Posted by
HARRY on Thursday, March 22, 2007 3:36:08 PM
I am trying desperately to figure out why so many people are vehemently opposed to the idea that we humans contribute and/or are causing global warming. In that vein, I’d like to examine the possible motivations (if any) of opposing the idea.
With regard to global warming and we humans, there are four main possibilities:
The first is that we are contributing to global warming and that we’re not the cause. The second is that we are causing global warming and it’s not a natural occurrence . The third is that we have nothing to do with global warming at all and that it’s solely a natural occurrence. And the fourth is that there is no global warming.
Now, without even deciding which one of these possibilities is actually true, which one would cause someone to be so alarmed at the idea of global warming that they would attack it? Which one would spur someone (anyone) to the position that we should NOT reduce the emission of pollutants? Which one would make someone want to support a continued reliance on oil, gas and coal? Which one of these possibilities would make a person in the media spend hours and hours reiterating to the public that there is no such thing as global warming? And that is my basic problem - I’m not sure what about these four possibilities would motivate someone to (not only) take a polar position, but to take a polar position and then get a stick and beat it to death? Where’s the motivation to do that?
Aren’t we better off reducing our reliance on fossil fuels anyway? Aren’t we better off reducing our emission of pollutants anyway? Aren’t we better off conserving our resources anyway? Why not just agree and hope that (even if it’s not true) global warming could lead to some positive beneficial outcomes? Are there any positive outcomes that result from opposing the idea? Well, let’s look at the result of taking a polar position and actually convincing people that either there is no global warming or that we’re not the cause. What happens if the anti-global-warming-people sway your opinion? To begin, a clear distraction from alternative fuel sources is the first result. We don’t need those because the one’s we’re using are just fine. Gas, oil and coal - get em’ while they’re hot! Hm. Who would want that to the be the thinking instilled in the mind of the America public? Then there’s also a clear distraction from conservation. We don’t need to conserve when we’re not the cause. Use up all the resources we have (provided) for as long as you want. Need an SUV - go get one! Hm, Who would prefer that we thought that? Then finally, there’s the ancillary fungus which says we don’t need to reduce emissions at all. Need another factory to build them Nike shoes - take two! Want to continue to sell that pollutant making product - no problem! Hm. Wonder who would benefit from that trend of thought?
If I’m wrong about what the motivations are (and you may have gathered what I think they are) and there’s some other viable motivation for opposing the idea of global warming, please feel free to tell me what it or they are. Until then I’ll be out cruising in my Hummer.