I have just been reading a forum posting at http://forum.channelnewsasia.com/viewtopic.php?t=113775 where a poster asks "WHY is US against a greener EARTH?"
My response to this is multi-faceted:
1. There is little evidence to suggest that the USA is anti-greenhouse because:
2. The USA is one of the greatest emitters by virtue of its 'prosperity' which pre-dates the escalation of the greenhouse issue - but it is also amongst the cleanest.
3. The USA government is not opposed to greenhouse, it wants China to sign on as well, thus China should be considered the obstacle. China and India will be the centre of heavy industry for the next 30-40 years, if they are permitted to adopt laxed environmental standards, the world would have more to fear. The USA in contrast is a mature, service-orientated country, so its CO2 emisisons have stabilised and could even fall in coming years. We are living in a new paradigm - a high energy cost market - so the USA will be priced out of the markets that have a high energy-intensity.
If you look at the facts you will see its actually the statist economies like Russia and China that have the worst evironmental record. eg. Lakes destroyed in Russia by oil seeps, or poor irrigation practices, pollution of rivers and coal-related haze over China.
So why do green groups criticise the USA and not China? Its because green groups are hollier than God in the west, there is an emotional attachment to the environment, even though people live convenience and have to work in the city. Greenies are considered the only bastion of their interests...never mind that their arguments are deluded. People accept appeals to emotion. As a result green groups have leverage over the US government, but they dont over China, where the statist regime would quash any opposition. Besides the Chinese couldnt care a pittance for the environment. The place is a toilet bowl. I travelled from HK to Hanoi by train and the embankment next to the railway was filled with rubbish. They have the worst emitting power stations in the world, and are pressed by the US to adopt new technology. But China just wants to be rich like everyone else. So if you want to safe the environment - tell you government to tell China and apply sanctions, and if you tire of that - stop spending. Better still, recognise that the world is not moved by logical arguments and question the science that is likely as dubious as the politics that drive it.
More on this subject coming!
---------------------------------------------------
Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com
’Global Warming Misconceptions - View the table of contents!
Governments this year have ramped up their global warming propaganda, but in truth, just how certain is global warming. In the process of preparing a consulting report, we undertook some research and were startled by government policy. We will show that the propaganda being financed by government is shamelessly creating hysteria for the sake of political expediency.
Friday, January 25, 2008
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Climate change - do you need to trust the experts?
I think the accepted wisdom in society is that the study of climate change is such a specialised subject that we need to place our faith in our climatologists, since they are our experts in this field. I think this notion is erroneous, and I will suggest as much with an analogy. When you go to a doctor, do you blindly accept whatever they say, or do you filter it through your own thought process. This approach might seem a little more difficult on the issue of climate change because its so far removed from people's lives. The task of critiquing science falls upon intellectuals like me that have studied science, who are aware of the arguments, but apply what scientists aren't applying:
1. A broader perspective: Many of the so-called experts are so specialised that they fail to see the broader trends or context of the argument.
2. A critical perspective: A great many scientists are not critical thinkers. Why? Because they tend to be empiricists rather than rationalists, and if they are rationalists.
3. An objective perspective: Even if they are rationalists, they tend to be floating conceptualists indulging in rationalisations. They are compelled to delude themselves to achieve a certain understanding that is not consonant with the facts of reality.
Armed with this information, one can place oneself in a powerful position to argue against these people. But it does require one to have some understanding of science and natural processes, as well as the capacity to critically appraise information, just as you would do with your GP. We tend to be cynical about doctors because the modern medical centre means we are often examined by a new doctor every time we have an appointment, and we hear stories of doctors making poor diagnoses. We have some knowledge of medicine from reading, and more impotantly, we are in a position to ask questions and to critique their responses to establish trust. Finally we can go to alternative doctors for a different interpretation. Science is a little better than medicine because scientists are already divided into camps. If you listen to the rhetoric of one group, they will tell you that there is no opposition to the greenhouse concept. The reality however is that there is opposition, but one group would rather not recognise them so they can push through with their agenda. Of course this is not in the interests of science.
1. A broader perspective: Many of the so-called experts are so specialised that they fail to see the broader trends or context of the argument.
2. A critical perspective: A great many scientists are not critical thinkers. Why? Because they tend to be empiricists rather than rationalists, and if they are rationalists.
3. An objective perspective: Even if they are rationalists, they tend to be floating conceptualists indulging in rationalisations. They are compelled to delude themselves to achieve a certain understanding that is not consonant with the facts of reality.
Armed with this information, one can place oneself in a powerful position to argue against these people. But it does require one to have some understanding of science and natural processes, as well as the capacity to critically appraise information, just as you would do with your GP. We tend to be cynical about doctors because the modern medical centre means we are often examined by a new doctor every time we have an appointment, and we hear stories of doctors making poor diagnoses. We have some knowledge of medicine from reading, and more impotantly, we are in a position to ask questions and to critique their responses to establish trust. Finally we can go to alternative doctors for a different interpretation. Science is a little better than medicine because scientists are already divided into camps. If you listen to the rhetoric of one group, they will tell you that there is no opposition to the greenhouse concept. The reality however is that there is opposition, but one group would rather not recognise them so they can push through with their agenda. Of course this is not in the interests of science.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
’Global Warming Misconceptions - View the table of contents!
Governments this year have ramped up their global warming propaganda, but in truth, just how certain is global warming. In the process of preparing a consulting report, we undertook some research and were startled by government policy. We will show that the propaganda being financed by government is shamelessly creating hysteria for the sake of political expediency.
