Thursday, February 03, 2005


The Hypocrisy Of Waiting

I am just thinking out loud here, but let's assume for just a second that global warming is real. And if it is real then in 40 or 50 years we might see some gradual changes and in a couple of centuries the ice caps might melt. So what is the hurry? According to the Democrats, problems with Social Security are 50 years away so we don't need to address it. I say fine, then maybe they will shut up about global warming too because those problems are a long way off as well. Finally, those Democrats booing at the State of the Union last night when Bush mentioned social security are the same Democrats who have a federal retirement plan that allows them to invest in the stock market and that is the real hypocrisy. They don't want you to be able to do with your money what they already can.
First, the Democrats are not saying that we do not need to address Social Security at all. They are saying that Bush's plan to privatize it is not the way to fix it. The whole point of Social Security is that it is a guarantee. Bush wants to scrap the guarantee and replace it with a crap shoot - some people will be fortunate and make more money, others will go bust and have nothing.
Second, it is quite possible that the economy could turn around in a few years (once we finally get Bush out of the White House) and the economic growth would be enough to put Social Security in the black for generations to come.
If not, the worst case scenario is that we might have to raise taxes at some point to make up the difference. That is hardly a crisis!

As for the Global Warming analogy, the problem here is that it is not something that can be easily fixed later by raising taxes. Once the ice caps start melting it won't be a simple matter to reverse the process.
I know we never had our global warming debate, but the one point I was planning to make is that it should not be an ideological issue. It is a scientific issue. If the scientists come out and say there is no global warming, I will be happy with that. But right now we have the vast majority of scientists saying it is real, and on the other side we have corporate pollluters and their right-wing lapdogs like Rush Limbaugh claiming it is all a bunch of hot air. Guess which group I trust.
It is a scientific issue and there are scientist who say it is real and scientist who say it isn't so for the SAEN to treat it like something from the burning bush shows an ideological bias. And let's not forget that back in the 80's many of the scientist now advocating that global warming is real were saying that an ice age was coming. What this boils down to is the earth's temperature has fluctuated throughout time and so the fact that it might start to warm does not mean that humans are to blame. One last point: proponents of global warming are upset that we have 5% of the population but create 25% of what they call greehouse gases. Well, maybe that is because we creat 25% of the world's GDP.
Well said Anonymous. I have nothing to add!
You can always find some scientist out there who will still claim that the world is flat and the moon is made of cheese. But what is the overall consensus of the scientific community? This article in Science makes it pretty clear.

When they looked at peer-reviewed papers on the subject of global climate change published during the past ten years they found that out of 928 papers, 75% accepted that global warming was caused by human activities, either explicitly or implicitly. 25% made no mention either way. And not a single paper asserted otherwise.

When I see legitimate scientists (and not just cranks) coming out and saying that global warming isn't happening or that it is a natural phenomenon that we can't control one way or the other, then I will gladly agree with your position.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?