In light of the warm, non-Ithacan weather I am experiencing down south in Virginia (45 and overcast), I thought it appropriate to get out a little bit of information regarding an issue that is surely going to consume more government time and money over the next four years – that of ‘global warming.’ A few new articles seem to continue to support my theory that climate change is a much more complex issue (or ironically, maybe a lot more simple) than Gore often leads us to believe. While it is clear that our earth has experienced a warming trend over the past 20 years or so, how much of this is applicable purely to humans and how much is part of a natural, inevitable pattern of our earth can, be and should be disputed.
My biggest problem with this topic, however, is the fear-mongering often instilled by ‘global warming’ activists and those who ultimately profit from such actions. Detrimental effects comparable to nuclear war (which I have actually heard) and the use of the over-hyped climate change analysis as a political platform is very irresponsible and deceptive, and deserves to be exposed. Also, the theory of man made ‘global warming’ should stay just that – a theory. Accepting the theory conventionally as being as good as a proven fact is dangerous in that it precludes further studies that would reveal opposing ideas, and more generally, goes against everything in science that produces progress and freedom of ideas.
Anyway, here are the articles that may be of interest to those wanting to learn some more about non-human factors which could be causing the warming trend, or studies in general which may contradict commonly held climate theories. One is a study at the University of Wisconsin – Milwaukee which applies a mathematical formula used in chaos theory and applies it to climate trends, and the other is a study from Florida State University which looks at hurricane and typhoon statistics.
[UPDATE] — This week’s The Economist has an article regarding the expenses involved in taking action against climate change. Although, of course, I don’t side with the author in his statements defending the global warming belief, he does cover one of the issues I touched on in my summarization above. Here’s an excerpt, and the full article here.
The president is right to want to cut emissions. The alternative, allowing climate change to take its course, would be far more damaging to America and the world. The economic impact of rising sea levels, reduced crop yields, fiercer storms and many other doleful consequences would be devastating.
But fighting climate change will be costly. It will involve swapping cheap but dirty fuels for cleaner but dearer ones, as Congress intends, as well as building lots of expensive new power plants to replace older, more polluting ones. That in turn will lead to higher electricity and fuel prices. Despite the president’s airy talk of green jobs, cutting emissions, by almost all calculations, will increase costs for most businesses and families. Those extra costs must be kept to a minimum.
