On the show recorded on Sunday July 8th, 2007 we discussed global-warming and tried to give the Objectivist viewpoint on the issue. There was a defender of global-warming that attended, so there was a small debate.
Here are the key points:
1. What is global-warming? Global-warming can be interpreted in two ways: 1) The Earth has experienced a trend of increasing temperatures. 2) The temperature of the Earth is and will continue increasing unless we do something about it.
2. Does global-warming exist? If we take the first interpretation, then yes. The Earth has been observed to have a trend of increasing temperatures; this is not disputed. The problem, however, is that people use the validity of the first interpretation to assert that the latter as also true. This is where the debate begins.
3. What caused this global-warming? There are many variables that are not fully understood about what dictates the Earth’s climate. The current models that are being used to predict the future do not match the past. There is no proof to demonstrate that man, or nature, has caused this warming. There are hypotheses, but that’s all.
4. Should we act? Being environmentally friendly can indeed be a selfish act, but for the government to pass regulations that stifle the industries could be disastrous. In order to create such regulations, we must be certain that these industries are causing global-warming, but this is currently not the case.
I feel that the supporters of global-warming should spend more time educating and researching, and less time lobbying the government. It annoys me when they present their argument as fact and try to scare me with doomsday speeches. Man-made global-warming is not a fact; it is an unproven hypothesis. I bet in 10 years global-warming will be a thing of the past and there will be some new environmental catastrophe that people will be worrying about.
Listen to the show live, every Sunday at 8pm EST on talkshoe.com!
Hey, Mosley. Sorry I couldn’t make it. I intended to, but things didn’t go as planned. I’m sure you won’t want to cover global warming again soon since you just did it, but if you decide to do it again, let me know and I’ll try to be there.
Its ok youre always welcome to come on the show.
Like I said before to you, you’re not addressing the issue of whether we are destroying the ozone layer by polluting or not. The ozone layer is there to protect us from the majority of the heat from the Sun and as it weakens it warms the Earth more than is healthy for us. At some point in time, if the layer continues to decrease in depth because of our destruction of it, warming of the Earth will increase to a temperature that is going to be impossible for us to live with.
Are you arguing that pollution does not destroy the ozone layer and that there is nothing we can do to stop it? Because if you do agree that pollution is causing the disintegration of the ozone layer, then why wouldn’t you try and stop it? I understand you’re saying that government regulations would inhibit your freedom to pollute, but a lot of people are too dumb or lazy to decrease their pollution tendencies otherwise. I know, I for one don’t recycle and if I was forced to then obviously I would and it would benefit everyone.
I didn’t have the patience to listen to the show when it aired, so sorry if you answered my above question in it. We should make time to discuss this later, because I’m still unsure of why you’re denying global warming does not exist…
If you listen to the first part of the show your questions will be answered. Also if you read this post you will know that I am not denying the warming, I am just not certain of its cause. That’s what the debate is on. Not if its real or not.
Hi Emily,
I haven’t heard that ozone depletion is a cause of global warming. Where did you get that information?
Anyway, no one really denies that global-warming has occurred. The debate is whether the warming will continue, what is causing it, and what we should do about it.
Regarding recycling, I don’t think that prevents air pollution because the materials have to be transported by polluting vehicles and then sent to a polluting factory where they can be “renewed.”
I’m no expert on this topic (this particular area of science bores me), but I do know that ozone depletion and global warming are separate issues. Ozone depletion concerns the thinning of a particular layer in the stratosphere. This will increase the amount of radiation that is able to reach the Earth. Global warming involves the gradual increase in average temperature on Earth which will lead to climate change.
These issues are certainly related as environmental issues, but the causes and consequences for each are different. In fact, some of the steps taken to reduce ozone depletion actually are thought to have contributed to global warming!
Ok so why does it matter whether it’s global warming or not that is our incentive to stop polluting the Earth so heavily? I don’t think you should be arguing something that may or may not exist or may or may not have any consequences and I don’t think lawmakers should be purely focusing on using this term. What happened to just saving the environment in general? Why do we need to give it a name, whether it’s accurate or not, when it’s really just our refusal to give up our comfortable lifestyles in order to save future generations?
This is probably not making much sense, since as I said previously, nothing ever comes across right on the internet and I just worked all day. I’m sure none of you are trying to sound arrogant, but you are collectively.
Mosley I’d like if you read this: http://post-gazette.com/pg/07193/801165-113.stm
I’m not sure that a local gazette article is the best source for scientific information. The article, however, noted the Northeast Climate Impacts Assessment as its source, so I looked it up. The assessment starts with the premise that man is the cause of global warming, a hypothesis it doesn’t validate. It only says that what has happened so far is consistent with some models. However, the models that I’m aware of do not remain consistent with history, which demonstrates their unreliability.
There’s one more point that is perhaps the most important but not listed in the notes/talk. That is “If something ought to be done then what is it?” The environmentalists have created a huge package deal which is that capitalism is to blame for global warming and that the elimination of capitalism is the only way to do something about it. Consider for a moment what the environmentalists want to do and what they don’t want to do. Would nuclear power help? Of course it would, but nuclear power is a (mostly) capitalist enterprise. Do they favor solar power? Of course, but alas, it can’t provide for our needs. That’s why they like it so much after all. What do they think about scientific ways of addressing the problem like seeding the oceans with iron in the southern latitudes to generate the uptake of CO2 from the atmosphere or coating vast areas with light colored materials that would reflect more heat? They are utterly uninterested in these because they aren’t interested in solving the problem (if it exists at all). They are interested in shutting down modern society and capitalism. Note that back in the 70’s when they wanted to warm the world up their solution was to demolish capitalism too.
As I see it, I would rather put up with some flooding of low areas than give up capitalism. Wouldn’t you?
–Brian
Brandon, that article was not supposed to back up any of my statements or to give support to my opinion. I just wanted Mosley to take a look at it and see what he thought off-air/not on here.
Brian, I don’t think all environmentalists are trying to stop capitalism. They’re just trying to eliminate some of the necessary pollution we incur living in a industrialist society. If anything, they are attacking heavy industrialism and not capitalism. I don’t believe these two terms are synonymous to each other.
I think solar and wind power can be effective and that alternative options do need to be explored, that way we can still produce the goods needed and eliminate some of the unnecessary pollution. Besides, the companies that can’t afford to become environmentally friendly will move East anyways and the companies that can still afford to stay here will. That’s just a part of the unfairness of capitalism.
Our country is continually shifting into an intellectual one. It’s time we start thinking about the consequences of our last evolution from an agrarian society to an industrial one and react without only being concerned about where our money is going and instead, be concerned about our health; which should be worth more than the money we make.
global warming is becoming such a obvious problem that someone somewhere other than Al Gore needs to step up to help drive the bus!