President Obama addressing the Climate Change Summit:
“For all the immediate challenges that we gather to address this week – terrorism, instability, inequality, disease – there’s one issue that will define the contours of this century more dramatically than any other, and that is the urgent and growing threat of a changing climate
“In America, the past decade has been our hottest on record. Along our eastern coast, the city of Miami now floods at high tide. In our west, wildfire season now stretches most of the year. In our heartland, farms have been parched by the worst drought in generations, and drenched by the wettest spring in our history. A hurricane left parts of [New York City] dark and underwater. And some nations already live with far worse.
“Worldwide, this summer was the hottest ever recorded – with global carbon emissions still on the rise.”
So, Barry Obama considers climate change a greater threat than terrorism?
Of course, some will argue that the climate’s always changing and that this never killed anyone. There are a few people out there who try to argue that climate change killed the dinosaurs, but they’d be evolutionists and as we all know evolution is just a theory. Like gravity, it’s just a theory.
But even if the “alarmists” are right, surely ISIL has the potential to do more damage than climate change. I mean, what’s the worst that climate change could do? Even if the sea levels rose to the point that all land was submerged, then we’d still have marine life. At this point, the Japanese would stop whaling and those opposed to their slaughter could stop wailing too.
ISIL, on the other hand, is murdering innocent people. Not only that, they’re calling for the deaths of people in places like the USA, the UK and Australia. Probably a few other countries too, but I don’t tend to think too much about deaths outside those three countries. Imagine, innocent people in the USA being slaughtered by terrorists instead of your patriotic gun-toting maniac who’s opened fire as a way of asserting his disgust with the suggestion that gun ownership may be restricted to people prepared answer such intrusive questions as “What’s your name?” or “Are you planning to commit a massacre?”
(Mm, just a thought here, but the US Constitution guarantees the “right to bear arms” – as opposed to “bare arms” – does that include knives? Or will the United States citizens be lucky enough to be able to carry round machine guns to defend themselves while the jihadists can have their knives confiscated.)
But the title of this blog is “Why I’m a Sceptic… And Why Obama Doesn’t Make Sense”, so I guess I should stop running off on tangents. (Is that a mixed metaphor? Is it possible to run on a tangent? I know it’s possible to run at a tangent.. Actually, thinking about it, is it possible to run AT a tangent.)
Scepticism is healthy. It was a lack of scepticism that led to the AWB scandal, the GFC and the belief that the Liberals actually had a Direct Action Policy. (I was always sceptical about the last one, after all why should it be any different to everything else!) I was sceptical when someone drew a little diagram which showed why Amway was not a pyramid selling scheme. (“Lucky,” I said, “because there’s such a lack of demand for pyramids in Australia. Now if was one of those sales where they sell garages…”)
But some so-called sceptics aren’t sceptical at all. They are just believers of a different faith. Someone who asserts that they’re a sceptic because they don’t believe in ESP isn’t sceptical, they’re entirely SURE and it wouldn’t matter if I predicted the next card two million times in a row, they’d put it down to skullduggery or just coincidence.
Which, of course, is why I support action on climate change. I’m sceptical. I don’t know. I’m neither a scientist nor Andrew Bolt, who has the privilege of knowing everything, in spite of being a university dropout. I don’t believe anybody. But I know which side has the greater consequence if they’re wrong. And I know which side seems to have the greater vested interest in doing nothing. And I have sufficient knowledge of when the biggest SNAFUs in history have happened. It’s usually been from people saying, Trust us, nothing bad can happen.
As for Mr President. Well, I liked his speech. It was a very pretty thing to say.
But – to go off on a tangent for a moment – where was this urgency in Copenhagen? (Copenhagen. Remember, it took the wind out Rudd’s sails, stuffed Turnbull and gave Abbott the leadership… You can fill in the rest!)
The world only meets on climate change at designated times. But, when he perceived a threat from ISIL, Mr President acted – in relative terms – immediately. And he certainly gives the impression that he’d have acted unilaterally.
But climate change. Bigger threat. Let’s see what we can do…
Like I said, I’m a sceptic. For all I know, Abbott’s Direct Action plan may be really, really good. After all, how can I criticise when I know so little about it – we still have heard much about how it’ll work or when it’ll start!
Perhaps, he’s been distracted by the Paid Parental Leave Scheme…
