Posted on 12/10/2014 4:20:33 AM PST by Kaslin
People argue about whether the "consensus" of scientists is that we face disaster because of global warming. Instead of debating whether man's greenhouse gasses will raise temperatures, we should argue about how we gauge disasters.
If you take most environmentalists and climate scientists at their word, the Earth heated up about 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit over the past century, not much more than it heated up the century before that. Warming may increase, but no one can be certain of that.
Let's agree for the sake of argument that this recent warming was partly caused by humanity. Let's also agree that there are some negative effects, including more frequent coastal flooding or longer droughts.
If we agree that those are costs, shouldn't we also look at the benefits? Much of modern civilization owes its existence to our use of the fossil fuels that produce the greenhouse gasses.
I don't see that civilization as misfortune. I wish climate alarmists would weigh its accomplishments against the relatively small downsides of climate change. One of industry's biggest accomplishments is creating a world where far fewer of us are likely to die because of weather.
Alex Epstein's book "The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels" documents the rapidly shrinking number of human beings killed by storms, floods and other climate events thanks largely to ever-growing industry, fueled mainly by oil, natural gas and coal.
On my show this week, he argues that if we compare conditions a century ago to conditions last year, we shouldn't obsess about how much carbon dioxide is in the air -- or whether earth is warming -- we should look at how much safer life became.
In 2013, "Climate-related deaths were at a record low -- in supposedly the worst climate in history -- under 30,000," says Epstein. In 1931, bad weather killed 3 million people.
You can argue that we get some things wrong as a civilization, but thanks to our use of fossil fuels, we get something very right.
Epstein points out that humanity owes its current ability to survive harsh winters, arid deserts and other naturally dangerous environments to the same fuels that activists now condemn: "We have the luxury of being able to absorb a certain amount of climate-related damage so we can live in all of these cool places."
His argument is unusual because environmentalists spread the idea that, without human interference, the planet is perfect.
But by what standard?
"If you went to someone 300 years ago and asked them, do you have a perfect climate?" they would think you were crazy, says Epstein. "They were terrified of climate, because climate doesn't give you the resources that you need. It doesn't give you water when you need it. It doesn't give you the temperature when you need it."
It was once common to say that humans change their environment. That shouldn't offend people today, says Epstein. We should be thrilled that humans "create technology to master climate. ... That's why so few people today die from climate."
Epstein correctly says that instead of talking about "climate change" -- of which there will always be some, with or without human influence -- we should focus on "climate catastrophe," weather that actually kills people. Those catastrophes, measured in lost lives, are getting rarer.
Most of the changes humans make to our environment are desirable changes that help us live longer and more comfortably. "The dogma that man is ruining the planet rather than improving it is a religion, a source of prestige and a career for too many people."
If we regard nature as pristine and think it must never be altered, we will have big problems. We will die young and lead miserable, difficult lives.
I think of industry as something that is mostly very good for us, with a few minor side effects that aren't. Fossil fuels are a little like antibiotics, says Epstein. It's good to draw attention to minor side effects, but it would be crazy to abandon all treatment because of them.
Fossil fuels are no catastrophe. They contribute to health and a better life.
EWWWWW LOGIC
This article pretty much sums up what I have always believed.
Environmentalists will hate this because fossilfuels not only pollute, but overpopulate as well
On deaf ears
This article makes the argument very well. Enviromentalism has become a religion.
Go to Townhall and read the comments there too. Lots of great points brought up
The earth is still warming from the Little ice Age of 1400 AD.
Global Warming has become a religion and is used to justify expanding government power.
30,000 versus 3 million is a conversation stopper. I will have to check his sources but, if validated, I am sure I will use it whenever the subject of climate change comes up.
One problem with Epstein’s book is that it is quite expensive, whereas the climate alarmists issue many books at cheap prices. For every one person who reads Epstein’s book, there will be hundreds, or possibly thousands reading the climate-catastrophists’ views, many of them in school.
Check your public library holdings, and see which books they order.
As so often, the truth (or even reasonable debate) gets buried.
The Branch Carbonian Cult.
This theory of human activity raising CO2 levels by a few parts per million causing climate collapse is pure BS and is not supported by true science, observed data nor the historical record. It is a false theory propagated as a dogma by climate zealots solely for political purposes.
0.04% (would be 0.03% without mankind's contributions). The point is that those molecules matter. There are more than enough of them (10^21 CO2 molecules per cubic meter) to capture the outgoing IR with the right wavelength and heat the rest of the atmosphere (N2 and O2).
A SINGLE large volcanic eruption can easily put more climate changing gases into the upper atmosphere than a millenia of burning fossil fuels
A single large volcano (Pinatubo) put 42 Mt CO2 into the atmosphere, see http://pubs.usgs.gov/pinatubo/gerlach/ Mankind puts out that much in half a day.
This theory of human activity raising CO2 levels by a few parts per million causing climate collapse is pure BS and is not supported by true science,
Well, there are some good points in what you are saying. Namely any "climate collapse" or wild weather is a negative feedback, so whatever warming is caused by CO2 is reduced by the amount of increase in the water cycle and some other weather effects.
Negative feedback prevents the whole biosphere from collapse but a very large percentage of Americans mistakenly believe that negative feedback is bad and positive feedback is good. They don’t know that there is a difference between negative feedback in a physical self-regulating system and the negative feedback of the psychological theorist. I suspect that only a small minority understand that negative feedback is what makes a cruise control work and positive feedback creates an out of control system, a “runaway train”.
The whole climate issue has nothing to do with climate and everything to do with communists, actually fascists and their useful idiots, wanting to ban capitalism.
Basically with the sun as the energy source, the bulk of the climate system is made up of negative feedbacks: convection, lapse rate, cloud albedo. When the sun goes dim there are corresponding negative feedbacks to prevent iceball-earth: decreased convection, fewer clouds, etc. It has always struck me as bizarre that anyone would think that the earth’s climate has any substantial amount of positive feedback.
Take the word of proven liars? I think not.
Let’s agree for the sake of argument that this recent warming was partly caused by humanity.
***********
Why agree with something absurd and unproven “for the sake of argument”? The environmental extremists are going to great lengths to force opponents to accept the science because they know that this will guarantee their result.
And it's not just total numbers-in 1931 the global population was less than 1/3 of what it is today, so that 3 million would be the same as over 10 million perishing today.
True, but the simple contrast is so powerful it should even give a liberal pause to think.
:P :)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.