Saturday, November 18, 2006

More on global warming

On November 7 Recliner Commentaries posted excerpts and a link to an article debunking the theory of Global warming. Kevin just sent me a link to another article debunking that article.

Meanwhile, during the conference I atteneded in Washington DC, one presenter argued persuasively that while few scientists deny the phenomena of Global warming, they disagree over the cause. But even if the cause was carbon emissions the cost to curtail it would start at about a trillion dollars per year during the first stage, and increase rapidly during the next 20-30 stages--and all that money would still not make enough difference to prevent the kind of catastrophies about which Al Gore speaks.

Meanwhile, the trillons of dollars spent on preventing global warming could be used to save the lives of hundreds-of-thousands of people who die due to lack of simple necessities like food, clean water or basic medical care.

So the debate goes on.

1 comment:

Kevin said...

Wow... I never really thought about it like this.

"even if the cause was carbon emissions the cost to curtail it would start at about a trillion dollars per year during the first stage, and increase rapidly during the next 20-30 stages--and all that money would still not make enough difference to prevent the kind of catastrophies about which Al Gore speaks."

So the questions to put to the UN and others who want money and power in exchange for a solution are:

1) What are you proposing to resolve Global Warming?

2) How much will it cost now and into the future until this issue is resolved? Is there broad agreement?

3) What is the probability of it's success? Is there broad agreement?

4) If massive economic and loss of life catastrophe on a global scale is the result of inaction or non-compliance. Would it be appropriate for military force to be used for one nation to force another into compliance?


If we have alread gone to far with global warming (assuming we're causing it) we need to know that we can reverse/stop it. If we can't then we need to be investing in technology that will allow us to cope in the new world. If we can reverse it, but it requires global cooperation, and the result of non-cooperation is massive death and economic chaos it would seem this is a national security issue of the highest concern. If China is not reducing its emissions and continues to push us to the brink of global destruction should we not act in our national interest and nuke them or should we be concerned (since all the world agrees) that they may choose to attack us or other nations in order to secure more capabilities to pollute for themselves (capability to pollute would have become a global limited resource).