The Next Climate Change Battleground
By Brandon Keim August 07, 2007 | 1:03:49 PM
It's easy, from my yuppified Brooklyn perch among the Times-reading tattooed gentry, to see the climate change policy debate as over: across the land, states are passing greenhouse gas laws, energy companies are calling for climate change legislation, the color of the moment is decidedly green. America, it seems, is finally catching up to the rest of the civilized world. [...]
The author is clearly predisposed to a certain view: Global Warming is caused by man. But scientific concensus is NOT science. Global warming may be real, but is not likely anything man can meaningfully contribute to or correct. Environmentalists hold to the static theory of climate: change is bad. But, an organism that does not change or grow, is a dead one.
What is the weather like on Venus: static, hot, and lethal. Mercury? The same. Mars? Essentially static as far as humans go (and yet Mars has global warming
despite the lack of humans).
Facts are that nature changes and goes through cycles. Will the climate changes kill us? Maybe. Maybe not. Instead of trying to change the environment by stopping all human activity in a misguided attempt to achieve a static ecosphere, why don't we just find ways to adapt to the new climate? Our ancestors did, and it worked for them.
Think about dinosaurs; adapt or die.