A Catastrophe Looms Behind The Global Warming Debate

While the political class debates the correct environmental measures to institute due to Global Warming, we may well be setting ourselves up for a world-wide catastrophe because of that very thing. Few doubt that the Earth's temperature is on the rise. Put aside partisan and scientific bickering for a moment and consider this.

For the sake of argument, what if the growing number of scientists who view Global Warming as a direct result of solar activity are correct? What, if anything, are we doing to avert catastrophe as the Earth continues to warm, despite the best intentions of the Carbon obsessed? In point of fact, we may be doing precisely the opposite of that which we should.

It will take tremendous amounts of energy to irrigate and, yes, even supply more air conditioning to large parts of the world that may move from temperate to hot. In extreme cases and locations where rising ocean levels come into play, it will require additional tremendous expenditures of energy and cash to migrate populations. And if we find ourselves in just such a situation 100 years or so from now because the solar theorists are right, energy will be at a premium due to potentially nearsighted measures taken to address Global Warming for the wrong cause.

We are spending billions of dollars to plant trees in already warm parts of the world. Where will that capital be if those areas grow even warmer due to solar activity? It will become arid land and that capital will turn to dust.

We enact copious legislation to protect the world's Alpine forests. Will a culture having come to view these trees as Mother Nature herself be able to re-focus and strip those areas down for farming once we realize that what was once the great white north may have to serve as the bread basket of the world?

With disputed science left as the sole driver of discussion around Global Warming, we may be setting the foundation for the greatest catastrophe man has ever know. Hopefully in government offices around the world, ones much smaller than those in which politicians plan and plot how to take away our carbon, over tax our energy, and lock down the world as it is, some government somebody is performing the pre-planning work that is needed if we get to the point where the Earth's temperature continues to rise after we discover that carbon offsets just aren't enough.

Comments

[bill]

we will just buy carbon excesses and all will be good again. Got it covered on both ends.

Seriously, I doubt there is much that can be done. It's been a lot hotter than today, see Greenland, it's been a lot colder, see the frozen Thames river and Washington's crossing of the Delaware, so enjoy. The interesting thing is the 'normal state' of the Earth is a snowball.

Mr. Sun has been unusually quite of late ...

[Dayna]

Dan,
I am glad you are bringing this up to a conservative audience. I fear that playing politics will be catastrophic to this cause. I am a college student (at 30+) and have attended (2)lectures on the subject. I left the lectures feeling very concerned about my children's futures. I am from South Carolina and remember attending the State Fair (the end of September) as a little girl. It was always the time I got my new coat for the year because it was very cold. Now, we wear shorts well into November.

[daveinboca]

Although no scientific evidence proves that it is chiefly solar activity that is warming us up recently, that melting icecap during the last decade National Geographic published with a before/after shot sure shows that it ain't just SUVs.

But crooked NASA types and perfessers who hate capitalism sure are ramping up the decibels and ratcheting down the candlepower. Remember when science was a calling, rather than a way to make money? Richard Feynman said it all in "cargo cult science."

[greenwing]

But Dayna, we wore winter coats on Easter this year, so not getting warmer up here in Maryland. In the 70's, they were teaching the impending "next ice age" in schools. With only 30 years more of temperature data, I fail to see how we have made a 180 degree turn.

[templar knight]

Dayna, I'm not from So. Carolina, but coats in September, I don't know about that. I grew up in the South, and I remember mosquitos tearing me a new one while squirrel hunting in October. And I'm 42. You have to remember, summer lasts until September 20. Granted, there were a few years, but very few, that had nippy mornings and cool evenings.

[Leatherneck]

The Goreacle is a Priest of Baal. He worships the created, not the Creator. Yes, we can respect nature better, but not as humans being like cancer.

I am in North Texas. This April, may go down as the coldest on record. At least, since the little ice age.

[Legalize]

I read that it snowed in Buffalo this winter. This proves that global warming is a hoax.

[Phoenix]

Legalize,

What about your elements of intent and commanded action here at Riehl World View? Seems to me intimidation, verbal mockery, hate-speech, threats of violence against another, verbal assault are all solicitations of violence. You are guilty of all these crimes against humanity.

How do you answer for that? You offend me, intimidate me, make me feel frightened by your words of hate, and because I am a woman, I feel sexually violated by your crass, threatening, and vulgar speech. This is a public forum and you have made actionable statements that threaten all of us who visit here.

Phoenix

Posted by: Phoenix | Tuesday, April 24, 2007 at 11:38 AM

Legalize,

I asked you a direct question. Answer it, please.

Phoenix

Posted by: Phoenix | Tuesday, April 24, 2007 at 12:46 PM

~~~~

Legalize,

I asked you a direct question. Answer it, please.

Phoenix

Posted by: Phoenix | Tuesday, April 24, 2007 at 09:25 PM

~~~~

Legalize,

I asked you a direct question. Answer it, please.

Phoenix

[Phoenix]

Cry me a river, shrew. You're aware that I'm not concerned about projecting nobility here, right? My interest is in pointing and laughing, not convincing. I learned long ago that goose-steppers on loony winger blogs are incapable of being swayed. You know that I am more than happy to just get you red in the face with rage and frustration every time you try to *get* me on whatever nonsense you are attempting to portray right? You can call me whatever you want; problem is you haven't the capacity to back it up - ever. Now, I know that your little fanboys like Limpy, like in all idiot echo chambers, will chear you on. But they, like you, haven't the prowess to even get from point A to point B.
So, once again: PROVE IT, shrew.
Now,
Posted by: Legalize | Wednesday, March 21, 2007 at 07:09 AM

[Phoenix]

Man, Riehl, how much time DON'T you spend fantasizing about testicles?
Posted by: Legalize | Tuesday, March 20, 2007 at 11:05 AM

[Phoenix]

I knew a guy who used to live up in Buffalo named Paul Kaffasus. Cool dude, really smart. They make some talented people up there in Buffalo. Shame its a warren of godless liberals who hate our troops and serve their eggs a la face.
Also a shame that we'll be out of Iraq in a year, one way or another. What with Bush not having the balls to veto all his contractor money.
You guys just wait.
Posted by: Zifnab | Wednesday, March 28, 2007 at 01:14 PM

Paul Kaffasus?! I used to eat chicken wings with that guy! Well, you know, in between being godless heathens, impregnating women only to force them to get abortions, performing gay marriages on unsuspecting Christian youth, being foul-mouthed (we said the words "FCUK," "FCUKITY," "FCUKER," and "FCUK-head" a lot!), actively practicing Sharia law, and hating the troops.
Posted by: Legalize | Wednesday, March 28, 2007 at 01:52 PM

[Phoenix]

"Snarky"? Hell yes - that's what you get for making me type the same point over and over. "Whine-fest"? Put down the crack pipe, professor. I'm LAUGHING and POINTING; not whining. Sheesh.

Great. Save youself the time and stop responding, fuckwit. Ooops!! There's that potty-mouth we communists are known for!!
Posted by: Legalize | Monday, March 05, 2007 at 01:23 PM

[Phoenix]

I don't practice family law.

"Have fun at your "law firm.""
It's not mine; my name isn't over the door yet. But give it 30 years or so.
Posted by: Legalize | Sunday, March 04, 2007 at 12:14 AM

[Phoenix]

Um, pardon my French, but what the fuck are you talking about? Who the fuck is making money off of the suffering of others? And how the fuck do you know what my "religion" is? And did you miss the fucking posts I made detailing that I often donate my fucking time?
Fuckwit.
Posted by: Legalize | Wednesday, February 28, 2007 at 07:35 PM

[Phoenix]

Sorry, I don't practice in criminal defense in Virginia. Plus, us law and order types tend to find unprovoked violence repugnant.

Posted by: Legalize | Thursday, February 22, 2007 at 03:09 PM

~~~~

About that unprovoked violence you law and order types find repugnant, Legalize.....

How about answering my question?

Phoenix

[evelyn]

"legalize" has an IQ of about 78. PLEASE stop picking on him!

[Phoenix]

I read that it snowed in Buffalo this winter. This proves that global warming is a hoax.

Posted by: Legalize | Tuesday, April 24, 2007 at 10:54 PM

You might be right, Evelyn. Except his I.Q. is probably more like 50 considering he lives in Buffalo and has to READ that it snowed there.

ha ha ha ha ha ha !

Legalize,

Answer my question, please.

Phoenix

[Steve J.]

what if the growing number of scientists who view Global Warming as a direct result of solar activity are correct?
------------------------------------------

And who would these scientists be?

[nowinger]

There is no growing number of scientists who think its solar activity, in fact, real scientists don't take the solar activity seriously because it doesn't wash from a scientific point of view, crack pot phds and global warming deniars take it seriously because they will believe anything other than the scientific consensus. Fortunately, the deniars are running out of straw men arguments. Even China has bought into global warming as a result of carbon emissions.

[templar knight]

Yeah, China bought in as they bring a coal-fired electric plant on line about once a week. The only thing they bought was some more time.

[nowinger]

No, China has acknowledged that global warming is going to be a problem down the road, but they've decided they care more about economic growth than this 'in the future' occurance and so arent' going to be interested in dealing wtih carbon emissions until they have presumably caught up all the way with the West. No surprise there. China has already decimated it's environment, the idea they would curtail economic growth to prevent future degradation is silly. When the Chinese stop denying global warming, you wingers are really only left with Exxon, since BP and Shell are on the bandwagon and a handful of cranks pretending to be scientists.

[Phoenix]

Nowinger,

You're right except for one thing. The Chinese aren't ignoring carbon emissions in a rush to catch up with us. They're waiting to snitch our carbon-deletion technology when it comes out. :) China has more spies here than all other countries combined. They love our stuff because it saves them the bother.

By the way - your first sentence is a direct contradiction of your last sentence.

[jong]

What if the tiny percentage of scientists who don't believe in Global Warming are wrong? Those are the guys Dan thinks are somehow blessed with special wisdom. No doubt Dan believe the tobacco scientists when they said the "smoking doesn't cause cander".

The vast majority of scientists do believe global warming is fact and if we don't do something, the consequences will be catastrophic.

Dan and his fellow non-believers have lot in common with these guys: http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm

[Phoenix]

Jong,

Just because a majority thinks something is right does not make it right.

That is a fundamental truth.

[jong]

And ignoring overwhelming scientific evidence simply because you don't like the conclusion is idiocy.

[LOL]

just because land gets hot Dan, does not mean it turns to desert. Man you are stupid

[seekeronos]

From what I see, few scientists actually dispute Global Warming... the debate seems to be more on what is the cause of GW, and whether or not this GW is part of the normal warming/cooling cycles the Earth has undergone in previous aeons.

Considering that there is ample evidence to suggest that the Earth was far hotter than it is now, I think that a few hundred thousand SUVs, a few coal-fired powerplants, jet travel, or a billion head of cattle farting up the Great plains full of methane are really going to amount to more than a drop in the bucket... especially when the outgassing or eruption of volcanoes and other natural phenomenae do far more to influence CO2 levels than humans have in thier brief (and probably soon to end) period of the industrial/petroleum age.

[nowinger]

Another blow to global warming deniers:

LONDON - A group of British climate scientists has demanded that a production company change a documentary critical of the theory that global warming is caused by greenhouse gases before it is released on DVD.

An open letter sent Tuesday by 38 scientists, including the former heads of Britain's academy of sciences and Britain's weather office, has called on Wag TV, the maker of "The Great Global Warming Swindle," to remove what it called "major misrepresentations" from the film — a demand its director said was tantamount to censorship.

"Free speech does not extend to misleading the public by making factually inaccurate statements," said Bob Ward, the former spokesman for the Royal Society, Britain's academy of science, and one of the letter's signatories. "Somebody has to stand up for the public interest here."

PS, One of the things this LIAR admits was a LIE is that volcanoes are responsible for more carbon emissions than humans, looks like this was a "mistake" they're going to correct in the DVD version, among others.

Of course we already know wingers will go to the mat for their constitutional right to tell bald faced lies about anything and everything.

Poor little deniers, even the remaining crack pot deniers are having to back track.

[Leatherneck]

Let me get this correct lefturd, concensus has replaced real science study. I do not see anything wrong with showing nature more respect. However, let us not jump to statements like Florida will be under water in 20 years because you do not drive a Mini.

[nowinger]

It goes the other way around.

Real scientific study comes first, from the data, if its compelling enough, a scientific consensus will emerge. The CONSENSUS is from many studies, much data, all along the spectrum of disciplines dealing with climate change study.

[GRG]

There is no scientific debate. There is a political debate.

The vast majority of scientists consider global warming to be a trend. THey vast majority look at the evidence, then conclude that green house gases contribute to the trend.

The debate is polemical and political.

[Barry]

The vast majority of climatoligists do not believe global warming is anthropogenic.

[GRG]

Barry: Do you want to give us the citation on your statement. Remember this is science, which must be backed up by references, and not 'hot air'.

[Barry]

I can "prove" my statement as well as anyone can prove the opposite.

[jong]

Barry's 100% wrong.

Try this:

The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme, IPCC's purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature (3). In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: "Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations" [p. 21 in (4)].

[Barry]

Oh well, if the UN says so, it MUST be true.

Now you might, just might want to take note, I did say "The vast majority of climatoligists do not believe global warming is anthropogenic.". I did not say "that the consensus of scientific opinion".

The IPCC had to negotiate their findings. The scientific method does not include "negotiation".

You're full of it thong.