Can We Have Both (Or More Than That)?
By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President
A book I’m reading suggest that as a society we are currently more inclined to not want to listen to sharp criticism or loud debates from one side or the other on topics including global warming. The book is by a pollster who is sharing his insights from taking the pulse of what we as Americans think about.
Because of the detail and my own difficulty in grasping all the concepts on the first time or so around new ground, it will likely take some more digging to get the whole message that the book is seeking to impart, but one of the concepts seems to be that as a society we’re more inclined to recognize that there are limits to the resources available for our use. He also is suggesting, based on his interpretation of the polls he conducts, that we’re willing to accept having what we need to get by – as opposed to “going after it all”.
The continuing attention he is giving to global warming and the idea that the American general public is of a mind that it is something which needs attention is an interesting point to contemplate. This is especially worth considering if you (as I am) one of the non-believers in the theory.
The information that I’ve seen in video presentations, including “The Great Global Warming Swindle” and “Carbon Dioxide and the ‘Climate Crisis’ – Reality or Illusion” have made me quite skeptical that we should believe those who wish to force us into significant sacrifices in the name of protecting ourselves from global warming.
If I’m to understand one of the premises of the book that I’ve referred to – the solution to getting others to listen isn’t to shout about my disbelief, although I don’t think there’s much chance for a reasoned and rationale discuss or debate about it either. My perception has been that those who believe are quite adamant in their conviction and they happen to also be in the driver seat with a President, Congress and a federal bureaucracy all apparently on the same page of shrinking our carbon footprints and our wallets as well.
It probably would be easier to accept the difference of opinion regarding what they consider to be “science” and what I consider to be a hoax, if they would let me continue receiving the energy I need without the penalties they have in mind for convincing me otherwise. I’d be more than happy to let them believe in their theory, build wind mill energy harvesting complexes – install solar panels and drive small alternatively-energized vehicles. They can pay for carbon sequestration and any other kinds of incentives that they’d like to come up with to benefit their agenda.
When I first heard about the ozone being damaged it was linked to deodorant that you spray on from a can. The next thing you know, roll-on was really the only available option (the only one that didn’t stink anyway). I’m somewhat concerned that going forward all these ideas you can hardly keep a straight face about when they explain their thinking is going to be just like the changes in how deodorant is applied.
Having grown up in a part of the country that was cold a lot of the year (or so it seemed anyway), I’m not too sure that I’m even against global warming if it did exist…or if my carbon footprint was causing it. From the looks of my heating bills from this winter, I’m almost certain that a lot of global warming wouldn’t be a bad thing. The way it looks though I’m going to get even more increases in the fuel bill to be able to keep global warming from happening. Now that doesn’t seem to make any sense at all!
If we can have it both ways…how about decreasing the size of our energy and warming things up a degree or so too? From the some of the information that I’ve seen, history records a number of points in time when the temperatures were higher than they are now and during those timeframes, civilization did well and prospered. That can’t be a bad thing no matter how we’re supposed to worry and feel bad about our use of carbon-based energy.
A book I’m reading suggest that as a society we are currently more inclined to not want to listen to sharp criticism or loud debates from one side or the other on topics including global warming. The book is by a pollster who is sharing his insights from taking the pulse of what we as Americans think about.
Because of the detail and my own difficulty in grasping all the concepts on the first time or so around new ground, it will likely take some more digging to get the whole message that the book is seeking to impart, but one of the concepts seems to be that as a society we’re more inclined to recognize that there are limits to the resources available for our use. He also is suggesting, based on his interpretation of the polls he conducts, that we’re willing to accept having what we need to get by – as opposed to “going after it all”.
The continuing attention he is giving to global warming and the idea that the American general public is of a mind that it is something which needs attention is an interesting point to contemplate. This is especially worth considering if you (as I am) one of the non-believers in the theory.
The information that I’ve seen in video presentations, including “The Great Global Warming Swindle” and “Carbon Dioxide and the ‘Climate Crisis’ – Reality or Illusion” have made me quite skeptical that we should believe those who wish to force us into significant sacrifices in the name of protecting ourselves from global warming.
If I’m to understand one of the premises of the book that I’ve referred to – the solution to getting others to listen isn’t to shout about my disbelief, although I don’t think there’s much chance for a reasoned and rationale discuss or debate about it either. My perception has been that those who believe are quite adamant in their conviction and they happen to also be in the driver seat with a President, Congress and a federal bureaucracy all apparently on the same page of shrinking our carbon footprints and our wallets as well.
It probably would be easier to accept the difference of opinion regarding what they consider to be “science” and what I consider to be a hoax, if they would let me continue receiving the energy I need without the penalties they have in mind for convincing me otherwise. I’d be more than happy to let them believe in their theory, build wind mill energy harvesting complexes – install solar panels and drive small alternatively-energized vehicles. They can pay for carbon sequestration and any other kinds of incentives that they’d like to come up with to benefit their agenda.
When I first heard about the ozone being damaged it was linked to deodorant that you spray on from a can. The next thing you know, roll-on was really the only available option (the only one that didn’t stink anyway). I’m somewhat concerned that going forward all these ideas you can hardly keep a straight face about when they explain their thinking is going to be just like the changes in how deodorant is applied.
Having grown up in a part of the country that was cold a lot of the year (or so it seemed anyway), I’m not too sure that I’m even against global warming if it did exist…or if my carbon footprint was causing it. From the looks of my heating bills from this winter, I’m almost certain that a lot of global warming wouldn’t be a bad thing. The way it looks though I’m going to get even more increases in the fuel bill to be able to keep global warming from happening. Now that doesn’t seem to make any sense at all!
If we can have it both ways…how about decreasing the size of our energy and warming things up a degree or so too? From the some of the information that I’ve seen, history records a number of points in time when the temperatures were higher than they are now and during those timeframes, civilization did well and prospered. That can’t be a bad thing no matter how we’re supposed to worry and feel bad about our use of carbon-based energy.
Posted by Doug Busselman at 4/13/2009 3:54 PM 
Categories: Climate Change
Tags: environmental taxation global warming cap and trade
Categories: Climate Change
Tags: environmental taxation global warming cap and trade
Comments