The Exaggeration Crisis
America faces an alarming crisis of epic proportions! Yes, I'm exaggerating, and that's the problem. Everyone is exaggerating everything.
I saw this ad about the "climate crisis":
Okay, it's a little funny. But when did the climate change/global warming issue become a crisis? Even in the most extreme scenarios the biggest changes will take decades to occur. I always thought a crisis was something where the problems are happening now. Hurricane Katrina caused a crisis. If all the fears come true, then global warming might cause a crisis (or many crises) in the future. But it ain't a crisis yet.
Now we've also got the tomato crisis. There's some outbreak of people getting salmonella, and they're pretty sure it's coming from contaminated fresh tomatoes. This is national news, and many are calling it a crisis, including the USA Today (it's several paragraphs down).
If I've got the numbers right, this has made a hundred or so people sick, with maybe a dozen hospitalized, and one guy actually died. This guy dying is of course a tragedy for his family and friends (and for him). But that does not make it a national emergency! One article I read (I can't remember where) said that thousands of people get sick every year from contaminated fresh tomatoes. So how did this become a crisis all of a sudden?
And then I was watching some national news program and the newscaster referred to the flooding problem in the midwest as "heartbreaking devastation." I'm feeling a little bit like Andy Rooney, but is there ever any devastation that isn't heartbreaking? Maybe there's a crisis of people building homes in flood zones, but am I really supposed to feel sad for the people who do that, when they get subsidized for their risky behavior with my tax dollars?
How about the federal government subsidizing those of us who don't live in flood plains, earthquake zones, hurricane prone coastlines, or tornado alleys. I'm sure they'll get around to it.
I saw this ad about the "climate crisis":
Okay, it's a little funny. But when did the climate change/global warming issue become a crisis? Even in the most extreme scenarios the biggest changes will take decades to occur. I always thought a crisis was something where the problems are happening now. Hurricane Katrina caused a crisis. If all the fears come true, then global warming might cause a crisis (or many crises) in the future. But it ain't a crisis yet.
Now we've also got the tomato crisis. There's some outbreak of people getting salmonella, and they're pretty sure it's coming from contaminated fresh tomatoes. This is national news, and many are calling it a crisis, including the USA Today (it's several paragraphs down).
If I've got the numbers right, this has made a hundred or so people sick, with maybe a dozen hospitalized, and one guy actually died. This guy dying is of course a tragedy for his family and friends (and for him). But that does not make it a national emergency! One article I read (I can't remember where) said that thousands of people get sick every year from contaminated fresh tomatoes. So how did this become a crisis all of a sudden?
And then I was watching some national news program and the newscaster referred to the flooding problem in the midwest as "heartbreaking devastation." I'm feeling a little bit like Andy Rooney, but is there ever any devastation that isn't heartbreaking? Maybe there's a crisis of people building homes in flood zones, but am I really supposed to feel sad for the people who do that, when they get subsidized for their risky behavior with my tax dollars?
How about the federal government subsidizing those of us who don't live in flood plains, earthquake zones, hurricane prone coastlines, or tornado alleys. I'm sure they'll get around to it.
Labels: crisis
posted by Albany Lawyer at 7:34 PM
4 Comments:
It's a crisis because it needs to be addressed now. The environment is like a ship, it doesn't have brakes and it changes direction slowly. Taking years to figure out that we need to do something means the fix will come too late.
The scientific evidence is not disputed except by those who are not scientists. Ignoring that, assume that climate change is made up; what's wrong with making the environment cleaner for your children and mine?
Um ... there are scientists who dispute global warming.
There are also far more who dispute that it is a crisis. The Copenhagen Consensus is a great example.
The Kyoto Protocol and other proposed remedies for global warming only slow it down a little. The real answers are conservation and nuclear power. Both are good ideas whether or not global warming is real.
Phony talk calling it a crisis allows rash decisions like the ethanol nonsense we're seeing now.
I stand corrected. There are a few scientists who dispute that global warming is caused by combustion of fossil fuels. However, I do not see peer-reviewed journal articles in support of their conclusion (I might just be overlooking them, but I doubt there are many, if at all). Furthermore, note that it is not disputed that global warming is actually happening. It is only the source that is in dispute by those folks. Regardless, the vast majority of the scientific community believes global warming is caused, at least in part, by our behavior.
"The Kyoto Protocol and other proposed remedies for global warming only slow it down a little. The real answers are conservation and nuclear power. Both are good ideas whether or not global warming is real."
I agree. To a point. At least we are in agreement that reducing emissions is a step in the right direction (which would imply that we're causing a problem, but that's not the point).
Slowing things down isn't bad. Why are you questioning the usefulness of Kyoto and the like? I don't think I've ever been told to stop paying my credit card bills if I can't pay them all off of at the end of the month since it will only slow down my interest accrual. That's absurd.
Anyway, the answer is abundant free energy from solar, wind, water, and other natural sources. The problem is that the technology isn't efficient and cheap enough yet. Since we now know that we can get a trillion dollars on credit without a problem, let's do it again and put it all into energy research, tax incentives, and other steps in the right direction. At least discoveries in the energy department will pay dividends. Where's my 50c/gal gas from Iraq? Ok, I'm being slightly facetious here...no need to go there!
Some real scientists do dispute that warming is actually happening. And some think the source may be from the sun and have nothing to do with carbon in the atmosphere. I'm too lazy today to research that one, but I've seen it.
Remember that these "scientists" have trouble predicting where rain will fall in 3 hours. And you want to rely on them for modeling the climate of the whole planet going 100 years forward?
Read the Copenhagen Consensus stuff more carefully. If we're going to invest billions of dollars in dealing with some world problems, global warming is not high on the list.
Post a Comment
<< Home