Rather that making a zoological statement about the relationship between ocean/planet temperatures and the size of aquatic organisms, this post is about our immediate health. A lot of folks are getting fired up about the global warming debate. People have made careers out of trying to prove or disprove the notion that the earth is getting progressively warmer because humans are adding more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. I have not researched the topic enough to form an educated opinion, but it seems like both extremes of the political spectrum have an agenda when it comes to the topic of global warming.
Here is what I don’t get – why don’t environmentalists approach this subject differently? If they are truly concerned about the environment and the people and animals and plants that live in it, why don’t they just talk about air pollution? “Carbon emissions” are the hot topic right now, but even staunch lefties say that it is the potential, not the immediate, problem that concerns them. That is, that the earth will eventually get so warm that life can’t go on. The data on what actually does happen, right now, with pollution is much more shocking.
Google “arden pope” and have a look at his research, or go here or here. Tell me if that does not convince you that the world had better get nasty emissions down fast. If you want to improve nasty emissions, why not just talk about pollution? If you can convince people to emit less of everything, you will get them to emit less CO2. My suspicion is that most people don’t really care and are either just trying to stick with what they are being told, or are just trying to look like they are doing their part.
I think conservatives are just as guilty as liberals in this department. Liberals want to make the argument about global warming, and conservatives just don’t want to have to be bothered by global warming. By neither one of them taking up “pollution” as a broader topic, they just get to keep arguing about something that is terribly difficult to prove.
Rachael and I watched a really dumb movie recently called Man of the Year. It was mostly Robin Williams telling dirty jokes mixed with some shallow politics. The one idea from the movie that I liked was what William’s character called “Weapons of Mass Distraction.” He put flag burning into this category. Don’t we have more important things to worry about? It seems like politicians are forced to “have a stance” on everything. This seems to keep the important conversations down to a dull roar while everyone argues about whether something like the death penalty (which effects about 0% percent of the population) is still a good idea.
So here is my political stance on global warming: both sides, there are bigger fish to fry.