When it comes to the debate on global climate change (I find it interesting to note that after some of the coldest and nastiest winters in years – they’re no longer calling it “global warming”) it is intellectually dishonest to deny that there is LEGITIMATE difference of opinion.
There is NOT a unanimity in the scientific community on ANY of the significant Climate Change questions. You will find “experts” on both sides of EACH of these questions. Therefore, one would think they should be asked and answered conclusively before any draconian action is taken, don’t you agree? Let’s look at the questions:
IS THERE an anomalous non-cyclical increase in global temps? If not, what’s all the hubbub?
If so, are so-called "greenhouse gasses" the cause?
If so, are the global climate effects anthropogenic (man caused)? Aren’t natural releases of these gases (livestock, volcanic activity etc) exponentially greater than all man-generated releases? Didn’t Mount St Helens release more greenhouse gasses in a single eruption than all man’s industry in the 20th century?
In the last half century, technology has been developed to extinguish forest fires – which used to burn uncontrolled. These fires spewed massive amounts of carbon compounds into the atmosphere, and eliminated millions of atmosphere-scrubbing trees in the process. Now we bring these fires under control in days, saving many square miles of forest each time and cutting the carbon output by massive amounts. We have more trees today than we did in 1900. Everyone acknowledges the beneficial effects trees have on the environment. Hasn’t this contributed to a “Carbon Offset” for mankind’s industrial revolution?
Assuming there IS a warming trend, will it continue? For how long and to what degree? Would it be truly catastrophic, or must we simply contend with shifting weather patterns as we do with a wet spell, a drought, a heat wave or a cold snap?
"Global warming" trends on 3 other planets in the solar system have been confirmed. (Unless you attribute them to the very presence of terrestrial probes - mankind had nothing to do with these warming trends.) Is it possible that the known increase in solar output, sunspot activity and solar flares may have more to do with global warming than anything man is doing?
Is it significant that increases in CO2 have historically FOLLOWED a warming trend, rather than preceded one? Why would one conclude that CO2 is then causitive?
Even if mankind can be blamed for the warming... why are we so focused on carbon? We're bombarding the planet with incredible amounts of microwave energy from cellphones, wireless networks, satellite communications, etc. Are we cooking the planet?
As you can see there are more questions than answers. Perhaps we should strive to ANSWER the questions before trying to fix a loose nut with a hammer.
Copyright © 2007 by Doug Edelman
Doug Edelman is a conservative political commentator and a contributing editor for The Conservative Voice. His work is also seen on News By Us, The American Daily, The Post Chronicle, New Media Journal, Capitol Hill Coffee House etc. For the support of his family, however, he is also an IT Consultant/Contractor and owner of a Computer Services Business. He has taught PC Maintenance & Repair and Networking at his local Community College, and maintains a blog at http://edeldoug.blogs.com/.
