Cool It, People

The solipsistic roots and potential unintended environmental consequences of the 'Obama to the Rescue' mentality

In the 1970s, out of concern that the planet was cooling, many scientists were considering radical ideas to combat its surely disastrous consequences by artificially warming the Earth, ideas such as spreading soot on the polar ice caps in order to facilitate melting.

Of course, we're now being told that there was no such scientific consensus on the threat of global cooling -- though such charges are being made by the same people who claim to have complete scientific consensus that our Earth is warming, that the human race (not the sun, of course!) is the cause, and that the consequences could be deadly. So, not only are people like NASA's James Hansen and former Vice President Al Gore saying that "the debate is over" in terms of man-made global warming, they're arguing that there never was any debate about cooling temperatures in the 1970s.

Contrary to my own unique ability--due to my expanding midsection and the Law of Water Displacement--to cause a slight rise in sea levels across the globe when I go for a dip in the Atlantic, and despite my slight resemblance to a tanned manatee while sunbathing, I am by no means an expert on our oceans, climate, or anything else in our natural world. I am, however, a cynic -- and if anything is needed to fight the consequences of the global warming movement, it's cynicism.

Even if, per chance, there was no true scientific consensus in the 1970s about global cooling just as there is no true scientific consensus now about global warming, such a lack of consensus only underscores the fact that, when it comes to planetary matters, our perspective as educated human beings only provides us with the briefest snapshot of the 4.5 billion years since the Earth's creation. In other words, we don't know squat. And we should hesitate before doing anything drastic--in any direction and for any reason--before we know more.

Let's set aside, for the moment, how the global warming movement is more rooted in ideology than conservation. Let's ignore, for a second, how the entire concept is more about the redistribution of wealth than the welfare of the planet. Instead, consider the relationship between mankind and the planet Earth.

How egotistical are we in thinking that, after spending only 10,000 years on a 4.5 billion-year-old planet, human beings are so powerful as to counteract the natural correctional mechanisms of planet Earth? Heck, the vast, vast majority of our time here was spent in blissful ignorance to the potential of Man, in a state of involuntary cohesion with nature. I find it amazing how solipsistic these so-called environmentalists are, thinking that after surviving ice ages and dinosaurs and meteor strikes and earthquakes and monumental movements of tectonic plates, the Earth will suddenly be destroyed because of mankind and our horrible, terrible carbon emissions.

I thought Galileo debunked the idea that the rest of the universe revolved around the Earth. Somebody should tell these arrogant, dirty, socialist, self-centered hippies that he was right.

Speaking of arrogant socialists, the Associated Press is reporting today that President Barack Obama--champion of that great environmental and social equalizer, cap-and-trade--is considering taking radical steps to artificially cool the planet's air, including but not limited to cloud-seeding and the synthetic reflection of solar rays. Perhaps, too, he could consider issuing an executive order mandating that Al Gore shut his gaping, hypocritical mouth.

All kidding aside, John Holdren, the president's new science adviser, said yesterday that the government would determine whether or not a certain threshold was passed, whether or not the Earth was truly "desperate enough" for such actions to be taken.

My question is: Determined by whom? Who will be in charge of deciding just when the Earth is "desperate enough" to warrant taking unprecedented, radical steps which could have a whole host of globally disastrous unintended consequences, all based on a perceived danger which could very well be a scientific myth? Who gets to push that button?

Last I checked, the federal government isn't exactly well-equipped to predict the possible consequences of its actions. Look at our economy, for example, and the adverse consequences of forcing banks to relax lending standards in the name of social justice. Government rarely knows best, and in this situation, the failure of the federal government could lead to a completely irreversible result.

In the case of Mother Earth, perhaps these global warming activists should actually think of the planet first, rather than act as part of a greater ideological agenda or merely place their faith in those who exploit their crunchy, organic passions and do just that. Perhaps the greatest thing we can do for our planet is to be responsible stewards of Earth, and allow for the planet to do what it has been doing for the 4.4999999 billion years before the Industrial Revolution -- adapt.

Meanwhile, I only hope that somebody has the courage to ask Al Gore or any of his flunkies what, exactly, would be the optimal temperature for planet Earth, and then ask why. I'm interested to see two things -- first, if they have a rational basis for plucking a number out of thin air and, second, if they're actually so arrogant and egotistical to truly believe that they know what's best for their own Mother.