Unbundling Global Warming

The climate change debate rests on four quite separate issues:

  1. Is the world warming up?
  2. If it is warming, has this been caused by man?
  3. If it is warming, is this necessarily a bad thing for humankind?
  4. Even if the answers to the first three questions is “Yes” the actions of governments is still a judgement call.

These issues prompt two further questions:

  1. What if the costs of slowing down global warming are far greater than the costs of global warming itself?
  2. Would it not be better to invest our resources in adapting to a warmer climate than in trying to stop it happening?

The Copenhagen summit collapsed largely because China and India justifiably stated that they would not pursue policies which would wreck their economies on flimsy scientific evidence. The single biggest cause of death in their countries is poverty. So curbing economic development and slowing down their emergence from poverty will simply make more people die from disease and malnutrition and leave the rest less able to deal with the problems of drought and flooding.

The position of the Global Warming Industry has certainly not been helped by the nefarious activity outed by a whistle blower at the CRU. In addition, deranged claims in the 2007 IPCC (such Himalayan glaciers disappearing a few years, Amazonian rain forests disappearing into savannahs, and sea levels rising by 6ft in the next few decades) have been shown to be based on pure conjecture. Every poll now shows that fewer people believe that global warming is an established fact and even less believe it is largely man-made. Hardly anyone believes climate change is the most serious problem facing the world and virtually no-one is in favour of drastic economic measures being implemented.

It is the policy consequences that really matter because the 80% cut in carbon emissions proposed by Gordon Brown will wreck whatever is left of our economy after his disastrous time in office. There is a crying need to bring reason, integrity and balance to a debate that has become seriously unbalanced, irrationally alarmist. The primary need is to attack specific problems such as disease and support the development of new technologies and geo-engineering. For we can rely on humanity doing what it has always done: adapting to whatever nature throws at us.


%d bloggers like this: