What is So Wrong with Global Warming?
September 7, 2007 · By Charles Anthony
I wish everybody would accept global warming or climate change as fact and just move on — move on to a more serious discussion like: What is wrong with global warming anyway?
As such, we may put a lot of pseudo-environmental “scientists” out of work because it is now a political and economic question. [Forget for the moment whether global warming or climate change or whatever is truly caused by humans.]
I live in Canada and Canada can be a very cold country. Sometimes it can be very humid too. I spend half the year burning energy to stay warm and the other half of the year burning energy to stay cool. I also spend a lot of money on a seasonally versatile wardrobe. Warmer weather in Canada is welcome — to me.
For some people, global warming will create a net benefit and without a doubt, for many other people in the world it will create a net harm. There is no denying that habitable or arable land will likely be flooded. People will be displaced. That is clearly bad — for them. However, unless those people are slaves, we, in the Western world, can not take the moral authority to force them to change their commercial practices.
Admittedly, the “harm” of global warming can translate into “harm” for me in Canada. Since I depend on imports from vulnerable parts of the world, their misfortune will likely lead to a decrease in my standard of living. My coffee and my sugar and my bananas and practically everything else I consume will be more scarce. The question remains: is that a bad thing? Answer: Of course it is — for me.
On the flip side, where I live in Canada could become a very comfortable place. Maybe people will come to Canada for their holidays. Maybe barren or frozen lands in Canada will become arable and habitable. Who knows? but they certainly can not get more barren and more frozen.
Now we have benefits and costs associated with global warming or climate change. This is no longer exclusively a scientific issue. Resolving the “problem” should be passed off into the hands of politicians and economists. [I would suggest that the issue has always been political and economic. The "scientists" try to control the discussion only as a smoke-screen to conceal their lack of objectivity in the matter.] The “problem” is actually quite bland now because it is impossible to balance these benefits and costs on a global scale. There is no objective solution — even if we assume humans are the cause of climate change or global warming. The bitter truth is that the standard of living of the Western world depends on industrialization and trade. If environmentalists want to step into the realm of politics and economics, they would do well to start by opposing state subsidization of all aspects of the transportation industry. Unfortunately, I doubt you will find many people — even among the anti-globalization crowd — willing to roll back the technological clock and live a primitive life-style.
The next time a “scientist” expects your attention in a discussion over climate change or global warming, simplify everything by taking a human caused doom and gloom worse case scenario for granted and ask him: How much of our standard of living would decrease in exchange for controlling global warming?
– –
If you successfully get a “scientist” to elevate the seriousness of the discussion, ask him who he would recommend to be the Enforcer of any hypothetical solution and what incentives could exist to make sure the Enforcer stays on course.
Good post.
Really, it’s the only debate that should be held – good? or bad? How much of each? and what is the chance of it happening, how will be adapt?
The fearmongerers think that as the waters rise people will see it creep up to their ankles, knees, chests, necks over the course of decades and be drowned.
Global Warming will continue despite our actions. Pollution is a problem, and should be addressed. Two separate subjects, one needs to be addressed, the other ignored.
A much bigger, and more immediate problem, is how to deal with the ascension of the Asian giants, India & China, to the world’s most powerful economies. Their brand of ruthless capitalism may soon have a devastating effect on our Country, as we lose more industry, and now, even the auto sector may be undermined by cheaper vehicles from China. Remember, fifty years ago, everyone laughed at the idea that Japan could ever make a decent car.
Tourism has replaced a great portion of the former primary industry here in B.C., and towns all over the Province are suffering. The aging baby boomers, and the cost to the health care system of keeping us relics alive, is a more pressing issue than melting ice in the Arctic.
This continent has far bigger problems than alleged AGW, and hopefully, we will elect politicians who realize that, and put the New Religion on the back burner.
Global warming isn’t real!
Global warming isn’t man-made!
Global warming is real, but it’s harmless!
Wow. You just can’t make this stuff up.
Seriously…. wow.
You know, for a topic that certainly seems to have this BIG consensus among all the scientists and everyone, there sure is a lot of complaining and opinions about it.
Science is not based on consensus, but on the Scientific Principle. Politics is consensus. I could use a warmer winter and what’s wrong with growing citrus fruit, coffee or bananas in Canada should GW get to that point? Vikings colonized Greenland in the period 900 – 1350 AD. That’s why they called it “green land”. The climate was warmer then and then it got colder. People moved. I’m selling land parcels in the Norman Wells area, anyone interested? Beat the rush.
I don’t mean to sound condescending, but you surely don’t understand the implications of global temperature change. The cliché we are a part of the circle of life is correct; minor transgressions in the balance of nature have major impacts on our own survival [inclusive being Canadians]. Increased temperatures means more than mere problems for the third world. It can have an impact on every living thing on Earth. The eradication of fragile bacteria could even create a mass extinction, eliminating a fundamental necessity of oxygen on our planet. I’m not trying to sound alarmist, but your article is written with a hint of naivete.
Globalization may have connected us economically, but we have always been a global ecosystem. Changes in climate can have devastating repercussions to the planet, including our own extinction. That’s why climate scientists are so concerned, not because we are burning incandescents, but because our very existence could be at stake in the future.
Oh, I do understand the implications, you actually don’t. What you can’t grasp is the fact that global climate is driven by forces beyond human control and yes you are condescending enough to think that humans CAN control our climate. What egotistical tripe!
“What you can’t grasp is the fact that global climate is driven by forces beyond human control and yes you are condescending enough to think that humans CAN control our climate.”
Well then, our own Prime Minister is an egotistical spewer of tripe as well. From APEC:
“the weight of scientific evidence holds that our atmosphere is getting hotter and that human activity is a significant contributor”
And on the Conservative action plan:
“Canada wants to be a world leader in the fight against climate change and in the development of clean energy.
So if you have issues with global warming being a natural phenomenon, I suggest you find a Prime Minister you agrees with you. Our very own Conservative one does not.
Well then, our own Prime Minister is an egotistical spewer of tripe as well. From APEC:
Harper is a politician, not a scientist. So, I do agree with your point “…is a spewer of tripe…”. I don’t have to agree with him. As for yourself: do you think that humans can control the earth’s climate? Before you answer, consider this: the planet has been several degrees warmer in the past than currently projected as a worst case scenario, for the future, with no great effect on the human race. Do you think that humans could not adapt to a warmer planet?
“Do you think that humans could not adapt to a warmer planet?”
I don’t think that question is as relevant as “Do you think that life on earth can adapt to a warmer planet”. If phytoplankton, responsible for 90% of the world’s oxygen, cannot survive a global climate change, then chances are we could have a massive extinction. Humans would be unable to sustain their population, although it is conceivable a smaller population of our race could survive in any conditions through artificial means.
I furthermore find your argument rather odd. You don’t believe in the arguments of the majority of climatologists, but then cite Prime Minister Harper is not a climatologist, so he cannot possibly understand the science. So which is it you adhere to? Politicians, or scientists? Or neither? Perhaps you believe simply in hunches?
What is so odd? I don’t take people at face value and accept the dogma they spout? I’m not taking Harper or the “consensus” scientists as gospel? I don’t care what Harper says, he is playing politics with science. He is doing what a politician does, hoping that people don’t see through him to the real science. The same science that produced the Hockey Stick graph by Mann et al, now debunked as an exercise in cherry-picking data sets to get the answer that best suited their human caused, global warming theory. It was debunked by two very un-scientific types and the graph was shown to be a fraud. Not reproducible. So, yeah, I don’t believe all that I read, but produce a critical argument based on facts and proper assessment of the data in a purely scientific way and then I’ll form my own conclusions. What is your method? You haven’t answered my question: do you think that humans can control the earth’s climate?
People who follow the scientific method are now holding up to the glaring light of the scientific process, the dogma of “consensus” scientists of catastrophic warming. The data used by NOAA and GISS to establish the “warming” trend and predict their catastrophic temperature rises, was recently found to be skewed by a Y2K glitch, conveniently missed by a bunch of publicly funded “consensus” scientists. Hmmm, politics at play? Big fat government grants could be an incentive to not be so “scientific” with regards to how consensus scientitsts, reported their findings and developed their theories. Gotta keep the government cash flow flowing, eh?
I don’t disagree that the planet is warming, now, on a cyclical basis. The planet has been warming and cooling for a lot longer than humans have been around, or species that have died out becuase of failing to adapt to past climactic changes. What I disagree with is the condescending view of politicians, and others who support their view, thinking that the policies they promulgate will actually control our climate and thereby “save” us from ourselves. That is a whole other science best known as “political” science, not the science that we are discussing here.
As to your assertion that phytoplankton produce all our O2, study a bit of Geology, sport. Volcanic activity is the likely scenario that produced the major amounts of O2 present in our atmosphere, aided by photosynthesis. The same volcanic processes can just as easily affect our climate and have done so in the past. The cause of the Little Ice Age was due to volcanic activity, something we humans can not control. The history of the human species on this planet was drastically affected 74,000 years ago, by a massvie volcanic eruption in SE Asia. It not only wiped out most of the existing human species gene pool, but numerous other plant and animal species as well. Could happen again, maybe in your lifetime, too. Be prepared.
Surely Harper doesn’t believe the great global warming hoax. He only finds it necessary to play along. I hope to be able to vote for the one courageous and honest enough to stand up to global whining someday. We need to call it out for the left wing crap that it is.
couldn’t agree more! But think of it – all that government control and cash flow generated all in the name of saving us from GW. Pretty tempting for any ploitician, of any political stripe.
Scott from Winnipeg wrote:
Global warming isn’t real!
Global warming isn’t man-made!
Global warming is real, but it’s harmless!
Wow. You just can’t make this stuff up.
Seriously…. wow.
…
Clearly you can, hence why we are even having this debate over “man-made” global warming in the first place.
Raphael Alexander: “I don’t think that question is as relevant as “Do you think that life on earth can adapt to a warmer planetâ€Â.”
You are wrong. Your question is completely irrelevent if you can not offer a method to change it.
Furthermore, you must offer to the general public a cost associated to saving the phytoplankton. You are not going to be able to coerce people.