Global warming: Bring it on!

Truth is, climate has never been steady and unchanging – or it would never have changed.

4
2944
Keep Calm and Carry On
Keep Calm and Carry On

INDIANAPOLIS IN, January 4, 2015  –  Now that the climate has changed again and winter is again upon us, it is time to explore the benefits of global warming, assuming just for the sake of argument there is such a phenomenon.

What would happen if global temperatures were to rise a few degrees? According to the various opportunists, alarmists, and enviro-tyrants who make their livings spreading fear and loathing with their pet theory, rainfall would increase, great ice fields would melt, partial desalination of the oceans would alter the existing eco-structure.

Oceans would rise, washing over existing shore cities and flooding deltas and shoreline lowlands. Lowland population centers, even far from coastlines, may flood.

According to geoscientists, this has all happened before, in cycles that vary from mere hundreds or thousands of years, over millions of years. The fact that it may be happening now, to those who believe, is the only difference.


Truth is, climate has never been steady and unchanging – or it would never have changed.

Well, not the only difference. Today, Believers think these phenomena, to the extent they seem to be occurring, are caused by mankind and that mankind has both the power and – for some reason – the obligation to halt or reverse them, regardless the cost or effectiveness of any measures.

Is such a reversal 1) a good idea, 2) affordable, or even 3) possible?

“Natural” events are not necessarily “good,” and “unnatural” events are not necessarily “bad.” There is no answer to question 1, based on the cause of global warming. If we cannot determine whether global warming is good or bad, why would we want to intervene?

Whether or not global warming is manmade has little to do with whether conscious efforts to counter it would be affordable – clearly, if all mankind’s resources were put to altering the planet’s climate, some measureable effect would result. The extent of the effort would determine whether such an effort would be sustainable – but it may be possible for a short-term effort to set in motion other forces, that would “take it from there.”

Question 2, then, is answered only by quantifying the long- and the short-term costs of such an effort. What will mankind give up, to make the desired change?

Whether any such a change is possible is answered by knowing how much effort will be expended. How much change is possible, and for how long it will last, is largely dependent on the resources and focus applied.

And who is to say, once such a reversal were to start, where it should end? And who knows if the process of reversal would take off on its own? Would we be facing “The Coming Ice Age?” In all the study lately written, I have been unable to find mention of a strategy, were our efforts to change climate in their direction, effective.

But again, let’s assume for the sake of argument that the temperature is indeed rising. What will be the predictable effects?

First, let’s not worry that the oceans will rise suddenly, with a Hollywood-style tsunami erupting out of nowhere and inundating coastal cities, drowning millions of unsuspecting victims, with additional panicked millions clogging all the roads away from the shore.

A quarter inch rise, over a decade, would be enormous, but that would take nobody u surprise. As waters rose, new structures would be built to accommodate. (For example, Venice has survived several significant rises and falls in the level of water in the area, net of the usual effects of old age and the limitations of the architecture and construction techniques of the day.)

Rainfall would increase, wetting existing deserts and making farming possible. As cold areas warm, fertile soils, fallow for a thousand years, will become available for farming for the first time. Vast stretches of tundra and dry arctic and antarctic regions, from Siberia across Canada and Greenland in the northern hemisphere, will bloom green with new crops. Additional rainfall would provide fresh water for billions of people and additional livestock.

If we, as the human race, merely avoid doing really stupid things and otherwise “keep calm and carry on,” we can weigh costs versus benefits and safely ignore global warming, devoting our time, efforts, and resources to possible and useful things.

Existing crop patterns will change, as today’s crop bands move from the poles; today’s cornfields may be planted in rice. Calgary may some day become the western North American epicenter of the corn belt. The rainforest may rebound…

Perhaps we really shouldn’t worry. Hollywood’s dream factory has, once again, provided us with words to live by. One of the quotes from Jurassic Park that has endured in the book of popular clichés is “Life will find a way.”

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2015 Communities Digital News

• The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the editors or management of Communities Digital News.

This article is the copyrighted property of the writer and Communities Digital News, LLC. Written permission must be obtained before reprint in online or print media. REPRINTING CONTENT WITHOUT PERMISSION AND/OR PAYMENT IS THEFT AND PUNISHABLE BY LAW.

Correspondingly, Communities Digital News, LLC uses its best efforts to operate in accordance with the Fair Use Doctrine under US Copyright Law and always tries to provide proper attribution. If you have reason to believe that any written material or image has been innocently infringed, please bring it to the immediate attention of CDN via the e-mail address or phone number listed on the Contact page so that it can be resolved expeditiously.

  • Matt D.

    The word “Superstorm” was conjured up for 2012’s Tropical Storm Sandy because it was not even at hurricane strength when it made landfall.

  • Dadamax

    Typical denialist, ad hoc flailing.

    “Global warming isn’t happening! There’s no evidence! …But incase you don’t believe me, let me tell you how great and beneficial it will be for agriculture and the environment! And if you don’t buy that line of reasoning, allow me to concern troll you about whether or not solutions are possible or affordable. …And incase that didn’t work, let me convince you that it’s no big deal, and that climate change will be mild and slow and easily adapted to!”

    These arguments do not constitute an attempt to formulate an alternative scientific theory that could compete with mainstream climatology. They are a collection of defensive, ad hoc rationalizations. That is not theory. It is anti-theroy; anti-science. In the same way creationists do not construct their own viable alternative theory of evolution. They focus on deconstruction of the mainstream science by searching for every gap in the fossil record.

    Explain it all with a motive that includes classic contempt for academia and the public sector, maybe with a little Alex Jones tinfoil conspiracy of globalist technocrats meeting in a smoke filled room, envisioning a world government. All while ignoring the profit interests of the monolithic fossil fuel/petroleum industry, and the history of such powerful industries and corporate interests denying the emerging science that threatened them (tobacco industry anyone?) and fighting consumer protection regulation.

    Put it all together and you’ve got the predictable, canned, modus operandi of denialists. Sad, for people who are supposed to be independent thinkers.

    • Tim Kern

      Please move your comment to a forum wherein your position relates to the column on which you are commenting.
      Opening with an unrelated and sarcastic rant such as the one to which I am replying just makes you look stupid.

  • Andy Dufresne

    Perhaps the greatest challenge facing mankind is that of distinguishing reality from fantasy, truth from propaganda, and science from fiction.