I absolutely believe in the importance of human kind living in a sustainable way. I buy into the concept that we are God's people on this Earth, to be stewards and custodians of the planet. It's a thought that is both practical and idealistic, and would be a win-win for us in terms of spiritual maturity and enjoying the fruits of the Earth. Oops, I mentioned God. Put me on the side of religion then.
How will we get there though? To this end, I believe science is part of the answer. The other part is about our personal spirituality, so I'll leave that part off for another time.
Science isn't just something that stands apart from human kind, it's more our approach to revealing the nature of the universe, to seeing it's patterns and understanding the intricacies in the inter-relationships. It's a rational method for looking into the mind of God. It's the fruit of our minds, and the fruits in turn feed our minds. So put me also on the side of science then, because my faith in science is simply my faith in Man, which is derived from a faith in God that these gifts are there for a reason.
Maybe we can save the planet! The Greenies argue that we need to save it from ourselves, by attacking ourselves. I'd suggest we learn how to save ourselves (oursouls) and we will indeed save the planet anyway. Science will play its part.
Ironically though, there are a select bunch of scientists who say they believe in science, but they don't believe in people. They believe people are the problem. They see doom for the planet and their implied solution is to abandon science and revert to some kind of dark age. No oil, limited population, reduced standards of living, and abandoning an economic system that thrives on innovation, trade, and individual rewards.
Isn't that incredibly ironic? Scientists advocating an urgent return to pre-industrial times?
Perhaps some don't really think it through and so don't realise they are arguing for this - but there are others articulating that message, so it should come as no surprise.
And yet many people remain oblivious to the underlying message of this form of "sustainability" - that it requires a complete upheaval of our economic system, and the solution will have incredible cost, a cost paid by real people.
It's that underlying message that I think the folks arguing against the AGW camp are retaliating against. We all believe in sustainability. We all understand the value in reducing pollution and ensuring our environment can sustain us and our fellow creatures. But it is not about being anti-sustainability.
I believe increasing investment in clean technology, and encouraging innovation and personal responsibility is the way to go. To find ways of moving ahead that don't necessarily rely on a world taxation system to a new governing body that adminsters that tax and decides how it is spent.
Local Council, Federal Government and now "Global Government". It's not a conspiracy, it's just the natural evolution of bureaucracy. Leave governments alone and unrestrained they will expand and self-organise new structures. Surely, any scientist of evolution understands the principles on how this operates?
For every-one else: What happens if you never clip your toenails?
We are now entering a new phase in the AGW debate. And lets call it that. It's not yet about Climate Change. It's not yet about Global Warming (and the planet may indeed be warming), the debate is still about Anthropogenic Global Warming. It's still about AGW because all of the solutions offered are based on curbing man's Carbon output. And the debate is framed even narrower - we need to curb our output by abandoning science, abandoning free trade (which underpins our ability to innovate and improve) and about abandoning an underlying faith in human kind (or from my point of view, a rejection in God).
It's also about tax. The socialists solution to every problem. Read the Copenhagen draft documents. Several new taxes listed, and nary a comment from world leaders on this. Why no outcry that taxes to a new UN body might run from 1-5% of GDP? Plus carbon taxes! I foresee a few select organisations could make trillions from the trades in a world wide carbon stock market. Maybe one of those organisations will be "New Zealand" and I don't have to worry so much about the personal repercussions. Except in a global economy, there are always personal repercussions.
So the discussion on the quality of the data, and on the motives and professionalism of the scientists, and of the accuracy on the models, and ultimately the causes of climate change are vitally important. Which is why these scandals have generated so much interest on the web, and yet strangely have been dampened down by the media*.
So just imagine how the conversation might go if it turns out the planet is indeed warming, but that humans aren't necessarily the cause of it.
I suspect the solutions offered would immediately change, if the changes are indeed to drive solutions. We might put more into research. We might put more effort into technology sharing. We might put more effort into planning around a 1m sea level rise. We might put more thought into taking advantage of increased carbon in the atmosphere (plants grow faster for starters) and we might look at planning around crop plantings in new areas that will become more fruitful as those areas warm.
So be very cautious about accepting the words of those scientists, and their supporters that are arguing to abandon science. Unlike us religious people, they actually have abandoned their belief in human kind.
-----------------------------------
Note: This is not an attack on Scientists that truly just gather the data and work the science. This is a figurative attack on the warmists that fundamentally believe man is the problem, and seek any means to destroy man. These are the people that are ultimately Green religionists, and they give Christians who have no problem synthesizing science and God a bad name. If any scientists have bought into that message and massage their data to validate their beliefs, then shame on them!
*The front page news today, taking half the space was Bill English going for a haircut. Whilst he was getting his trim, his drivers decided to minimise their carbon footprint by parking in front of the building instead of circling looking for a car park. They got tickets. Fair enough that is news, but compared to shoving the ETS through whilst ignoring the connection to the email scandal and the NIWA questions?
How will we get there though? To this end, I believe science is part of the answer. The other part is about our personal spirituality, so I'll leave that part off for another time.
Science isn't just something that stands apart from human kind, it's more our approach to revealing the nature of the universe, to seeing it's patterns and understanding the intricacies in the inter-relationships. It's a rational method for looking into the mind of God. It's the fruit of our minds, and the fruits in turn feed our minds. So put me also on the side of science then, because my faith in science is simply my faith in Man, which is derived from a faith in God that these gifts are there for a reason.
Maybe we can save the planet! The Greenies argue that we need to save it from ourselves, by attacking ourselves. I'd suggest we learn how to save ourselves (oursouls) and we will indeed save the planet anyway. Science will play its part.
Ironically though, there are a select bunch of scientists who say they believe in science, but they don't believe in people. They believe people are the problem. They see doom for the planet and their implied solution is to abandon science and revert to some kind of dark age. No oil, limited population, reduced standards of living, and abandoning an economic system that thrives on innovation, trade, and individual rewards.
Isn't that incredibly ironic? Scientists advocating an urgent return to pre-industrial times?
Perhaps some don't really think it through and so don't realise they are arguing for this - but there are others articulating that message, so it should come as no surprise.
And yet many people remain oblivious to the underlying message of this form of "sustainability" - that it requires a complete upheaval of our economic system, and the solution will have incredible cost, a cost paid by real people.
It's that underlying message that I think the folks arguing against the AGW camp are retaliating against. We all believe in sustainability. We all understand the value in reducing pollution and ensuring our environment can sustain us and our fellow creatures. But it is not about being anti-sustainability.
I believe increasing investment in clean technology, and encouraging innovation and personal responsibility is the way to go. To find ways of moving ahead that don't necessarily rely on a world taxation system to a new governing body that adminsters that tax and decides how it is spent.
Local Council, Federal Government and now "Global Government". It's not a conspiracy, it's just the natural evolution of bureaucracy. Leave governments alone and unrestrained they will expand and self-organise new structures. Surely, any scientist of evolution understands the principles on how this operates?
For every-one else: What happens if you never clip your toenails?
We are now entering a new phase in the AGW debate. And lets call it that. It's not yet about Climate Change. It's not yet about Global Warming (and the planet may indeed be warming), the debate is still about Anthropogenic Global Warming. It's still about AGW because all of the solutions offered are based on curbing man's Carbon output. And the debate is framed even narrower - we need to curb our output by abandoning science, abandoning free trade (which underpins our ability to innovate and improve) and about abandoning an underlying faith in human kind (or from my point of view, a rejection in God).
It's also about tax. The socialists solution to every problem. Read the Copenhagen draft documents. Several new taxes listed, and nary a comment from world leaders on this. Why no outcry that taxes to a new UN body might run from 1-5% of GDP? Plus carbon taxes! I foresee a few select organisations could make trillions from the trades in a world wide carbon stock market. Maybe one of those organisations will be "New Zealand" and I don't have to worry so much about the personal repercussions. Except in a global economy, there are always personal repercussions.
So the discussion on the quality of the data, and on the motives and professionalism of the scientists, and of the accuracy on the models, and ultimately the causes of climate change are vitally important. Which is why these scandals have generated so much interest on the web, and yet strangely have been dampened down by the media*.
So just imagine how the conversation might go if it turns out the planet is indeed warming, but that humans aren't necessarily the cause of it.
I suspect the solutions offered would immediately change, if the changes are indeed to drive solutions. We might put more into research. We might put more effort into technology sharing. We might put more effort into planning around a 1m sea level rise. We might put more thought into taking advantage of increased carbon in the atmosphere (plants grow faster for starters) and we might look at planning around crop plantings in new areas that will become more fruitful as those areas warm.
So be very cautious about accepting the words of those scientists, and their supporters that are arguing to abandon science. Unlike us religious people, they actually have abandoned their belief in human kind.
-----------------------------------
Note: This is not an attack on Scientists that truly just gather the data and work the science. This is a figurative attack on the warmists that fundamentally believe man is the problem, and seek any means to destroy man. These are the people that are ultimately Green religionists, and they give Christians who have no problem synthesizing science and God a bad name. If any scientists have bought into that message and massage their data to validate their beliefs, then shame on them!
*The front page news today, taking half the space was Bill English going for a haircut. Whilst he was getting his trim, his drivers decided to minimise their carbon footprint by parking in front of the building instead of circling looking for a car park. They got tickets. Fair enough that is news, but compared to shoving the ETS through whilst ignoring the connection to the email scandal and the NIWA questions?
Good Points Zen Tiger.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I actually believe that people are the problem. As humans we are all greedy, selfish etc and therefore we have so many problems in the world, one of which is our care of the environment.
For me the current green movement tries to change people through laws and taxes and I dont believe this works. No matter what law we bring in the human heart is still greedy, selfish etc. For me while humans are the problem they are also the answer not taxes and meetings.
You are correct about the tax solution. New Zealanders will have an increased in tax, to a group of people in some far off country, due to us having a large agricultural industry. Doesn't seem right to me.
Yes Ozy, you basically tap into my second comment: he other part is about our personal spirituality, so I'll leave that part off for another time.
ReplyDeletePeople are the problem, and their problem is to find salvation in some way as a worthy purpose to the gift of life.
I believe in human kind in the sense that we are here on this Earth with so much potential. That we have used our free will to make many bad decisions is disappointing, but not unexpected.
The solution is not easy, and so the path we take to shape the solution becomes so important.
The path we are heading down with this new tax system to "control the weather" is alarming.
The destruction we bring on our environment is also alarming, global warming or no global warming. Man-made or not man-made.
The panic engendered by the warmists predictions of impending doom appears to me to be engendering, in a collective sense, an irrational response.
At the least, it is encouraging people to take sides in a narrow debate, and that moves us away from a more mature discussion around sustainability simply out of common sense.
Great post, ZT. The sad thing is that most of the scientists involved are decent folk and dedicated researchers. Yet they are embroiled in a quasi-religious quest to return the planet to an impossible Garden of Eden, to the detriment of millions of people.
ReplyDeleteYou can see the puzzled horror of these scientists in the reaction of Gareth Renowden and Ken Perrott to my posy "Global Warping". It is a real "Swords and Sorcery" debate.
Swords and Sorcery debate an argument where the protagonists first hack at each other with insults, then settle down to blast each other to pieces with magical spells such as "you don't understand the science" and "You are biased" or (my personal favorite) "That research has not been peer reviewed".