Here’s the latest reader question, along with my reply!
Jim asks: I observe one does not attain being reposted on Lew Rockwell unless one’s climate opinion conforms with Lew’s. You make the cut as does Doug Casey. That said, I am sure you are your own man and not out to please Lew in this regard but I wonder where you get your information to arrive at your dismissal of anthropogenic global warming (AGW).
My reply: One must unbox a lot.
Yes, the climate changes. Yes, there has been an observed increase in average temperatures over about the last 100 years. Yes, carbon dioxide is a “greenhouse gas. But is the climate changing catastrophically? If so, is human action the “driver”? These are the matters of dispute.
The first is the oily use of political language to describe what is putatively a scientific phenomenon. Science is precise; one must be able to define what’s at issue in order to scientifically evaluate it. What does “climate change” mean, precisely? It means nothing, exactly.
Well, other than that the “climate” “changes.”
Warmer, colder – in between. Everything fits. This is not scientific. It is political. And the fact that a political term is used to describe a supposedly scientific concept does not sit well with me as a journalist well-trained in the arts of bullshit detection.
The second is the disparity between actual observed variances (facts) in temperature and projections about future temperature, premised on computer modeling scenarios. There has been an increase in average temperature of about 1 degree; this is far from a “crisis” – and well within the normal spectrum of variance. The same as regards C02 levels, which have been much higher in the past than they are now – long before human action could have affected them.
But the public is being deranged with fear over dramatic temperature increases which have not actually occurred. And this fear is being used to justify draconian political/economic controls on the population – but not the elites. This ought to trouble any reasonable-minded person.
If, indeed, the “climate” is in “crisis” then why aren’t the government of the world dramatically reducing the “carbon emissions” of their militaries? Surely an existential threat to our survival as a species is more urgent than F/18s on training flights punching holes through the sky – and “emitting” more C02 in one training flight than my ’76 Trans-Am has “emitted” since 1976.
If the elites urging us to believe actually believe themselves, why are they buying waterfront real estate?
It is all too . . . convenient. “Climate change” just happens become a “climate crisis” as Peak Oil is exposed as false (if not an outright deliberate con) and at just the moment in time when IC-powered cars have been refined to such a degree that they “emit” practically zero emissions – of the emissions which were used to justify the EPA apparat. All of a sudden a new “emission” (C02) is discovered to be an existential threat.
So, while I agree – because I must – that that climate has changed, I do not believe it is changing catastrophically because of human action.
And I urge anyone who does believe it to consider the story of Animal Farm and the pigs who urge the other animals to make sacrifices… while they live high on the hog (as it were) inside the farmer’s house.
. . .
Got a question about cars, Libertarian politics – or anything else? Click on the “ask Eric” link and send ’em in!
If you like what you’ve found here please consider supporting EPautos.
PS: Get an EPautos magnet or sticker or coaster in return for a $20 or more one-time donation or a $10 or more monthly recurring donation. (Please be sure to tell us you want a magnet or sticker or coaster – and also, provide an address, so we know where to mail the thing!)