Long Time No Rant

Slow, languid, nearly imperceptible. These words describe a phenomenon that, like most changes to dialect, lexicon, verbiage, etcetera, take place over a long enough time to scarcely be noticed (especially by a people with as short attention spans / as shortsighted as us humans). Once again what is past is prologue, and with the miniscule changing of terminology comes a sweeping shift of perception, priority, and direction. I’ll be honest, I have not seen nor read Al Gore’s, uh, opus? I’m referring of course to “An Inconvenient Truth”. Frankly, I’m not sure how much it matters here other than to say the aforementioned book / film has, perhaps not sparked, but has been the epicenter of much of the current debate surrounding the topic of ‘global warming’. And that is the subject of today’s rant. Not the topic of ‘global warming’, the terminology. How can I make informed commentary without having taken in such an integral piece of the subject you ask? I can’t. Actually, it’s a rant, so I could if I wanted to; after all you can’t spell ignorant without ‘rant’. But I’m not looking to expound on the credibility, credulity, accuracy, or what-have-you regarding what is commonly referred to as ‘global warming’. I think it goes without saying that it’s a tough call. If you must know what I think in order to determine the worthwhileness of reading on, well, I suppose I’d say that the jury’s still out. Yep, that’s right, total spineless stock opinion. There’s a lot of data, a lot of scientists (credible ones), and a lot of logic on both sides. And at the core of the issues I find a win-win situation. Why? Because I love science. It’s too bad that due to grants, government funding, privatization and so on science has become so seemingly corrupted but, not to be too cute about it, I have faith. When you get down to it science is about observing, asking why/how, and formulating testable theories. With something like ‘global warming’, really what we’re talking about are global climate models. Enormous scale, LONG term stuff. Planet size, eon-long scenarios. So to get all wound up over it, more specifically all wound up on one side or the other, seems hasty and counterproductive to me. We just can't know for sure either way yet, we must research and study on. Regardless, when did the conversation change to ‘global warming’ from ‘pollution’?

Getting to the point (hey, it’s a rant), does anyone think pollution is okay? I mean, we can debate FOREVER about whether or not our presence on earth, mainly since the industrial revolution, is actually altering the long term climate of the planet, but either way pollution is still, well, pollution!

“Pollute: 1- contaminate or defile (the environment). 2- make foul or filthy. 3- destroy the purity or sanctity of.”

Now, I know this is a pretty cut-and-dry definition. I’m not an all-encompassing conservationist by any stretch, but what can we fairly call pollution? What is unnecessary? What is unresourceful/overindulgent? Well, cars are a logical focus for a reason. Exhaust. Believe Al Gore or don’t , but if you fill up the room you're in with car exhaust you’ll die. fast. Auto emissions are bad for human beings, not to mention the rest of the population of life on planet earth. Things like exhaust, toxic waste, sewage, litter; these are what I think of when I think of pollution. Maybe I'm naive, but is there any argument about whether or not these things are negative, and that we should do more to limit them? For argument's sake let's say that there is no global warming. Or at least that it's a totally natural process that takes place independent of human presence on earth. We still plan to stay on this planet for the foreseeable future though, do we not ? If so, wouldn't it be ideal to have clean air to breathe, clean water to drink, and some unspoiled/non-plundered natural resources left?

I just want to know when we got off track, and if I'm the only one who feels that an ongoing scientific and political argument about our responsibility for, or the validity of, 'global warming' is not the best use of our time. Or even that said debate might actually be good for politicians, big business, and those who'd just as soon keep things (like regulations, 'acceptable' levels of pollution, country-wide mind sets) just where they are. And that the debate is terribly counterproductive for anyone who cares about having a habitable planet for any distance into the future. The debate over 'climate change' or whatever you want to call it, while not worthless, is window dressing. It's a smokescreen. It's a way to keep everyone arguing and at odds while things go on much the way they have been since the industrial revolution. Burying garbage and toxic waste in the earth is literally undermining our future. Even if you don't care about earth or any other life on it pollution is bad for US, humans.