Responding to global warming skeptics in 3 simple steps

I received the following from a global warming skeptic:

I'm not sure that this scientist's point of view is in the minority. There are plenty of scientists, and they are quite established, who beg to disagree with the view that the world will be severely affected by climate. Just think that back in the 90s the popular scientific viewpoint was that global cooling was going to bring a new ice age. Through all of this, I wasn't trying to say that global warming isn't going to happen, only that the whole environmental issue has become more of a political issue than a scientific one. No offense to Al Gore or David Suzuki, but they aren't exactly role models for changing the environment; Gore lives in a home that consumes as much electricity in a month that an average home consumes in a year, and Suzuki drives an SUV as his typical vehicle. Finally, it would be nice to stop carbon emissions, but this is the least likely thing to happen in the fight against global warming. Right now there is no conceivable way to accomplish that, though maybe in 100 years we may figure out how to. Everything runs on hydrocarbons, from cars, planes, rockets, factories, etc. Whether we like it or not, our economy will totally collapse without some continued use of carbon emitting energy sources. Apart from these issues, while north america is going haywire over the environment, we have countries like China and India which produce just as much pollution as we used to 50 years ago. Global warming is going to take a global effort, and until that happens, the best we can do is limit what we consume.

God Bless,

---------------------

And my response:

Attacking what a person does rather than their message is the ad hominum fallacy, and is not a valid line of argument. ie- if someone smokes that does not mean they are wrong if they say smoking is bad for you.
Global Warming is one of the most studied scientific issues in human history. The UN reports have involved thousands of scientist and years of research. Furthermore, just because something seems impossible doesn't mean you don't try. Most people in Britain thought it was hopeless when they stood alone against the Nazis. In the late 50s no one thought the US would make it to the moon in 10 years either.
Blaming India and China isn't much better than a child saying they should be able to misbehave because they saw someone else do it. Besides, Christians are called to lead, not to follow. The health of the planet is a moral issue and a Christian one. The Vatican itself is holding a conference this year on the Christian response to global warming. (See the most recent edition of the Catholic Register). To not "fight the good fight" on global warming is immoral, especially since millions of the world's poorest are expected to die form its effects. Should anyone be willing to take that chance because they are "not sure" about the science?
God bless.You friend, Mike D.

An Exit Strategy

First, a mea culpa of my own: I should be blogging more! After a few months ruminating in my own pessimism I figure total silence is even less useful. So on we go...

In this little article here an American exit strategy for Iraq is discussed. No doubt an exit is needed...it is impossible to doubt the need for a massively different strategy when the current troop deployment only seems to be sightly slowing the descent towards civil war. While I believe the Americans have a reaponsibility to clean up the mess they made, it hardly seems possible to "win hearts and minds" when the local population knows you're there for the oil (or maybe to keep a buffer against Iran?).

I won't discuss every point of the larger article (maybe at a later date) but I think a true international stabalization force with substantial Muslim involvement is absolutely necessary. Maybe, just maybe, if the American presence in the region humbly devotes itself to reconstruction (including paying most of the bill) Iraqis might respect and support that.

The country can not be abandoned to become another terrorist training camp and anarchaic breeding ground for crime and chaos, but nothing will improve unless the global community joins hands and massively increases its efforts in Iraq.

Just don't hold your breath waiting for it to happen.

Why Harper and Myself are Idiots

As the Canadian government rapidly dismantles Kyoto commitments--see here for the latest example, I'm kicking myself for thinking the Conservatives couldn't do very much because of their minority position. I of course forgot that they can very easily gut all programs without actually pulling out if the treaty.

How very stupid of me.

Will this come to a head? Do Canadians really care? I can't shake the feeling that Canadians talk a very good environmental game (prior to Harper) but your average voter doesn't care very much about global warming. Hands up anyone who thinks Kyoto will significantly impact the next election. Anyone?

A First Shout into the Noise

I am a tech-savy individual and yet I'm terribly, horrificly late to the blogging party. Always considered it not terribly important, especially if it was a self-indulgent exercise involving myself and a readership that could be counted on one hand. Go big or go home I guess. It will be an interesting experiment nonetheless.

Global Ramblings implies a sort of broad focus, also encompassing an interest in politics and "issues" of the day. You'll get to know me as we move along. This will NOT be one of those insufferable public diaries. Possible topics to bore or excite may include:

-The rise of Asia
-US (mis)adventures on the global stage
-Internet issues
-Philosophical wonderings
-Globalization, economics, etc...blah, blah, blah
-Whatever I bloody well please :)

Please feel free to engage me. See you out there