Skip to main content

Demanding Panic, Global Warming and Proper Motivation

When I was in school we were supposed to be in a panic about the hole in the o-zone layer. A decade later my sister was supposed to be in a panic about an oncoming ice age (I actually don’t remember this, I think I was reproducing at the time and suffering brain-death by hormones). A decade later (now) we’re supposed to be in a panic about global warming.

What I want to know about is how those environmental models (I’m not certain they *have* models, but...) deal with this…

Robin McKie, science editor
Sunday November 10, 2002
The Observer


Earth’s magnetic field - the force that protects us from deadly radiation bursts from outer space - is weakening dramatically.

Scientists have discovered that its strength has dropped precipitously over the past two centuries and could disappear over the next 1,000 years.

The effects could be catastrophic. Powerful radiation bursts, which normally never touch the atmosphere, would heat up its upper layers, triggering climatic disruption. Navigation and communication satellites, Earth’s eyes and ears, would be destroyed and migrating animals left unable to navigate.

‘Earth’s magnetic field has disappeared many times before - as a prelude to our magnetic poles flipping over, when north becomes south and vice versa,’ said Dr Alan Thomson of the British Geological Survey in Edinburgh.

***

More recent accounts speculate that it won’t be quite so bad, but it seems like it will be a huge disruption in any case and it IS and it WILL happen during OUR eyeblink of geogrphical time.

On a more practical note, concerning things we can do something about…

Why absolutely insist that everyone be in a panic? There are all sorts of non-histrionic reasons to encourage people to “live green” like clean air, water, and food. All without getting all het-up about impending doom.

People scoff at global warming alarmists for good reason, yet those alarmists, if they are so convinced of their rightness, would do far *far* better to suggest practical steps that will immediately improve people's lives.

I have to sort of assume that the answer to global warming is to pollute less, since as much as I hear I'm supposed to be fearful of this impending doom I don't hear much for a practical plan to "do something". People, for the most part, are on board for polluting less because they can see the benefit in their lives.

Is the insistance that people must Fear the Doom really an objection to an improper, selfish, motivation? Does it not count if behavior isn't changed for the right reasons?

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Tyranny.gov vs Tyranny.com

Compulsion is Compulsion, no matter who does it.  This is Brilliant Theft is Theft, no matter who does it. Freedom of Association has no room in it for *private* action   that takes that away Freedom of Association. If I have a business and have voluntary associations such that I choose to serve some people and to not serve others, that might make me a jerk and it might lose me business, it might make me smart and it might gain me business, but it's got to be my choice.  If I would normally serve the current disliked minority in my shop except for the fact that if I'm SEEN to serve them by the wrong people I'll have a private campaign against me as those people do everything possible to ruin me by preventing me from doing business physically or by attacking my customers or suppliers, then I am NOT free to make those choices. Does it really make a difference to losing my CHOICE to voluntarily associate if there's a law that says I may not serve "those people" o...

Some times some people.

 

What Cancel Culture is NOT

  Maybe we should talk about what cancel culture isn't. It's not a boycott.  It's not deciding to no longer go to a business. It's not giving a bad review for bad service. It generally involves two things. First, the offense is a matter of opinion. Second, secondary or even tertiary targets are threatened. Cancellation does not need to be successful, and often with very famous and wealthy people it is not successful. But it serves as a warning to vulnerable people who are not in a position to weather that kind of attack. The goal is terroristic in that it's about forcing social behavior in people who are not currently the subject of the attack. The message is always, this could happen to you. And the tactic invariably includes seeking out vulnerable people to threaten in order to put pressure on businesses or on the target of the attack. So it works like this: JK Rowling is invulnerable. But they can try, right? So what they do is they find out who works for the pub...