Doom and gloom, baby. Sex and Terror sell.
We have two "mainstream" "moderate" political parties of note, at least as portrayed by our Sci Fi Channel meets Faces of Death mainstream media. On the "right" as its called, although on what scale i have no idea, is the FoxNews-radical-islam-is-the-antichrist-every-third-world-country-is-about-ten-seconds-away-
on the left is the global-climate-change-is-real-its-proven-to-be-science-that-the-world-will-both-melt-
i suggest we start a new party... the world isn't about to be destroyed, give me my civil liberties party back. or the sanity party. its funny that most of the people who support the "sanity party" are painted now as radicals or extremists. to say you want representative government, or that second ammendment rights are necessary to check and balance against a super military power have now become the rantings of the madmen in the asylum, according to news pundits on either TBN(foxnews) or the Sci Fi Channel(CNN).
granted, in some cases our usage of natural resources is unsustainable, and there may be occasions where if we aren't mindful of that, we will run into shortages, and either need to change what we use to something more sustainable, last minute, which could result in problems, albeit short term and eventually fixable. i will grant any environmentalist that, and they serve a great role as reminders of some things we ought to pay more attention to. the idea, though, that we are verging on total destruction of the world if we don't kill off most of the human population on earth, is really pushing it to me.
radical environmentalism is as dangerous and extreme as anyone on any side of the fence, and we do not need that type of attitude wielding totalitarian power at the federal level. let me show you some of the most insane stuff out there.
start with this London Post piece about a thinktank saying that children are bad for the environment.
or how about this gem where Professor Pianka at the Texas Academy of Science delivered a speech suggesting using an airborne ebola virus to wipe out 90% of the earth's human population to save the environment.
or how flatulent sheep and cows cause global warming.
now granted, this is quite a few steps away from recycling your cans, or being into the idea of using alternative fuels, or a scientific effort to make more usable or ecosystem compatible emissions from combustion engines... those things could all provide things that improve our quality of life. But the idea that human beings invented sheep, by some unnatural process created by the devil, and that if we don't both undo our existence, and the existence of sheep... this is the stuff of psuedoscience.
in fact, wherever politics and science meet... thats quite similar to the conjunction where religion and science meet. the subsects are incompatible. look, for example, at the attempt via science to justify the events described in the bible. First of all, the bible does not at any point indicate that it is a scientific text. the people who wrote and recorded information in it, did not clarify when they were making a poetic point, only that they were giving testimony and accounts, which were limited by their knowledge at that moment. any measurement in the bible, whether it be of time or space, is limited by the number of translations, the accuracy of the tools of measurement in a completely unrelated era, and the perspective of the person doing the testimony. to take what is said literally, and try and make it make sense with modern, constantly changing sciences, is always going to be a failure. its not a scientific record, and it does not work as one. it also does not claim to be one, it is simply a bundle of testimonies, found in a variety of locations, translated a lot of times.
the same can be said of the politicization of science. scientists who pursue the "flavor of the month" sciences go where the money is at. Public interest is always a product of both the media, and the interests of the politicians who tend to set the stage for what issues will be the most important. Scientific public interest, especially in the case of federal funding or industrial funding, tends to attract the "working scientists". The "working scientists", like those who work in any creative art, are the ones who have the smallest connection to the ethics of the field... aka their primary interest is money. There are plenty of scientists who believe that a meteor may strike the earth, or a comet, yet because this does not appeal to our sense of guilt, we are less likely to freak out, panic, and fund a missle program or some other crazy, irrelevant effort to stop an uncontrollable force of nature. similarly, since AIDS appeals, both on a sexual and a guilt level, it tends to draw much more funding than something like a malaria epidemic, which is very murderous in africa also.
The overall point here, is that, while climate change is something we now have the ability to monitor, we should definately keep an eye on it. But the fact that we have a mainstream belief now that the destruction of the earth is guaranteed by a slow and gradual warming trend, only 20 years past a scientific concensus that we were on our way to an ice age, despite no evidence of human population being totally wiped out by a slow warming trend every before is at the best reactionary... and at the worst, a scientific doom cult. the likes of which promised us doom at y2k, an ice age in the 60s, and nonstop comet attacks that never happened.
be skeptical, even when people say "science".
if it whines like a death cult, suggests radical things like killing humans like a death cult, and obsesses on one fatal conclusion like a death cult.... its a death cult.