Should We Talk About the Weather?
Last weekend, we got a lot of snow here. So much that all of the roads here were closed down, and people that live in dorms were basically forced to be stuck in their rooms for the entire day, because it was impossible to drive or walk anywhere. This was a pretty big hassle in of itself. As someone who lives on take out food, I didn’t get to eat anything other than potato chips and other vending machine goodies. However, this wasn’t the worst part.
The majority of the people that I talked to this weekend made the following joke: “man, look at all the snow! Al Gore sure was right! Thanks a lot, global warming!” or some variation of the such. Aside from the fact that it gets annoying when people make the same joke that I’ve heard 5 times already that day, the whole joke is annoying for the attempted political statement there.
Global warming and climate change is one of those issues that gets polarized for reasons that I honestly don’t understand. There is an overwhelming amount of evidence that suggests that global warming does exist, such as a slight rise in sea levels, melted ice caps, and air current temperatures that seem to be warming year after year. Yet people want to ignore the clear facts for the simple fact that Al Gore, a liberal, believes in them, and therefore, they are not allowed. Yep. I’m glad people in this country can think for themselves and get educated.
Let’s dissect the criticism here a little bit, just for fun: the main argument being given is that even if there is climate change, it’s probably natural since the Earth goes through different weather cycles all the time. Yes, this one is very true. But regardless of whether or not the weather changes are caused by man, the steps taken to prevent man-made climate change will still be beneficial. Any progress in terms of being more environmentally conscious is a good thing. Every step being taken will positively effect the Earth, regardless of whether or not it actually fixes the climate change issues.
Secondly, much of the opposition in made due to a fear that businesses will lose money once they make an attempt at being more thoughtful of the environmental issues that are being discussed. This is just flat out wrong. One of the biggest news stories of 2007 was that Toyota beat Ford in overall automobile sales, and that this trend of foreign car manufacturers having better sales than American companies doesn’t seem to be slowing down. One of the reasons for this is that by making their cars more environmentally sound, they also made cars that are more fuel efficient and that cost less at the pump. Obviously, this kind of fuel efficiency is a huge selling point that stubborn American car companies don’t have. It’s a winning situation for everyone involved: the customer gets more miles for the gallon and spends less on gas, the company makes higher profits, and carbon emissions are cut down. So as for an economic impact, it’s mostly positive. The transition may cost a little money, but as soon as that’s dealt with, other costs are decreased. So what’s the big deal here?
Another major issue with the non-global warming people comes from this idea that it’s still cold in winter, therefore global warming must not exist. This one stems mainly from a huge misunderstanding about what global warming actually is. Global warming is not an overnight thing that will suddenly effect temperatures everywhere. Warming begins at the poles, then starts to hit ocean air currents. These currents then start to warm air in other places. But this happens over a period of hundreds of years. Expecting it to be 60 degrees in January is just plain stupidity.
Lastly is a point that goes back to the Al Gore thing. I can’t count how many times I’ve heard “but Al Gore flies a jet and wastes gas and etc.” So what? Yeah, there’s a level of hypocrisy there, but pegging Gore as the main person in the movement is just dumb. There are a lot of hypocrites out there advocating right-wing issues, but you don’t see the conservatives giving them the same bashing. Rush Limbaugh being a drug addict didn’t make conservatives, or even liberals, say that the war on drugs was stupid just because Rush is a hypocrite. No conservative jumped on Newt Gingrich’s ass for being a total hypocrite for attacking Clinton over an affair while he himself was cheating on a dieing wife. Why should a whole subject of scientific study be considered obsolete just because of one person being a hypocrite? I’m sure a lot of legitimate areas of scientific studies have been filled with perverts, hypocrites, and assholes. Who’s to say that some of the guys on Thomas Edison’s team helping him with the light bulb weren’t jerking off while imagining being banged by a sheep? That doesn’t mean that the light bulb is stupid.
Mainly the reason this whole issue bothers me is that people that are against global warming research really need to realize that simply researching something isn’t saying that it exists. Scientific research is intended to either prove or disprove something. If anything, you’d think that conservatives would want to see a lot of research being done so that they can be proven correct. But instead they hide and deflect from the issue because they can’t even pretend to be open to the idea of something that they disagree with being right.
Yet another pet peeve over this issue comes from pundits. Pundits usually tend to make every potentially interesting discussion go sour, but in this case it’s worse than gay marriage and abortion combined. If I had a nickel for every time some jerk like ‘O Reilly, Hannity, and Limbaugh, guys who have no scientific background at all, claiming that they’re experts on science to a point that they know more than people who have dedicated their whole lives to an area of study. Rush Limbaugh is not qualified to say that he’s an expert in any area of scientific study other than pharmaceuticals, an area in which he actually does happen to be an amateur enthusiast.
My point is this: disagree with the concept of global warming all you want. That’s fine, you’re obviously allowed to so. But closing your mind off so completely that you refuse to accept any other viewpoint but your own. Not only does this make you come off as less of an asshole when you’re in a conversation over the issue with someone, but it also helps take the sting away if you’re proven to be wrong.
Now listening to: The Wrens- The Meadowlands
This entry was posted on March 13, 2008 at 4:14 am and is filed under politics, social . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
April 18, 2008 at 12:55 pm
What amuses me about people who deny global warming is this: Large corporations denying global warming makes perfect sense. They believe it will effect their bottom line. But where the fuck does your average Joe benefit from denying global warming? A corporation believes– wrongly so– that they’ll lose money by switching to a more eco friendly format. But corporations are bound to be conservative by definition. If they didn’t want money, they wouldn’t have started for-profit company. So they see themselves as benefiting from their asshole attitudes. But does Joe Shmoe in Ohio’s wallet change at all one way or another when it comes to climate control? What the hell do they have personally vested that would benefit them to be an asshole about the environment?
People consistently have attitudes that are completely against their self interest and self preservation. I don’t know why people listen to and follow advice coming from corporations that don’t have their interests in mind. I mean, think about smoking. The Tobacco Industry for generations said it was fine and didn’t lead to cancer, and people believed it, “Ah, there’s nothing wrong with me smoking– fuck off.” But, whether you personally smoke or not, the act simply does not make sense and you must understand that. There’s no reason *to* do it. Even if it didn’t cause cancer, in what way could inhaling *smoke* be anything but bad for you? In all other situations where there is smoke, for example, when stuck in a burning building, inhaling smoke is bad. So why listen to a corporation that clearly has its own self interests in mind? Yet people did for generations.
The same goes with the environment. There’s no fucking reason to keep dumping shit into the environment. If it’s not hurting, then surely it’s not fucking helping. If the climate is cyclical, then surely we’re not making things any better. Yet people are sheep, and listen to those that clearly and obviously do not have their interests in mind. It’s a very bizarre part of the human condition. Psychologically, people just don’t like thinking for themselves. I mean, that’s such an easy thing to say. People are dumb. Easiest thing in the world to say. But the problem is, *it’s true*. Devastatingly so.