Demonstrating their impeccable timing, liberals have been ramping up talk of global warming and carbon dioxide restrictions smack dab in the middle of a historic cold stretch that has obliterated spring across North America and threatened to engulf summer.
South Dakota is seeing its first May snowfall in half a century and Arkansas its first ever, interstates and schools are shutting down across the Upper Midwest, and cherry blossoms in D.C. are blooming a month late, but The New York Times proclaims in its piece “Climate Warnings, Growing Louder” that 2013 is the year we must finally get serious about the impending planetary meltdown.
As I sit here in Manhattan shivering this Memorial Day weekend because my high-rise shut off central heating a month ago, even though it plummeted to 40 degrees last night, I thought I’d ponder, for all those liberals who claim to care about science, the string of questions that must be answered before our nation even thinks of passing expensive, intrusive legislation to regulate CO2 emissions:
Is global warming happening?
Contrary to the predictions of all widely publicized climate change models, there has been no increase in global surface temperature since 1998. Global warming skeptics also note the absence of warming in satellite temperatures and ocean temperatures. But that’s OK: According to liberals’ utterly specious, ad hoc, made-up explanation, global cooling is actually evidence of global warming, because global warming leads to extremes in temperature, which can include global cooling—although this differs from the actual global cooling that took place from 1940 to 1970, which was somehow evidence of global cooling.
Does CO2 cause global warming?
Physicist and global warming “convert” Richard Muller writes, of his examination of factors correlated with global temperature over the past 250 years, “By far the best match [is] to the record of atmospheric carbon dioxide, measured from atmospheric samples and air trapped in polar ice.” Great—but how does Muller know that increases in atmospheric CO2 cause increases in global temperature? He doesn’t. In fact, evidence from ice core records indicates that CO2 levels lag behind global temperature changes, which implies that temperature alters CO2 levels. In layman’s terms: The Earth warms, ice melts, plants thrive, animals and humans multiply, and presto!—there’s more CO2 in the air.
Is man contributing to global warming?
Perhaps not. Skeptics point to the Medieval Warm Period a thousand years ago, when the Earth was significantly warmer than it is now, yet industrial civilization was centuries away. They also note that most 20th-century warming happened before 1940, despite the explosive growth in industrialization that occurred after 1940.
Is man’s global warming contribution significant?
Even if man is contributing to global warming, there remains the question of how much. Non-anthropogenic sources such as sunspot activity, cosmic rays, cloud cover, volcanic eruptions, natural cyclical variation, and even bovine methane emissions may be contributing much more.
Is global warming harmful?
Even if the Earth is warming and man is causing it, global warming may not be harmful to mankind and other animal species. Looking on a scale of tens of thousands of years, plants and animals have typically thrived in warmer temperatures. Ice ages, after all, aren’t known for their lush vegetation and tropical, carefree lifestyles. So it’s not obvious that an increase of a degree or so every century would wipe mankind off the map. Harrison Schmitt and William Happer recently argued in The Wall Street Journal for the beneficial effects of CO2, the most misaligned and misunderstood compound on the planet.
Can man reverse global warming?
Even if global warming would harm mankind, we may not be able to do anything about it. The indispensible Lord Christopher Monckton has demonstrated how, using global warming advocates’ own numbers and projections, proposed climate change legislation would have a miniscule effect on CO2 emissions.
Is the cost of reversing global warming less than the cost of adapting to it?
Even if global warming is harmful and man can reverse it, it’s not clear that he should, rather than simply adapting to any changes it induces. Until we can make trustworthy projections of which course of action is less costly, taking preventive action is premature.
Should the public bear, and the government oversee, the cost of reversing global warming?
Even if it’s cost-effective to change our way of life to hedge against global warming, it’s not obvious that our inefficient central government should make such decisions, and that taxpayers should succumb to their regulations.
Would CO2 emission reductions be offset by developing nations?
Even if developed nations decided our governments should regulate CO2, it would make little difference if our efforts were offset by the exponentially increasing emissions from developing nations such as China, India, and Brazil.
So to sum up: We should definitely destroy industrial civilization to mitigate the effects of global warming—if it’s actually happening, if it’s caused by CO2, if it’s caused mostly by man, if it’s harmful and reversible, if doing so is cheaper than adapting to it, and if our efforts are matched by the efforts of developing nations.
As global warming alarmist-friendly journal The Economist recently admitted, the jig may finally be up on global warming hysteria, and not a moment too soon.
Previously published in modified form at Red Alert Politics
- To the Horror of Global Warming Alarmists, Global Cooling Is Here (forbes.com)
- A Coming Little Ice Age? (stoptheaclu.com)
- Only 65 Scientists of 12,000 Make up Alleged 97% on Climate Change and… (prweb.com)
- Climate Scientist Dr. Chris de Freitas: ‘Current warm phase…is not unprecedented’ – ‘From the results of research to date, it appears the influence of increasing CO2 on global warming is almost indiscernible. Future warming could occur, but there is no ev (climatedepot.com)
- Dem Sen. Boxer blames tornadoes on global warming – Plugs her carbon tax bill to fix bad weather: ‘This is climate change. We were warned about extreme weather…We need to protect our people’ – ‘Carbon could cost us the planet’ (climatedepot.com)