Free Markets, Free People

Fighting global warming – the moral equivalent of war?

That’s certainly what I take from a quote attributed to British scientist James Lovelock.  Lovelock is the environmental scientist who developed the Gaia theory.  Lovelock has finally concluded that for the most part humans simply aren’t bright enough to prevent climate change from impacting their lives.

But the biggest impediment, of course, is that pesky thing called “democracy”.  What you and I would call freedom and liberty.  Or as Lovelock would most likely term it, lack of a dictatorship and/or a version of war socialism:

One of the main obstructions to meaningful action is “modern democracy”, he added. “Even the best democracies agree that when a major war approaches, democracy must be put on hold for the time being. I have a feeling that climate change may be an issue as severe as a war. It may be necessary to put democracy on hold for a while.”

That’s mostly because you rather dim humans aren’t buying into what he and the others are selling and we therefore need to have firmer measures enacted. Don’t get excited, it’s for your own good and we promise to return your freedom and liberty to you unchanged, undiminished and unlikely, er, complete. It’s just a temporary little thing, you know, until we get the climate back to where it should be, where ever that is and however long it takes us.

Hmmm … you know, now that I think of it, I have to ask: what is the ideal temperature for humans and “Gaia”, Dr. Lovelock? Seriously – what is the perfect temperature? And when you answer that, tell me when we’ve experienced that temperature as a constant, and how we managed to keep it that way previously? Because, unless I’m mistaken, the climate guys out there have been saying for years that the climate of the earth is in constant and eternal flux. So if you can indeed tell me the ideal temperature Dr. Lovelock (sounds like he ought to be making porn – and in some circles this contention of his that we must put democracy on hold is the moral equivalent of porn) has it been a constant or have we just been passing through that temperature for millennia as we go from natural cycles of warm periods and ice ages?

There are some amazing liberty averse agendas out there. It’s nice to see the green mask finally fully slipping away from the rather deep red face behind it on this particular one.

~McQ

[ad] Empty ad slot (#1)!

26 Responses to Fighting global warming – the moral equivalent of war?

  • What’s really beautiful about this is that if Lovelock is correct, and we are catastrophically changing the planet, then his Gaia theory is wrong and his credibility is shot. Just how does he come out a winner, here?
     

  • It’s been suggested, and seems compellingly obvious at this point, that at the higher levels, the “green movement” and “global climate warmination” is simply the latest excuse for the preexisting anti-capitalist anti-liberal agenda that some people have had all along.
     

  • He should be careful of declaring war. In war, the other side gets to fight back with any means necessary also.

  • “The moral equivalent of war”

    Jonah Goldberg? Please pick up the white courtesy phone…

  • To SkyWatch’s point, this guy has no idea what he’s asking for.  The environmentalists would loose before it started.

  • He also has no clue that non-democratic states often do much, much worse on the environment. Idiot.

  • Idiots like Dr. Lovelock (too stupid to be human) always reminds me of George Carlin’s take …
    Save the Earth ?!   Screw you .. save us .. the Earth will be here long after all of us are dead.

  • I think your post is an exercise is venting and ranting, and really avoids dealing with the issue seriously.
     
    Imagine, for example, that the advocates of anthropogenic global warming are absolutely correct – that the Earth is warming at an unprecedented rate and that will have catastrophic effects later in this century.
     
    You may not believe this, but an awful lot of very smart people, who study this stuff for a living do believe it – so it would be irrational to conclude that there is no possibility that it is true.
     
    So what if it is true? Maybe Lovelock has a point. If even smart, highly educated people like yourselves here can manage to convince yourselves that what is true is somehow false, because you don’t want it to be true – or even worse, because you think it all is just some political game and you could never accept a position esposed by the other side – then maybe humans really are too stupid to save ourselves from disaster.
     
    After all, as we see with the recurrent cycles of bubble and bust in the economy, humans have very real problems dealing with long-term, or large scale problems. We can deal with problems that have real immediate bite, or that roll out over a course of weeks or months….but a 2 degree increase in average global temperatures over a century, with catastrophic consequences that will probably not kick in until it is too late to do anything about it?
     
    How can you expect people to understand that, even if it is true?
     
    Your discussion about liberty and democracy totally misses the point. We embrace these ideas and practices because we want to control our own lives – we do not embrace them because they necessarily are the most efficient means of organizing society. We gladly accept the inefficiencies involved with persuading a majority of people before we do any big thing – but what about a case like AGW – if it is true – in which it may simply not be possible to persuade a majority before it is too late?
     
    These are serious issues because, if AGW is true, the consequences of inaction may be severe. It deserves mort thoutful treatment than what you offer.
     
    And btw – AGW theory has never conceived of anything like an ideal global temperature. That is a ridiculous canard.  Every schoolchild knows that we have had periods in the past of greater warmth as well as ice ages. The issue is the RATE of change – which is now greater than any time in history, other than truly catastrophic events. The issue is temperature changes that happen faster than species can adapt to, and faster than human settlement patterns and infrastructure can adjust to without massive dislocation.

    • “The issue is temperature changes that happen faster than species can adapt to”

      Faster than the change from summer to winter, for example? Species adapt to temperature changes all the time, due to the normal variation in annual temperatures (also known as  weather). 
      Somehow  temperature change of less than 2 degrees over a century doesn’t seem too catastrophic to me. You have proof, perhaps, of the catastrophies that have befallen us due to this?

    • Imagine, for example, that the advocates of anthropogenic global warming are absolutely correct

      Imagine Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, Congressional ethics…hell, imagine scientific ethics.

    • “but an awful lot of very smart people, who study this stuff for a living do believe it”

      And yet that is not evidence.  The key word in your assertion is believe.

  • McQThere are some amazing liberty averse agendas out there. It’s nice to see the green mask finally fully slipping away from the rather deep red face behind it on this particular one.

    I don’t think that Lovelock is a red so much as he is just a bloody busybody, one of those types who always knows better than you how to live your life.  The difference here is that he wants to be a busybody on a global scale.  It MAY be that he actually believes the garbage about global warming climate change, understandably thinks that emergency action needs to be taken, and finds it a bit hard to sit back and wait for the hoi-poloi to decide to do something.  It’s the same sort of motivation that has led many ordinary people to support ObamaCare: the belief that “It’s so important for us to DO SOMETHING that we don’t need to worry too much about following the rules, taking our time to get it right, or worrying about what a lot of uninformed dupes believe.” The last bit is important to understanding the liberal mind: by casting their opponents as ignorant patsies at best and outright hateful shills at worst, they can discard their opinions without any hint of remorse or feeling that they’re being “undemocratic”.  It’s the same sort of mental process that led people back in the day to crow about democracy even while they were disenfranchising huge segments of the adult population in the firm belief that “those people” simply weren’t capable of voting intelligently.

    Back when Bush was in office, the libs just loved to tout Dr. Franklin’s saying about trading liberty for security.  It never occurs to them that they are even worse about it than Bush and all us nasty ol’ conservatives: they will trade all their liberties for the “security” of universal health care or protection from global warming climate change and do so with a smile on their faces and a feeling of virtue in their hearts.

  • Wait, let me see if I have this right:
     
    1- Humans are too stupid to act in their own best interests in the face of global disaster of their own making.
    2- The solution is to put humans in dictatorial control of the world in order to forestall this disaster.
     
    Does anyone else see the flaw in his math?

    • You miss the implications Tonus.

      1- Us proles are too stupid to act in our best interests

      2- The solution is to put a collection of our intellectual and moral betters in dictatorial control of the world

    • 1- YOU humans are too stupid to act in your own best interests in the face of global disaster of your own making.
      2- The solution is to put US humans in dictatorial control of the world in order to forestall this disaster.

      Fixed it for you.

      ;-)

  • One of the main obstructions to meaningful action is “modern democracy”, he added. “Even the best democracies agree that when a major war approaches, democracy must be put on hold for the time being

    >>> Which “best democracies” would that be exactly? I know that we maintained voting and the Constitution during the Civil War, World Wars 1,2  Korea, Vietnam and 9/11.

    Perhaps there are other “best democracies” out there that did this?

    • * – PS, I know some can argue that there were various laws or Presidential actions during wartime that weren’t democractic, etc, but that’s a small part, we never put on democracy “on hold”

    • As far as I can tell, the only modern democracy that suspended democratic government in a time of war was 1930s Germany.  I’m dubious as to how much they contributed to climate change, though.

  • As a student of ancient history, I believe only one Western democratic power toyed with the idea of suspending democracy during times of war: the Roman Empire. They would appoint a dictator who would wield full dictatorial powers during the crisis, with the understanding that he would give up those powers once the crisis was over. Unfortunately, the last person they gave those powers to was named Julius Caesar and we all know what happened after that.

  • Well, Mr. Lovelock, I would just say that I live in a very small town that occupies just a very small, very, very, small fraction of the earth’s land mass. So, I would just say, bring all the scientific power that exists in the entire world, to our miniscule community and prove your worth. Make the ideal climatic conditions the norm for this insignificant tiny patch of land to prove your abilities and show the advantages in a real world situation of what you vow to be true. Show me!  

    Otherwise, sit down and shut the fuck up.
     

  • why doesn’t  Mr. Lovescock demonstrate for us all how to commit suicide? That might lower the temperature insignificantly or heat it up.  I long for the days when the Earth was a contant 72 degrees F. 24 hours a day, seven days a week, month after month, year after year.  And then came the four seasons and messed up everything.