I don't think the global warming movement is a religion, but there are some fun social parallels to the middle ages church. Cap-and-trade has the look of indulgences and the treatment of heretics.
I am really worried that we have lost all semblance and science and am truly glad that none of the "solutions" to global cooling in the 1970s were implemented (spread ash on the north pole). I really think no one has been served by the politicalizing of science. I worry that anti-corporation and anti-technology are so mixed into this stuff.
I don't think the global warming movement is a religion, but there are some fun social parallels to the middle ages church. Cap-and-trade has the look of indulgences and the treatment of heretics.
Sure, if you really want to view everything through a politicized perspective. Seems to me like a pretty sensible way to apply decentralized market principles to implement a reduction in emissions. What would you prefer, strict limits set by authoritarian fiat, regardless of economic costs? Turning the ability to produce CO2 into a tradable commodity and letting market forces find the most cost-effective means of reducing output seems like a very sound plan.
The cap-and-trade argument is amusing, though; it's pretty funny to hear people who are essentially socialists advocating a market-based solution, while supposed free market supporters complain bitterly. Ah, politics.
I am really worried that we have lost all semblance and science and am truly glad that none of the "solutions" to global cooling in the 1970s were implemented (spread ash on the north pole).
The difference being, of course, that "global cooling" was a briefly considered hypothesis that got sensationalized in the media, while the warming trends are backed by near unanimous scientific consensus over many years.
Not that anyone could tell by listening to how the issues are discussed, of course. Who cares what the actual scientists say?
I really think no one has been served by the politicalizing of science. I worry that anti-corporation and anti-technology are so mixed into this stuff.
Opposition to nuclear power is a good example; environmentally it's probably the best option we currently have, but supposed environmentalists oppose it for... reasons that I don't really understand. Again, apparently no one cares what the science says...
I think there currently is precious little in this whole debate that isn't politicized. Anytime you deal with people and social solution you get politics. I just find it interesting that some of the thinking that brought paid indulgences to the medieval church have returned in the modern era. The history of indulgences is very entertaining.
My personal biggest problem with cap-and-trade is that it doesn't address any issues of the third world. Also, after reading about the implementation, it seems to create a new class of people making money off a system and not a product.
I think there currently is precious little in this whole debate that isn't politicized.
Yes, which is all the more reason to call out the bullshit artists when they're trying to make things worse. Just throwing your hands up and ignoring it only enables the people who want to twist science to their own ends.
I don't mind calling people out. I think removing the fallacies from debates is a great thing, but the bullshit artists have the biggest megaphones. Look at this article http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=887768 for the vaccine version of this crap. Too many people are using this particular debate to advance a monetary or political (anti-globalization, anti-technology, etc.) position that the real data and issues are not even part of the conversation anymore.
I am really worried that we have lost all semblance and science and am truly glad that none of the "solutions" to global cooling in the 1970s were implemented (spread ash on the north pole). I really think no one has been served by the politicalizing of science. I worry that anti-corporation and anti-technology are so mixed into this stuff.