Posted on 07/11/2007 11:11:15 PM PDT by ventanax5
PHEW, Live Earth is over. The seven concerts on seven continents featuring a bunch of jet fuel-addicted rock stars summed up the problem with much of the talk about climate change. Hypocrisy aside, the climate change rockers and other zealots would have us believe there is no problem more uniquely modern than climate change. When it comes to mapping out solutions to this most 21st century of problems, history can teach us nothing. We are on our own. Right? Well, actually, no. Wrong. Dead wrong.
Climate change is just a modern twist on a very old debate. The presenting symptom is a new one. But the underlying questions for us are ancient: what tools, what modes of thinking, will deliver the best results? Is climate change a moral issue? Or a question of risk management? Should we start with abstract fundamental principles and proceed to build an edifice based on speculative extrapolation from those first principles? Or do we start with empirical evidence and pragmatic deductions from observable realities? Will the most effective solutions be imposed by governments or from harnessing individual choices?
These are, of course, old questions. And history keeps telling us the answers. They are invariably the same answers. But, unbelievably, we often ignore them. It’s no great surprise that a bunch of climate change rock stars would fall for solutions based on symbolism, moral absolutes, central planning and universal diagnoses and prescriptions. No one would expect them to have digested the lessons of Edmund Burke’s Reflections on the Revolution in France. But political leaders ought to have learned from those lessons
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au ...
While completely obvious to any marginally intelligent person, this author’s comments **NEEDED** to be said, if for no other reason than the historical record.
If you go to the link and read the entire article, it is disheartening to see by the response comments that most respondents seem utterly unable to read with any measure of comprehension.
Roughly half, seemed to me, hadn't the first clue.
I daresay the public schools in Australia are doing something on the same order of disservice to their students as are the public schools in the US.
How anyone can advocate ''feeling'' and junk science over thinking and hard science is utterly beyond me. As are those who accept the former rather than even attempt the latter.
Take another look: Many of the posters in the comments section are not from Australia.
We must be a bored nation to be debating climate change.
A worthless, endlessly self-referential article.
The author believes in AGW - she may want to spread the pain about a bit more fairly than Kyoto would do, but she’s still not grasped the important point.
Anthropogenic Global Warming is a myth. There is no such thing as man-made global warming.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.