that read: "Global Warming is a Hoax*" (see link at bottom of page). Imagine my surprise and satisfaction at finding a major news magazine in alignment with my own radical vision! To my dismay, however, I found the tiny asterisc behind the word 'hoax' led to a rather disheartening adendum: "Or so claim well-funded naysayers who still reject the overwhelming evidence of climate change. Inside the Denial Machine." I proceeded to flip through the article angrily, resenting being labelled a naysayer and indignant for the small population of level-headed citizens who rightfully decide not to be swept away in a tide of pointless fear. I frantically scoured the article's statistics for any flaw or hole, and found one within seconds. Written beneath a small picture was the caption: "Naysayers claim that humans aren't responsible for global temperature increase because 1996 was the hottest year on record. Atmospheric carbon however has steadily increased." From this statistic alone, it is obvious no positive correlation exists between carbon emissions and global temperature. Perhaps the fearmongers at Newsweek should comprehend basic experimentation and statistical methods before making wild claims about global temperature causation. Newsweek should also reassess their assumption that "naysayers" deny climate change outright. Few people would actually deny the climate on our earth is changing. Yes, the globe is in the midst of a warming trend. No, its exact cause(s) cannot be determined. Even the most advanced meteorological devices can hardly provide an accurate two-day forecast. Allowing ourselves to be scared of our own planet and our own industry based on speculative generalities or shoddy statistics is just foolish.
The climate has always been in a phase of change. It is merely the executives in media and government that call our attention to it and paint the phenomenon as an imminent apocalypse. As I described in my last entry, the powers that be wish to maintain fear in the masses. In the late 1990's and into the turn of the century, global warming was a commonly discussed issue. After 9/11, however, it was thrown by the wayside and replaced with the fear of future acts of terror. For several years, the American public was obsessed with international terrorism and color-coded threat levels. So much time has passed since the last major attack, however, that U.S. citizens have started to become complacent and confident, or at least bored with the terrorism scare. Now we are back to the old stand-by, climate change, which will never go away until the end of the earth.
While casually thumbing through magazines at a local physician's office, I stumbled across a Newsweek cover that read: "Global Warming is a Hoax*" (see link at bottom of page). Imagine my surprise and satisfaction at finding a major news magazine in alignment with my own radical vision! To my dismay, however, I found the tiny asterisc behind the word 'hoax' led to a rather disheartening adendum: "Or so claim well-funded naysayers who still reject the overwhelming evidence of climate change. Inside the Denial Machine." I proceeded to flip through the article angrily, resenting being labelled a naysayer and indignant for the small population of level-headed citizens who rightfully decide not to be swept away in a tide of pointless fear. I frantically scoured the article's statistics for any flaw or hole, and found one within seconds. Written beneath a small picture was the caption: "Naysayers claim that humans aren't responsible for global temperature increase because 1996 was the hottest year on record. Atmospheric carbon however has steadily increased." From this statistic alone, it is obvious no positive correlation exists between carbon emissions and global temperature. Perhaps the fearmongers at Newsweek should comprehend basic experimentation and statistical methods before making wild claims about global temperature causation. Newsweek should also reassess their assumption that "naysayers" deny climate change outright. Few people would actually deny the climate on our earth is changing. Yes, the globe is in the midst of a warming trend. No, its exact cause(s) cannot be determined. Even the most advanced meteorological devices can hardly provide an accurate two-day forecast. Allowing ourselves to be scared of our own planet and our own industry based on speculative generalities or shoddy statistics is just foolish.
The climate has always been in a phase of change. It is merely the executives in media and government that call our attention to it and paint the phenomenon as an imminent apocalypse. As I described in my last entry, the powers that be wish to maintain fear in the masses. In the late 1990's and into the turn of the century, global warming was a commonly discussed issue. After 9/11, however, it was thrown by the wayside and replaced with the fear of future acts of terror. For several years, the American public was obsessed with international terrorism and color-coded threat levels. So much time has passed since the last major attack, however, that U.S. citizens have started to become complacent and confident, or at least bored with the terrorism scare. Now we are back to the old stand-by, climate change, which will never go away until the end of the earth.
Monday, September 3, 2007
Disease, Destruction, Defrosting: Fearmongering of All Sorts
The government exists solely to perpetuate and increase its own power, control and influence. It accomplishes this through the continual delusion of the populace; convincing every individual that the world is riddled with countless threats, that each day careens to the brink of apocalypse, and that it is only with the protective hand of government that our lives are spared from certain doom. The powers that be impose upon the masses a STATE OF FEAR in order to ensure our allegiance, control our concerns, and maintain a predictable, orderly society. Such is the hidden intent of our current enemy: Global Warming.
The smallest bit of private research will yield thousands of absolute FACTS that directly contradict the outlandish claims of politicians, the media, and fearmongerers of all sorts; this information is readily available and need not be detailed here. What needs to be discussed is why there is no reason to fear, and why the rest of the world should see this “problem” as a flagrant piece of subjugating propaganda, a fabrication, and a string of outright lies that Big Brother would envy for its sinister genius.
To put it briefly, even if the “problem” is truly manmade, and it is indeed human carelessness that hastens us to a fiery demise, then why have we not curbed the predicament already? The technology currently exists and has existed for decades that can liberate our over-industrialized world from dependence on noxious fuels, and yet we continue to allow greedy oil executives (and greedier politicians) to “pollute” our atmosphere with countless cubic tons of carbon emissions. In the meantime, we normal citizens are told that putting up a clothesline instead of using an automatic dryer will save the planet. To quote the pithy John Stossel: “Give me a break!”. Further, most constituents of the baby-boomer generation with even a fading hindsight will remember being warned of “global cooling”, another unseen and unfounded phenomena that threatened to plunge the globe into a second ice age (see link at bottom of page). But why doesn’t anyone seem to notice? It seems the immediacy of fear always blinds the eyes of equanimity and logic, as evidenced by the episodic pandemonium that has defined the United States’ history: Communism, atomic holocaust, drugs, bird flu, terrorism, and global warming. The government and media (in concert) define our fears until they themselves fear the populace will “move on” and realize that the impending catastrophe is likely to never occur. The result is the pandemonium of authority, in which the officials and executives detect the populace’s growing sense of optimism and self-reliance - the people stop clinging fearfully to their remotes, viewership declines, and fascism fizzles in a proud hurrah of enlightened confidence. As a result, the government continues its juggling act, replacing the previous threat with another, this one far more horrific than anyone could possibly imagine. The process is so formulaic it borders on self-incrimination, but our leadership is evolving to counter any threat of skepticism. Gone are the days when America chooses adversaries that can be extinguished with legislation, diplomacy, or even war. Nowadays we fight immortal and intangible foes, like anti-Americanism, terror, and, yes, even our own planet Earth. And what are our weapons? Why, government-run organizations of course! Agencies, departments, commisions, and coalitions all fighting valiantly against imaginary problems, and failing miserably. The government pours hundreds of billions of dollars into organizations that are incompetent, unhelpful, counterproductive, and thus self-sustaining. Their blunders ensure that the “problems” are never actually solved, and in turn secure hundreds of billions more wasted dollars. This is the role of our leadership. This is the state of fear.
The smallest bit of private research will yield thousands of absolute FACTS that directly contradict the outlandish claims of politicians, the media, and fearmongerers of all sorts; this information is readily available and need not be detailed here. What needs to be discussed is why there is no reason to fear, and why the rest of the world should see this “problem” as a flagrant piece of subjugating propaganda, a fabrication, and a string of outright lies that Big Brother would envy for its sinister genius.
To put it briefly, even if the “problem” is truly manmade, and it is indeed human carelessness that hastens us to a fiery demise, then why have we not curbed the predicament already? The technology currently exists and has existed for decades that can liberate our over-industrialized world from dependence on noxious fuels, and yet we continue to allow greedy oil executives (and greedier politicians) to “pollute” our atmosphere with countless cubic tons of carbon emissions. In the meantime, we normal citizens are told that putting up a clothesline instead of using an automatic dryer will save the planet. To quote the pithy John Stossel: “Give me a break!”. Further, most constituents of the baby-boomer generation with even a fading hindsight will remember being warned of “global cooling”, another unseen and unfounded phenomena that threatened to plunge the globe into a second ice age (see link at bottom of page). But why doesn’t anyone seem to notice? It seems the immediacy of fear always blinds the eyes of equanimity and logic, as evidenced by the episodic pandemonium that has defined the United States’ history: Communism, atomic holocaust, drugs, bird flu, terrorism, and global warming. The government and media (in concert) define our fears until they themselves fear the populace will “move on” and realize that the impending catastrophe is likely to never occur. The result is the pandemonium of authority, in which the officials and executives detect the populace’s growing sense of optimism and self-reliance - the people stop clinging fearfully to their remotes, viewership declines, and fascism fizzles in a proud hurrah of enlightened confidence. As a result, the government continues its juggling act, replacing the previous threat with another, this one far more horrific than anyone could possibly imagine. The process is so formulaic it borders on self-incrimination, but our leadership is evolving to counter any threat of skepticism. Gone are the days when America chooses adversaries that can be extinguished with legislation, diplomacy, or even war. Nowadays we fight immortal and intangible foes, like anti-Americanism, terror, and, yes, even our own planet Earth. And what are our weapons? Why, government-run organizations of course! Agencies, departments, commisions, and coalitions all fighting valiantly against imaginary problems, and failing miserably. The government pours hundreds of billions of dollars into organizations that are incompetent, unhelpful, counterproductive, and thus self-sustaining. Their blunders ensure that the “problems” are never actually solved, and in turn secure hundreds of billions more wasted dollars. This is the role of our leadership. This is the state of fear.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)