Hung parliament, eh?
Politics has never seemed so gripping! Which I suppose is a shame as this has meant such positions of power have been reserved to those in the predisposed realms of playing in this important but convoluted world.

I’m quite big on green issues and actually think that environmental issues are infinitely more important than our selfish concerns about economy and other material issues.

Unfortunately the Green Party with its unhelpful hippy image is not really in a position to do much, despite its good intentions. Of course it’s not a terrible thing to vote for them, overall votes though not directly crucial,surely provide indication of public thought? And so, we can only hope that whoever or whatever comes into power devotes enough time and commitment into the right areas.

That was a bit off topic. I meant to write about something that – on face value – amused/horrified me and this is that there’s
a pledge to limit temperature rises/global warming by 2 degrees celsius within a certain time frame…

Wait, is it me, or is this something that really isn’t within our immediate control? It’s not like global warming is comparable to a central heating system that you can dictate with some kind of handy thermostat. Oh, it’s getting a bit hot nowadays – a whole 1.4 degrees increase. Oh, I know, let’s cool it down a notch in time for the two year deadline.

A vague and unrealistic notion like this seems flimsy and therefore ludicrous (again, despite seemingly reasonable intentions).

To me and with my limited knowledge of science (I often doodled during science classes), it’s a bit like when you pour liquid into a funnel and you misjudge it. The liquid will overflow and there’s little you can do about it. Of course multiply this exponentially on a massive global scale and you’ve got a gigantic funnel that might very well make an enormous mess. Dangerous grounds.

Somebody recently told me he watches Glenn Beck (that was enough for me to stereotype him) and then proceeded to tell me that top dogs can point to ‘the science’ and prove that global warming is a myth. This angered me somewhat. It’s no secret that statistics (‘the science’) can be used to support whatever agenda you harbour and to be fair has probably happened for both sides. I once heard of a study that definitively ’proved’ that mobile phones posed no health risks whatsoever, though the study was funded by a heavyweight in the mobile phones industry.

History has witnessed similar studies by tobacco friendly scientists refuting links between smoking and ill health. People are often too easily convinced as soon as the illusion of ‘science’ and some big numbers are bandied about.

In any case, what does the average person have to gain for not believing in global warming? Even if it doesn’t exist and we are – in the unlikely scenario – just experiencing the fluctuations of natural climate change, what harm is there to err on the side of caution?

It has echoes of Pascal’s wager about the existence of god, but is crucially different in embodying less of the ego of that particular train of thought. The Pascal wager rather deceitfully argues that it is far better to believe in god and be spared god’s anger, than be an unbeliever (atheist and our blasphemous ilk) and then fall foul of his/her/it’s potential (and notorious) wrath. Hardly strong grounds for any sort of belief, just a self concerned backing of the no lose situation. In any case, belief inglobal warming – whether it is true or not is surely a wager well worth taking – even for sceptics? It’s a no-brainer. If indeed global warming isn’t man made then in trying (in vain) to avert it, we have lost very little. If, however, on strong evidence it is – then we have much, much more to lose. And if we have failed to do enough about it, then future generations will bear the brunt of our misplaced and irrevocable conviction. That’s a burden much too heavy to carry.

Advertisement