A tremendous amount of controversy has been generated about the issue of global warming. The proponents of that argument say that the argument is over, and anybody who disagrees “just doesn’t understand.” In my case, they are right; I don’t understand the lack of reasoning or understanding of the basic science that I’m expected to swallow.
Before we expend our labor or treasure on fixing this problem, we need to wade
through the preliminary factors involved.
1. Does global warming actually exist? Since the temperature actually has
declined for the past few years and we only have been able to accurately
measure temperature for about 150 years, there is strong doubt among the
scientific community that this change, if any, is actually occurring over a
2. Did humans cause it? Fossil evidence shows that the temperature of the earth
has experienced cyclic variations, long before the advent of the Hummer.
Strangely enough, there is evidence of temperature variation on other planets,
such as Mars, a planet that doesn’t even have any roads, let alone
3. Would the effects of global warming be good or bad? This is a subjective
question. It depends on whom you asked. A slight increase in temperature
certainly would help a lot of farmers. Extending the productive latitudes
northward would provide food and profit for a lot of people. On the other hand,
people who built houses on low-lying barrier islands might have to grow webbed
feet. An increase in temperature would stimulate plant growth to the detriment
of glaciers. I like ice in my drinks as well as anybody, but I like fried okra,
4. Can we fix it? This is the crux of the matter, but the previous questions
must be answered first. A few people can start a truck rolling down hill, but
they can’t stop it. And if we can fix it, at what cost? Is it worth it to cripple
the economy in the middle of a recession, while allowing our two biggest
competitors in the world economy to operate with impunity? It is penultimate
hubris to think that we can effect change, at any cost.
If we don’t answer these questions, in order, there is no possibility of
reasonable solution. This conundrum seems to have left the scientific community
and entered the political arena. One thing I’ve learned about politics: Follow
The very same people who insist the sky is falling when it comes to global
warming seem to be the same people who thought that communism was the best form
of government in the world until the Soviet Union, and most of its satellites
collapsed. They needed a new cause – especially one that was scary and
confusing and designed for people who don’t bother to do any research, but who
do vote. They tried it in the 1970s with the global cooling thing, but it
didn’t catch on too well because that wasn’t happening, either. Oh well, this
particular chapter of the Flat Earth Society wasn’t as concerned about facts as
it was about money and power.
The money started rolling in from people who felt guilty about their
extravagant lifestyles, but weren’t willing to give them up. Some of them live
on Cape Cod. In true not-in-my-backyard style, they refused to even consider a
wind farm off Martha’s Vineyard; it would ruin the view. They donated to green
initiatives, and generally decried the evils of CO2 while expelling vast
quantities of same. Pretty soon, they ginned up enough votes to propose such
things as the Cap and Tax bill.
Now it turns out that this boondoggle only will cost you money if you use
electricity or buy gasoline. I guess if I ride a mule and burn a whale-oil
lamp, I’m exempt. I have a suggestion: Let’s Cap and Trade Congress in 2010. I
can’t see any difference between the two major parties. One party wants to feed
us strychnine, and the other recommends cyanide. What a choice! I have only one
question for a candidate: Are you in office now?
Now that this misguided minority has control of GM and Chrysler, they have
decided to mandate cars that get the same mileage as my bicycle. Since there
are only so many BTUs of energy in any given fuel and even at 100-percent
efficiency, it’s not going to produce any spectacular gains; the only thing to
do is make cars smaller and lighter – but not cheaper. All this striving for
the impossible will drive the cost of transportation through the roof.
Solution: Let the free market decide what kind of cars it wants to
When you consider the unintended consequences of the green movement, consider
this: They are not unintended. This is a power grab that will be carved in
stone soon if we don’t think, learn, research and vote. Actually proving global
warming may take hundreds, or perhaps, thousands of years.
Another interesting side note. Have you noticed that the environmental crowd no
longer likes to use the term “global warming?” They now say “climate change.”
That’s a Trojan-style, one-size-fits-all concept. What change? Hotter? Colder?
Wetter? Drier? It doesn’t make any difference – we have to do something now.
Like march, lemming-like, off the cliff – after emptying our wallets and
ruining our economy.
If you want to understand the most probable cause of climate change, go outside
and look up at that big bright light in the sky. The sun made our climate
possible, and minor changes in the output of it make major changes. Think of
the Ice Ages. The sun helps feed us, and makes our planet a habitable place. I
almost can understand the sun-worshipers. I doubt that such a small,
insignificant johnny-come-lately as humankind can do anything but ride along
and hope Ol’ Sol continues in a benevolent manner. ND
The World According to Wayne: One Perspective on Global Warming
August 1, 2009