The Downsides of Agreeing with Global Warming Theories

Got your attention? Probably not. Earthly heating is an unlikely search phrase. Actually, of course, this post regards global warming. And to-date, for the most part, we have posted information about specific aspects of global warming, or in-depth treatments of the subject, always including links galore to help the reader. But as a topic on the internet, Global Warming has got more posts and more links than we can count. Choose among the many on EcoWorld, or go to Google. Have fun.

Might anyone note that the major international oil companies abandoned their objections to global warming theories rather early, back in 2002 or even before that? Maybe there’s no downside to agreeing with global warming theories, and no upside to being a skeptic! After all, the number of global warming skeptics left in the world today is limited to a handful of libertarian think tanks, and an even smaller handful of renowned climate scientists. Why be a global warming skeptic?

The reasons are many, but foremost is because there is a downside to simply embracing global warming theories, without also displaying follow-up vigilance. The downside is it doesn’t end there. How we combat global warming will have a huge effect on whether or not we mitigate global warming, should it actually be happening exactly as feared.

Because we are trying to limit CO2 emissions, we are deforesting the Amazon, the Congo, the rainforests of Indonesia, and countless other forests, so we can grow “carbon neutral” biofuel.

Because we are trying to limit CO2 emissions, our biofuel plantations take land used to grow food out of production, and instead they produce this cash crop. In the inner recesses of the mega-cities of equatorial earth, food costs more, and the poor starve.

Because we are trying to limit CO2 emissions, we do nothing about deforestation, which is the primary cause of drought in earth’s equatorial regions. We don’t reverse deforestation – it isn’t a priority. As a result, drought is parching the land and the livelyhoods of millions, and glaciers on Kilimanjaro lose their annual replenishment snow.

Because we are trying to limit CO2 emissions, we don’t emphasize planting urban forests, and green building developments that have less heat island effect. We even fail to require lower emissions of genuine pollutants (sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, ozone, particulates, and lead), when we write noble and breakthrough global warming laws that require lower emissions of CO2.

Global warming skeptic is too narrow a description of what we advocate. Climate uncertainty remains, even if we agree the earth is warming. Critical analysis and rampant skepticism regarding any and all solutions to global warming are mandatory, if we are to ever hope to successfully combat global warming.

2 Responses to “The Downsides of Agreeing with Global Warming Theories”
  1. Lars Smith says:

    There are good indications that deforestation is reversed when GDP per capita reaches $4600, references here,

    That doesn’t help Kilimanjaro, of course.

  2. Ethanol says:

    *wonders how cold it’s going to get today*


Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.