Dedicated to the balanced discussion of global warming
carbon offset / trading greenhouse kyoto climate model Inconvenient Truth bio fuel ipcc Glacier

Time for a Climate Change Plan B

Nigel Lawson has done a remarkable job of explaining the basic problem with limiting the use of carbon based fuels in our world today. His argument doesn’t really take a side on the merits of the science but rather on the realities of economics. His opinion recently showed up in the Wall Street Journal and I have taken the liberty to include selected parts here.  I suggest that you click through to read the entire article.

Lord Lawson was U.K. chancellor of the exchequer in the Thatcher government from 1983 to 1989. He is the author of “An Appeal to Reason: A Cool Look at Global Warming” (Overlook Duckworth, paperback 2009), and is chairman of the recently formed Global Warming Policy Foundation (www.thegwpf.org).

World Malaria Day

Today is World Malaria Day. While this site is dedicated to global warming issues, many have said the the increase in global warming will cause an increase in malaria deaths. While it may be true that warmer regions will allow a greater infestation of malaria carrying insects, the conclusion that there will be more deaths is preposterous!

Malaria is one of the easiest to control diseases. Unfortunately, it tends to occur in areas that are poverty stricken so the simple measures that can prevent outbreaks don’t get taken care. Rather than cost the economy in the US billions of dollars in cap and trade, we could eradicate malaria at a fraction of the cost. This is one of the reasons that I contend that fighting global warming using inefficient methods actually inadvertantly causes the deaths of thousands.

Gore Delivers Remarks on Energy and the Climate

Washington Post – July 17, 2008

Mr. Al Gore recently gave a speech in Washington DC regarding energy.  While many in the blogosphere will call Mr. Gore “Pope Gore” and refer to environmentalists as a religion, in this case, I don’t think that Mr. Gore makes many of the outlandish comments which I have chastised him about. Most of his comments are regarding energy independence, the status of the technology of alternative fuels, and the balance of power.

He does make a few global warming references which are a little hard to defend. He implies that the fires in California are caused by manmade global warming – this is probably not true since California has been enjoying an unusually wet climate for several decades and it appears that this current drought is simply going back to status quo.

Global Warming’s Impact on Lobsters Has Scientists in a Stew

The Ellsworth American – December 27, 2007

I have written before on the possible repercussions of global warming on plant and animal life (a few examples are here, here, and here).  Most of these repercussions come off as solid conclusions even though they really are just educated guesses on the reaction of the given species. In this case, the author was much more balanced and more fair, as he states that it could be good for lobsters or it could be bad. This acknowledgement that a complicated climate model interacting with a complicated species is not a sure science is refreshing. (Follow the feed link to read the rest of the story).

Wine in the Time of Global Warming

October 16, 2007 – Well Fed Network

I like wine. It is my preferred alcoholic beverage. So an article on how the wine industry will be changed by global warming is very interesting.

The author starts out by assuming that global warming caused by humans is a foregone conclusion. While some of my readers here may disagree with that, there is no doubt that there is some amount of warming going on regardless of the cause, so let’s get past that opening.

As with most things, the general increase in temperatures hurts some aspects of the wine industry and helps others. Areas that are colder and struggle to create high quality fruit may thrive with a slight increase in temperature. Other areas that are at a perfect temperature today may find the increase intolerable and thus see their production and quality diminish.

UN issues ‘final wake-up call’ on population and environment

International Herald Tribune – October 25, 2007

This article almost makes you want to put a gun to your head! No, I absolutely do not condone suicide or violent behavior but this article will not make you feel good about life. I almost suggest that you watch an episode of Barney when you get done reading just to make you feel better.

The UN recently released its Global Environmental Outlook and it is not a pretty picture. Basically, the UN is saying that there are too many people out there and we are using more basic resources than the planet can sustain. I write about this in a global warming site simply because if human’s are causing global climate change than it is likely due to the problems listed in this report as well.

Climate shift is biggest security risk: Australia

Reuters – September 25, 2007

This is an interesting analysis and brings on many dark fears. The thought that changing climate will lead to reasons (excuses) for countries to declare war is quite concerning. There is no doubt that this is at least partially true. When a country has a disgruntled population there really are only two options: fail as a government or take significant steps to change the situation.

Of equal concern is that in the process of suffering, individuals will take it upon themselves to move to another area of the world where the suffering is not as tremendous. This will lead to other problems that can occur whenever there is a mass exodus.

Pope to make climate action a moral obligation

The Independent – September 23, 2007

It seems that all politicians want to get involved in climate control on one side or the other. The Pope (whom many will say is not a politician) is not immune to this effort.

On one side of the equation, I think this is appropriate but on the other, I have some concerns. If the Pope restricts his comments to saying that humanity is obligated to care for the world then I think this is appropriate. I am not a theologian but even I can find several references in the Bible to support this argument.

HERETICAL THOUGHTS ABOUT SCIENCE AND SOCIETY

Edge – August 8, 2007

There are two recent articles on the climate change in the edge.  The great thing about these two articles is that they give opposing viewpoints of the issue which allows the curious reader to evaluate the arguments given and then make an informed decision. It is also not required that you agree with only one argument, but instead you can take pieces and parts from both sides to arrive at your own conclusion. This is in perfect keeping with my goal of being fair and balanced.

Today, I will reference the first article. I will follow up later with the second article. I can only take a few small snippets from each so I encourage you to click through and read more.

Wanna Pay $7 a Gallon?

Forbes.com – July 2, 2007

First of all, I am not making up this date above.  I know that it is not July 2 yet but that is the date on the article.  I believe the date is representative of the issue of the printed magazine (and we all know that these dates are wrong).

This article by Jerry Flint, a man that has been covering the automobile industry for decades, points out that the only way to aggressively solve the carbon dioxide problem with changes to autos is a dramatic and painful tax. He explains that in many cases the cure may actually be worse than the sickness.  This is similar to my personal feelings except that I  temper his statements by stating that if the science was rock solid, it would probably be worth the investment but if the science is not rock solid, the risk of catastrophe from the cure is almost surely 100% and therefore is probably not justified.