Anybody who is anything in the scientific world agrees: global warming is occuring and something needs to be done about it.  And it isn’t just a natural warming period, no humans are creating this ‘crisis’.  Nobody can disagree because after all, it is infallible scientific fact.

But is Global Warming really real?  If it is real, can we really do anything about it?

Scientists are so frequently wrong that it is absurd to think that anything they say can be considered the ‘absolute truth’.  Sure, scientists are becoming more and more accurate because of advances in technology and the use of the scientific method.  But this doesn’t necessarily mean their findings are accurate.

Great minds of the day at one point thought that everything in the universe was made out of four basic elements (earth, water, air, fire).  Great minds also believed that the entire earth was flat.  They believed that leeches were an effective medicine, after all, they got rid of the “bad blood”.  They believed that the earth was the center of the universe.  Humans were made up of four main “humors”: phlegm, blood, bile, and black bile.  The greatest minds also believed in all sorts of crazy stuff such as sea monsters.

Even recently, scientists thought the smallest thing was the atom until advances showed us protons, neurons and electrons, and then quarks and leptons.  I could go on forever and ever but my point is simple.  Just because a scientist tells us something is true doesn’t mean that it actually is.

What if the science that all of the global warming models are built on is fundamentally wrong?  What if the atmosphere doesn’t react the same way that scientists think that it does?  What if they are missing a variable or science just hasn’t progressed enough to give us an accurate picture of what is actually occuring?  What if the temperatures obtained from ice were interpreted incorrectly?  There just are too many questions for me to completely believe in this theory.

Furthermore, the people that science has “enlisted” to help them out are ridiculous.  Al Gore is a stretch but in the end probably ok; but who really wants to listen to some crazy environmentalist tell them they need to stop driving, stop using electricity and only buy expensive ‘green’ products?  By using these kind of people, the message of global warming has really been cheapened because nobody really wants to listen to crazy people.

So if scientists really think that this is occuring keep doing what you are doing.  Keep researching and keep presenting it to the public.  But don’t expect us to jump all over it right away, we need to be sure before we make changes to our governments, homes and lives that will be costly.

“The Supreme Court ruled today, in what amounts to a rebuke of the Bush administration, that the Environmental Protection Agency has the authority to regulate carbon dioxide from automobile emissions, and that it has shirked its duty in not doing so.” (New York Times)

Despite what many people in the rest of the world, this is a step in the wrong direction. Carbon controls are a truly dangerous thing to play around with. Carbon controls are just a synonym for market controls. Since most consumers wouldn’t willing chose a more expensive car just because it had less emissions (although if the car had some other redeeming feature, like being a hybrid and thus getting more miles to the gallon) the government must force car companies to make cars that have less emissions. In turn, this will getting passed on to the consumer (eliminating their choice in the matter) making us have to pay more for cars. This won’t stop here though; soon everything will have carbon caps and making us have to pay more for almost everything.

This is the primary reason the US opted not to ratify the Kyoto Protocol (although we signed it, it has no force of law until ratified by Congress, which it hasn’t been). The economic weight of such a move would be very harmful of our still growing economies (although the effect probably wouldn’t be immediate). Just check out the countries that did ratify the Kyoto Protocol: almost all of them are struggling to meet the next deadline, most of the European countries have more carbon emissions that when they signed.

The way to lower carbon is to give some tax breaks to people who choose to buy carbon efficient technologies. In this manner, the activity of buying carbon efficient technologies is encouraged and the economy isn’t going to be broken over this. Heck as we reach Al Gore’s ten year mark (the world will cease to exist in ten years because of global warming) we can even add a carbon tax, something that Gore just argued for on Capital Hill (OK! I am just kidding).

Stout, David. “Justices Rule Against Bush Administration on Emissions.” New York Times. 2 Apr. 2007. New York Times. 2 Apr. 2007 .

“Kyoto Protocol.” Wikipedia. 31 Mar. 2007. Wikipedia. 2 Apr. 2007 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Treaty>.

Global Warming is always portrayed in a negative manner; ocean level rising, stronger hurricanes, stronger storms in general however could moderate climate change actually be a good thing?

• Slightly warmer temperatures would increase crop yield. Crops could be harvested over a longer period of time perhaps increasing the yields. More crops can always be a good thing - perhaps we can feed the world or maybe we will waste some of our crop on ethanol?
• Slightly warmer temperatures would lower energy costs during the winter months. If the temperature is warmer during the winter months, then I won’t need to spend as much to heat my home (and workplace, and car).
• Slightly warmer temperatures would give small health benefits. I wouldn’t need worry getting frostbite or hypothermia if the temperatures were warmer.

Of course, we shouldn’t let this get out of hand. If temperatures were to increase substantially: then sea levels would rise, species would struggle to stay alive, storms would get more powerful, quality of life would decrease. All I am trying to point out is that we shouldn’t break our back to cut carbon emissions when many creditable scientists predict only moderate temperature increase.