In today’s Oregonian, Michael P. Nelson, who holds the Ruth H. Spaniol Endowed Chair in Natural Resources and is a professor of environmental ethics and philosophy at Oregon State University, writes in an editorial that “…14 percent of Americans deny that climate change is occurring.” Really is it that low? Nice of them to change (gasp) global warming to “climate change.”
Certainly, I believe that the climate is changing. It not only changes from season to season, but it changes from year to year and decade to decade and century to century. It has been doing that since man made his debut upon the earth. Want proof? Look at the Piri map that shows the Antarctic as free of ice.
The point here is not climate change, but “anthropogenic climate change” or global warming caused by humans. Nelson lays out two premises:
The first premise lays out the implications of scientific research: Unchecked anthropogenic climate change will profoundly harm the chances of future generations, undermining the necessary conditions for human life and liberty. The second premise lays out the values at stake, a culture’s collective moral wisdom about what is just and good: It’s wrong to violate human rights, condemning all future people to struggle and misery. When you combine these facts and these values, the conclusion is inescapable: We are obligated to act quickly to avert anthropogenic climate change.
Ayn Rand wrote one should check the premises. The first relies on anthropogenic climate change being true – UNPROVEN and the second “a culture’s collective moral wisdom” – NOT ACCEPTED AS MY VALUE. Wasn’t it Germany’s collective moral wisdom that Jews were to be destroyed. Isn’t it Islam’s collective moral wisdom that Israel has no right to exist. There are morals that derive from God and collective moral wisdom that can change. I do not accept the collective will.
I am proud to be in the minority, which I would guess is closer to the majority and resent the Oregonian’s constant clamoring for global warming aka climate change.
How is it that these scientists know so much about what is going to happen 50 years from now, yet can’t predict with certainty weather next month? How is it these scientists can be so precise, when they are constantly discovering new volcanoes under the seas, which itself is almost totally unexplored? How is it that economists assume they know which levers to pull to make our economy slow down or speed up, yet can’t break Japan’s depression of 20 years or can’t get the US economy moving?