Monday, December 29, 2008
Is the Global Warming Crowd (sorry, Global Climate Change) finally headed for defeat
Since the day in 1989 when Al Gore called Dr. James Hansen to the Senate hearings to tell us of the coming threat of Global Warming we have seen a twenty year battle for the minds, souls, and economies of the world. No, I am not being melodramatic. In the name of global warming we have had heads of countries pushing “global governance,” heads of enviro group and journalists calling for the death of airline executives when there are floods in Bangladesh, and many saying democracy has to be put to the side (and with it free speech) in the name of stopping global warming.
Despite all their best efforts they have not been able to convince the majority of average Americans this is a priority. Now around the globe many others have begun to notice one big problem - the world stopped warming in 1998 (which was not the warmest year ever, or even on record), and we have now had 10 years of slight cooling. All this despite tons more CO2 going into the atmosphere (of course as one of the great British enviromentalist and now global warming skeptic said, CO2 is natures fertilizer, not a pollutant). Look, as a theologian I am a great believer in stewarding the globe so that it honours God and supports best the diversity of life on it. But we live in a finite world. We could easily reduce the problem of man’s impact on the globe by committing species-wide suicide of ourselves. And don’t laugh, there are some in the enviro movement who see that mass human depopulation is a good thing.
But we live in a world where there are tradeoffs. To get to the levels specified by the 2008 Liberman/Warner Senate bill we would have to reduce our economy to the levels of Haiti or Somolia. Is it worth it to do this? Especially for no appreciable change in overall temperature (in the computer models, which have not predicted the last decades temperature fall, so you know what they are worth).
Beyond all the science issues - it is not settled, science is never settled, it always remains opens to new information, including basic issues like gravity for example, should we find a new force that better explains gravity’s impact - there are the basic tradeoffs that have to be discovered. For what we have already spent on this hoax (sorry, there I said it, its a hoax in a grand style), we could attack drinking water quality worldwide, create new parks to protect vital species, improve indoor air quality in the developing world, and so on. So lets hope that 2008 was indeed the beginning of the end of the Gloabl Warming Hoax and a return to dealing with real and actual problems facing the poor, animals, and the world in general.
Two great articles have come out on this topic in U.K. papers in the past week. Read them here:
2009 is the year when we have to take back care of the earth and its people and species from the enviro fascists and put it back into the hands of rational people who understand tradeoffs, the importance of both the poor and development and the need to help preserve all species of plants and animals in the best possible situation given our finite world of tradeoffs.