One Percent

A faithful reader of JMO requested that I read this article by Thomas Friedman and respond. With pleasure! I'm always happy to discuss the things that interest my readers! If you have something you'd like my opinion on, please don't hesitate to ask!

If you don't have time to read the article, here's a brief run-down. This columnist does something that politicians are masters at: he takes something that he doesn't agree with (Here, it's Vice President Cheney's "One Percent Doctrine" that states "If there’s a 1% chance that Pakistani scientists are helping Al Qaeda build or develop a nuclear weapon, we have to treat it as a certainty in terms of our response.” Cheney contended that the U.S. had to confront a very new type of threat: a “low-probability, high-impact event.") The columnist takes one aspect of this and twists it to fit something that the originator of the concept would likely not agree with. In this case, global warming. He argues that even if it's a 1% chance that humanity is causing Global Warming, we need to treat it as a certainty and respond appropriately.

Another excellent example of this is tactic can be seen in the concept of tolerance. Truly tolerant people must be tolerant of all people, including those that do not embrace the concept of tolerance.

Basically, the general practice is to announce your support for something when it suits you, but not when it doesn't. ("I tolerate all viewpoints, except those of the intolerant." "I believe in the 'One Percent Doctrine' when it comes to the Climate, not terrorism") I believe my faithful friend, the reader who suggested that I peruse this article, expected the same duality from me in the reverse of the columnist ("I believe in the 'One Percent Doctrine' when it comes to terrorism, not the climate").

Surprise!

I think both the writer and Cheney are wrong. I'm sorry, but 1% is not nearly enough for me to dedicate anything to a cause or concern. There is a greater than 1% chance that my car (304 thousand plus miles on it) will break down while I'm driving to work, but that doesn't mean I'm going to spend gobs of cash or time on it! 1%, that's 1 out of 100. 1 out of 100 people over the age of 60 get Parkinson's. Should I treat that as a certainty and make sure I don't live that long? 1 in 100 children have autism. What would treating that as a certainty do to our reproductive practices? Clearly, the 'One Percent Doctrine' is ludicrous.

Look, there may be a 1% chance that Pakistanis are assisting Al Qaeda. To treat this as a certainty means war. To treat it as though it's even 30% likely is way more than it deserves! And the same goes for Global Warming! (By the way, if the "science" of man-caused-Global-Warming were so certain, why hide things? Why "massage" the facts? Why purposefully misconstrue information to suit your agenda? Things that are truthful are transparent, they aren't disguised. What would you think of a prosecutor who maneuvers data to get a conviction? Or a religion that doesn't welcome scrutiny but runs from it? Not much, I'm afraid.) I digress...

Mr. Cheney, if you want to consider a 1% threat as though it were a certainty, go right ahead. But DO NOT use my taxes or my neighbors in the armed forces and intelligence agencies to do it. And don't try to frighten me with your 1% equals a certainty doctrine.

Mr. Man-Made-Global-Warming politician, if you want to research alternative energy, that's great. If you want to cut down on your own "carbon footprint," fantastic. If you want to privately encourage car makers and large corporations to change the way they do business, good for you! But DO NOT use my taxes to do it. And DO NOT use your questionable evidence to try to frighten people to putting you in office with your apocalyptic, the end is near doctrine.

Now, Mr. Friedman closes his opinion piece by suggesting that even if we are wrong about Global Warming then it's a win-win: The climate is ok and we are more energy innovative and independent.

I think people misunderstand where I stand on this issue. Do I think that man is causing a potentially catastrophic irreversible increase to our planet's temperature? No, I don't. Am I against people creating new energy sources, driving cleaner cars, reducing/reusing/recycling? No, I'm not. Am I against politicians using scare tactics to gain votes? You bet. Am I against the government mandating certain "reforms" that will cause a drastic increase in the cost of living not only in regards to what I pay for energy but also what I pay for food, clothes, etc because of what the companies that produce and distribute those items pay for energy? Absolutely. Am I against "scientists" altering data and causing mass panic and hysteria so they can steal funding from worthy causes (Such as a cure for AIDS, Cancer, Autism, etc) so they can work on their pet project? You better believe it.

Wanna "do your part" for the planet? Please do. But keep the government out of it.

Your thoughts?