![]() |
Vinod's Blog Random musings from a libertarian, tech geek... |
|
I'm far from a climate change denialist and really believe, like Bjorn Lomborg, that
As Scott Adams (of Dilbert fame) points out in the link above, Lomborg ends up taking a bit of a beating despite pointing out some pretty basic, defensible propositions. I think the real difference, however is that for many folks, global warming is a moral issue, while for others, it's an economic one. As much as I shudder at the "conservative" label, this delta is, I suspect, one of those broad liberal vs. conservative things writ large. If / when a "conservative" makes arguments like Lomborg's that global warming's harms may be exaggerated, or perhaps there's some level of it that we can live with, or perhaps other problems might be worse... All of that "rationalizing" is an affront to liberal sensitivies because it's tantamount to saying "it's ok to further victimize the planet." And thus we're deep into the heroes / villians morality play and the search begins for nefarious motives (e.g. "big oil is paying you to say that..."). Do so many liberals really frame something this complex as a moral / spiritual issue? Well, the Nobel peace prize winning, celebrity climatologist in chief pretty much says so directly -
It's hard to find a more messianic pursuit than that. ![]() |
|
| ||