No Need to Panic About Global Warming
There’s no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to ‘decarbonize’ the world’s economy.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
Expecting unbiased discussions on global warming from the Wall Street Journal is sort of like expecting an unbiased review of mortgage-backed securities or financial regulation, so clearly one should read this while sucking on a large chunk of salt. Having said that, I do generally feel that many of the ‘accepted’ ways to deal with the posited negative aspects of global warming lack any sort of economic rigor or cost/benefit analysis and appear to be focused exclusively on the idea that we MUST decrease our use of fossil fuels. Most of my earlier comments can be found here.
I have read (but been unable to find the citation) that the conversion of wild land to cultivation more closely matches the increases in CO2 than that of fossil fuel burning, so if that were to be true then eliminating our use of fossil fuels would have little or no impact on global warming. I have also read some very plausible research papers that suggest there is an increasing amount of cosmic rays impacting our upper atmosphere (no real good understanding of why) and that also tracks really well with global warming. Since the vast amount of voice I hear is about the damage and loss of life due to storms that are presumed to be worse due to global warming, yet no account is take of the fact that populations in general and sea side populations in particular have skyrocketed over time, makes me strongly discount the ‘information’ as blather. There will be winners and losers in any change in our climate, human caused or natural variation, and by only fixating on the bad things that (might) happen without any regard for the good things that (also might) happen the sheeple are left with the impression that those of us that insist on more research before we take steps to plunge our global economy into the stone age are conspiratorial idiots determined to destroy our society. I have read convincing arguments that the conspiracy is actually on the other side and the tree hugging extremist environmentalists are using global warming to bash their way into policy positions with the exclusive intention to eliminate fossil fuel consumption irrespective of any other potential means of addressing the situation.
So, for those of you who think my opinion has any meaning (note that I started to follow the research behind global warming long before it was ‘cool’ (I clearly recall giving a presentation on the topic in a college class over 20 years ago)) I consider the evidence way far from ‘incontrovertible’. I am not convinced that fossil fuels are the exclusive (or indeed even primary) cause of the increased levels of CO2 and while I am quite certain that humans have caused some part of the increase and I am totally convinced that humans are capable of (and are currently doing so) destroying the Earth’s ecosystem, I do not ascribe to the idea that the increase in temps we are seeing are a) significant beyond normal variations in climate, b) part of an irreversible trend and c) the only possible way of addressing them(it?) are to eliminate fossil fuel usage.
