Insanity is sometimes described as doing the same thing over and over while expecting different results. This certainly describes manmade global warming.
Many kinds of extreme weather are attributed to “global warming” (nowadays called “climate change”), even though climate has always been changing, and the Earth has not warmed at all since about 1999. Insanity? Maybe so.
The latest move on the warmist agenda is apparently aimed at avoiding reasoned scientific process entirely.
As reported in the UK’s Independent, a group of warmists is attempting to create a computer model that will allegedly be able to connect “extreme weather” to global warming in a matter of days, rather than the year or two usually needed for peer-reviewed scientific papers.
They have a weird kind of logic to this move. For the past 18 years, warming has only been observed in computer models, not the Earth. If one wishes to observe global warming, one must create another computer model.
In fact, “warm” may well not be in our future. Solar physicists in the U.S. and others have warned that the sun seems to be headed into what could be a lengthy quiet spell. The last time that happened, the Earth felt what we now call the “Little Ice Age” from about 1350 to 1850.
Global cooling of that magnitude is very hard on agriculture, especially in the Northern Hemisphere, where most of the Earth’s farmland exists. In some of those cold years, people died of famine by the multiple millions.
Global cooling of any magnitude could therefore be bad news. About 67 percent of the Earth’s land mass (useful or otherwise) is in the Northern Hemisphere, and about 90 percent of all the people on Earth live there. Global cooling would be a big problem.
If man-made global warming does not exist, then attempts to stop it by putting limits on carbon emissions from the USA will be utterly useless. In 2006, China became the world’s largest emitter of carbon dioxide, nowadays about 50 percent more than the U.S. India is large and growing, and neither one of those countries will make the least little bit of reduction in their carbon emissions. What good will emission controls in the USA do? None.
But there is more to the story of carbon dioxide. It seems a little counterintuitive, but it is a fact that more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increases plant productivity, because carbon dioxide is a fertilizer.
Science Daily (May 2013) reports that the effects of carbon dioxide increases in the atmosphere are visible from satellite measurements, and also reports that the fertilization effect seems to work even better in warm, drier areas than in moister regions. That would be very helpful.
Therefore, I recommend that nobody support any policy that aims to limit carbon emissions. Politicians who espouse such policies should be opposed, as well as informed about the “facts of life on earth” suggested in this letter.
W.T. “Ted” Hinds