Skepticism for Anthropogenic Global Warming is Snowballing
October 20th, 2008 by Wyatt
Okay, that was a long way to go for a clever title, but you get my drift.
I thought it was just me, but apparently one Lorne Gunter of Canada’s National Post has noticed the same thing I have. Namely that there have been a string of stories about new skeptics of the AGW theory. These seem to have synced up with a string of stories about record low temperatures, record snowfall, and other indications that Global Warming is cooling off. Read the article for the details, but he leads in with this:
Still, the number of climate change skeptics is growing rapidly. Because a funny thing is happening to global temperatures — they’re going down, not up.
I’ve heard this and seen some small graphs to imply this to be the case, but the graph included in the article is the clearest yet. I’ve included it here to reinforce the point.
So, tell me again, folks. What exactly were we supposed to be worried about? Is it time for me to sell my SPF 100 lotion and buy a parka?
October 26th, 2008 at 5:55 am
No matter if global warming is true or false I still think that it is a good method for scaring people into using green technologies and stopping the pollution which is in my head the main problem we have no matter the outside temperature
reduce the pollution and save the world
!
October 26th, 2008 at 10:01 am
Aside from the ethical problem of using a lie to change public behavior, I think such a massive change of technology is far more expensive than some realize. Adopting the Kyoto treaty or some kind of Carbon cap and trade system would devastate world economies (something we can never afford, but especially now). It would stunt industrial growth which would, in turn, keep Third World countries stuck in their current circumstance.
The best path for longer, healthier lives for the majority of the worlds population is to allow their countries to industrialize so they can create a middle class. And, slowing the growth of the industrialized nations would just make the whole process take longer. Enforcing draconian environmental standards will actually make the lives of most of the world worse or, at a best, stagnant.
To save the world, we need to get government and regulation out of the way and let free markets determine the best solutions. Then there is no need to scare or compel to get there.
October 26th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
I agree partially with what you say…but not totally as I don’t really think that market should be the one who will see choose how everything will end up… because they only have 1 thing on their minds….and that is profit.
And they don’t care about anything else.
While these protocols are rough just look how much advancements was made in the car industry in Europe because of such standards….IMHO I think the same can be done in other indrusties as well.
And as for these protocols aren’t they only for rich countries while poor ones can still have heavy industries and aren’t in a need to apply those protocols now? so in a way this protocol is only for those who can invest and make pollution lower by doing that.
October 26th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
Profit is the primary motive for markets, but profit means the market will find the most efficient and cost-effective way of doing anything. When the government limits the opportunities or creates false shortages or false surpluses, it skews the market and almost always has unintended side-effects that do more damage down the line.
A great example is the ethanol boondoggle happening in the US right now. The government decided the ethanol was a great fuel alternative so they gave tax breaks and other encouragements to make that the more profitable choice for many farmers and industries. The side-effect is that most of the corn grown in this country is now going to making an inefficient fuel. Corn prices have gone up which, in turn, have caused beef prices to go up (since cows eat corn) and other food prices went up (that use corn ingredients). Even worse, there’s a corn shortage for the parts of the world where we were supplying the majority of their corn. There were tortilla shortages in Mexico because we were burning our food.
So, the government’s plan to encourage a better fuel backfired in a big way. The bottom line is that government limiting or nudging markets in one direction will almost always have unintended consequences that can often be worse than the problem they were trying to fix. Instead of finding an alternative fuel, they shrank the food supply, and created an alternative fuel that creates more carbon output in its creation than what it saves burning it.
The advancements in cars will happen anyway. When I can buy an electric or hybrid car for the same price as a gas-only car, I will because it will be cheaper to run. If people will buy a product because it’s a better deal, companies will make it. Car companies have the incentive to build hybrid and electric cars when fuel prices get too high or when technology gets to the point that it’s cheaper to run them off of batteries. I’m not against advancement, but when you force the issue, you get other problems. The market is too complicated for the governments of the world to try to nudge them one way or another. Adam Smith’s invisible hand is still the best approach (in my mind).
As for the Kyoto protocols only being applied to industrialized nations, that’s part of what made those a joke. China was more or less excluded from having to obey them. The solution for industrialized nations was the cap and trade system. Again, something of a joke. This became international welfare. Countries didn’t produce less carbon output, they simply paid poorer countries so they could use their carbon credits. So, the total pollution output didn’t change, we just sent a bunch of money to Third World countries so everyone could feel better.
Finally, all of this is predicated on the idea that carbon output is the primary driver for global warming. I just don’t think that’s true. The evidence gets weaker every day. Why should we turn the economies of the world upside down in an effort to solve a problem that may not even exist? Even if we could show that the environment is getting warmer, we should spend money preparing for that eventuality, not trying to stop it because I don’t think we have that kind of control.
October 27th, 2008 at 3:03 am
hm….I see you point….and everything is true and correct…
but still I’m not quite sure that pollution that we were developing in the past few decades isn’t effecting the world in some very important way…
And I think that for all life on Earth we should do what ever we can to lower those emissions down, because unlike us (people) animals can’t prepare for warmer or colder times. They will just extinct.
And it is very interesting to see what you think about all this because in Europe we listen to a lot of criticism in our media on behalf USA because (as they say) USA is not willing to apply to some other protocols like this Kyoto protocol that would lower the pollution emissions.
And as I see USA still didn’t ratified this protocol
So this corn shortage and everything was still done without the forcing from this protocol.
Do you think that USA should ratify it? In Europe, as far as I know, we didn’t have such issues with agriculture as you had with corn, and as you said we also think that making and alternate bio fuel is more expensive and make more pollution then using gas.. Most of those issues are imported over sees. So the corn prices also rised after they did at you, and also all markets feel after they did in USA evan not all of them are connected with the mortgage banks (like Croatia, but still fell 50 %
)
November 12th, 2008 at 4:58 pm
I follow the logic, weather can’t be predicted more than three days out, what makes us think the long term global predictions are correct?
The data for warming and cooling and cycles in our sun is very interesting and I am been trying to find more data on this relationship.
I do want the government to curb polution in some way though. Growing up in Los Angeles was very unhealthy and I still remember the days when breathing was difficult.