But among all of those problems, the worst flaw is that even if the theory is right... the consequences just aren’t that bad. Consider this:
First, let us assume that global warming is true and their laughably wrong theory is accurate. That means that in 100 years, there will be a 1-3 degree rise in average temperatures (most have described it as 1.5 degree rise). What does this mean?
Well, the doomsday brigade has been presenting this as a 3 degree increase in temperature across the board. Thus, if our high is 100 degrees, it will now be 103 degrees. Their theory doesn’t say that however. They also imply that every day will miraculously be near the high from now on, though that is utter nonsense and is completely contradicted even by their own theory.
What their theory says is that the Earth is warming and will experience an average temperature rise of one to three degrees. They do not say that the top temperature will get hotter. And if that is the case, then there will be no danger to any plant or animal species. Why? Because those plants and animals already exist at the temperature ranges that the theory expects even after the rise in temperature.
What’s more, average temperature rises won’t be a problem either. Consider this... a three degree rise in average yearly temperatures suggest a three degree temperature increase each day. That means that all those days that are 50 around where you live would now be 53 and all those days that are 70 would become 73. Can you see any possible harm to that? Will an 8 degree Winter day be so much hotter than a 5 degree day that you can see a mass extinction of critters?
Hardly.
So where is the harm? Name a single animal which can live through ten weeks of 70 degrees, but can’t live through ten weeks of 73 degrees, or an animal that will die at 8 degrees, but would live at 5 degree. Name a single animal that can live through the hottest summers now, but will die out if we add a couple weeks to that heat.
Has anyone noticed that warmer climates also tend to be more lush and more packed with life? Have any of the enthusiasts thought about that? No.
In fact, that brings up a second interesting point. I can’t take credit for this as it was first thought by an environmentalist who has turned against the theory of global warming, but it is absolutely worth passing on. Looking at the historical record, there was much more carbon in the air in the past than now. We know this because ancient plants were much, much larger than those in the present. Indeed, our plants and trees today are scrawny dwarves by comparison. So what he says is that we are at a carbon low period right now and out plants are suffering because of it. Global warming, if true, would be a Godsend to the flora of this planet.
Interesting, isn’t it?
Thoughts?
28 comments:
Andrew....... and then the enviros will find out that there are dead trees under Greenland's ice pack when it melts. Which means.....that it used to be a LOT warmer than it is even now if trees were able to grow in Greenland many, many years ago (before SUV's btw).
Who knows, maybe the Earth was meant to be warmer and we are in some sort of deep freeze and don't even know it...
Okay this is just another "anti-science" rant, isn't it, Andrew. How dare you be "anti-science"! Bad Andrew, bad Andrew. It does not matter that all of North America was once covered under a giant sheet of ice waaaaay back, I assume it has been warming up ever since..hence no sign of permafrost or ice in Central Park. But that doesn't matter!
SCIENCE says "No, it's all man-made and has only occurred in the last 40 years or so [though it's hard to tell exactly where the statistics begin exactly]. We are bad people!". These are the SCIENCE people who are saying this. It must be true because SCIENCE is never ever wrong.
Oh, and those Anti-Science so-called "scientists" who say the Sun has something to do with the warming and cooling trends (you know, why we are called a "solar system" 'cause well...you know). The are LYING and saying these things for money. In their defense, I have heard that the Sun pays very well much like the Koch Brothers. Anyway, this is settled science and if you don't agree, I am again telling the SJWs who are obviously always the champion science knowers of truth!
Oddly, these are the same bastions of Settled Science magically can ignore basic biology when it comes to human reproduction and chromosomal gender identity.
But Bob, that was then and this is now and nothing should change ever right now. ;-)
In all seriousness, you're absolutely right. The planet has swung back and forth between much hotter and much colder and we've been lucky to live in a very stable period. What we should be researching is how to survive if things change dramatically again, not how to stop the waves.
Critch, I think the truth is that the Earth was meant to be all over the place temperature-wise and if we want to survive as a species, we need to prepare for that. Unfortunately, we are wasting time now talking about how to stop that which cannot be stopped.
Bev, I'm very pro-science. I'm just pro a different science than liberals. I like the science that seeks to find truth, not convenience,
It's funny to me how evolution means that humans in different parts of the world evolved to have different skill sets, but we must believe that all people are the same. Genetics tells us that individuals are born with different strengths and weaknesses, yet we must believe that every person is the same as the next. Biology tells us that men are women are physically, mentally and emotionally different, yet we must believe they are identical.
Who are the religious fanatics again? Sure, Santorum et al. ignores science so he can believe things that aren't true as part of his dogma, but liberals know what science has proven and they choose to ignore it so they can stick with their dogma. Who is worse? The ignorant or those who knowingly lie?
Andrew - You know I was being sarcastic, right?
The real crux of the issue that not whether there is or isn't "climate change", it is how we must be better managers of our global resources. The Earth is a living thing and we are just microbes that can be wiped off with a giant swipe from Mother Nature at any time. We arrogantly believe that we hold dominion over Nature when in reality Nature can destroy us at anytime, no matter WHAT we do.
If conservatives (as in "those who conserve" would just use this as alternative, then the arguments will change to something constructive. Like how can we adapt and conserve the resources that we have now and how can we spur on private industry to develop inexpensive non-toxic renewable energy?
Rather than argue is there or isn't there...let the real scientists and inventors do their stuff.
And you are right - Humans are highly adaptable to any climate. Any animal, vegetable or mineral that cannot adapt, cannot survive. That is nothing new. If you want to see the most adaptable kingdom on the planet, study plants. They have managed to figure out how to survive and never be able to relocate on their own by using what is around them - wind, rain, other species etc.
BEv, Yep, I knew you were being sarcastic! :D
I agree. We should be talking about conservation, efficient/sustainable use of resources and how to survive shocks. We should not be wasting our time arguing about whether or not June 10, 2115 will be 73 degrees or 74!
Most global warming/climate change activists don't even know--let alone understand--the theories behind their cause. For example, even scientists who push warming theory will tell you that extreme weather has nothing to do with climate change. Yet every flood, drought, thunderstorm, tornado, hurricane and even earthquake gets pinned on CO2 emissions by the enviro crowd in the media. This despite the fact that the record shows a decline in extreme weather events.
The alarmists are even getting the 1—3° temperature thing wrong. They’re trying to scare us with slightly milder winters and hotter summers. What the AGW scientist are saying is that a few degrees increase could cross a tipping point that triggers a feedback loop causing runaway warming. Trouble is, no one has actually identified a tipping point except to arbitrarily declare that 2° is the limit. Asking what exactly happens once Earth gets 2° warmer yields responses starting with a lot of "coulds" and "mights."
tryanmax, Agreed on all points. First, the pushers of the theory are remarkably ignorant of how the theory works and what it says. I guess it's too hard for them to learn.
Secondly, that is the theory -- the tipping point, but it's utter fantasy. There is no logical reason to believe it and no data to support it. It is essentially science fiction... "what if?" I could use the same theory to prove that we will be attacked by unicorns if we bake too many donuts.
In fact, the logic suggests the opposite. Knowing that it's been hotter and has cooled back down indicates cycles, not tipping points which suggest a permanent change.
First of all, climate change is not a theory, it is a fact. Those of you who don't believe it are anti-science, right wing, religious troglodytes. The science is settled and to keep debating it is only confusing the children. We can do this with the technology we have today; don't listen to the shrill big oil liars. Granted, we probably need to have fewer people in the world but it is worth it. The world was in perfect and fine tuned balance until humans arrived. They are a disease that needs to be eradicated.
Koshcat, I didn't know you worked for the UN?!
Now to deconstruct that ridiculous rant.
Climate change is a fact; the climate is always changing and has never been static. The world has never been "in balance" and the term is meaningless. If it was we wouldn't have droughts, floods, ice ages, etc. Greenhouse effect is also a fact and is what keeps our temperature on earth fairly stable rather than wide swings between +200C during the day and -200C at night.
The proposed hypothesis is anthropromorphic CO2 production has increased CO2 levels faster than it normally should have. This is leading to faster increases in average temperatures due to greenhouse effect. Because it is faster than normal, animals and plants have a more difficult time adjusting and may not survive.
The problems with the hypothesis are:
Nobody knows how much an effect CO2 has. Much of the greenhouse effect is also from water vapor and Methane. In addition, the effect is not linear and at some point (some say we are already there) adding more CO2 has no further effect.
Anthropromorphic CO2 production is still a fraction of what is normally produced by natural factors. This is where the ridiculous claim of earth in perfect balance comes in but it is garbage.
We don't know have fast or slow CO2 has to change for plants and animals to adjust. It is probably variable.
While there could be less ice and higher seas, overall the benefits of more warming and CO2 may out weigh the detriments. More people die from the cold than from the heat. Storms may be less intense. May have more rainfall.
Plants thrive in high CO2 environment.
Even if the whole US converted today to no CO2 production, the world wide effect would be negligible.
To steal a phrase from my father, the only settled science in this area is the political science.
Oh, and 1 more thing. When those idiots talk about having fewer people on earth, they are suggesting a maximum of 1,000,000. What they plan to do with the other 7,000,000,000 scares me a little.
Very nice explanation, Koshcat.
To steal a phrase from my father, the only settled science in this area is the political science.
Oooh, I like that and I am going to steal and use it. That is a great line!
Koshcat, Excellent breakdown! :D
I particularly like your very relevant and very correct point about there being no "balance." That is correct, and it blows away the principle on which the whole theory relies -- that there is some correct setting for the Earth.
BTW, liberals tend not to connect the dots as you do...
Thought One: There are 7 billion people. There need to be fewer people asap.
Thought Two: Somebody needs to do something! Think of the children!
Thought Three: This Mr. Hitler sounds like a nice man.
Thought Four: .... oh look, shiny!!!.....
Thought Five: I never condoned killing anyone!
See how easy it is to have 6 billion people murdered when you refuse to consider the consequences of your beliefs?
I recommend a great read from Micheal Crichton: State of Fear. It is essentially a great work of fiction that takes us down this road. He also wrote his own lengthy commentary after the novel that framed his stance on Global Warming. He saw it as unscientific, and largely political.
"Oh, and 1 more thing. When those idiots talk about having fewer people on earth, they are suggesting a maximum of 1,000,000. What they plan to do with the other 7,000,000,000 scares me a little."
That is always alarming.
re: ...oh look, shiny!!...
Many people have the underpants gnome syndrome.
Koshcat, They do, but it seems to be a fundamental part of liberal political theory.
Jon, Crichton was always a very clear thinker.
Kit, People are overrated. ;-)
Full disclosure: My father is a chemical engineer and the environmental engineer for an oil refinery. I have been well indoctrinated.
Great essay. I confess I haven't researched this subject nearly as much as many people here clearly have, but here's my two cents.
I suspect that modelling/predicting how the Earth's atmosphere changes over time must be incredibly difficult. The planet's ecosystem is at least as complex as the human body and unlike bodies, scientists only have the one subject to study.
That doesn't change the fact that when one demands radical, costly action one has to meet a high burden of proof and thus far scientists haven't met that burden.
Right now I am a lot more worried about pollution than global warming. That I can clearly see the effects of. Of course, its not something one can zero out (its a byproduct of necessary things) but its something we ought to work hard to minimize.
Koshcat, That means you are evil and we must shun you. Clearly, nothing you tell us can be true because are biased... unlike the people who see environmentalism as a political tool. Yup, no bias there.
Thanks Anthony!
I too see pollution as a problem and where I think that our side hurts themselves is when people like talk radio embrace pollution and attack people who see it as a problem.
The unfortunate truth is that pollution has gotten a million times better since the 1970s because of the very laws people like Rush keep calling to gut. We need to focus better and oppose the crazy while keeping the good... not opposing all of it.
I too see pollution as a problem and where I think that our side hurts themselves is when people like talk radio embrace pollution and attack people who see it as a problem.
^This. And as Bev said above, there's nothing wrong with trying to improve a process or develop a cleaner form of energy... yet liberals have kicked themselves in the ass when it comes to tax breaks for companies that show no results (and the doomsday stuff), and conservatives have kicked themselves in the ass for the reasons you mentioned above.
I remember one Earth Day, Michelle Malkin said something like, "Yeah, well I'm gonna turn all my lights ON!" It's like, you don't have to be a tree-hugger, but you don't have to be a bitch either! ;-)
Post a Comment