An op-ed in The Christian Science Monitor poses the question, Would Global Warming Be So Bad?
What has always troubled me the most with the view that we needs to stop “climate change” in the form of “global warming” is the idea that it would be bad if the Earth became warmer.
The writer, a Swedish free-market economist (talk about lonely) points out that some regions would benefit, some would suffer:
So what is there to say that the pre-industrial era climate is really the optimal climate? That the benefits of a possible warmer climates wouldn’t outweigh the disadvantages? I have asked that many times to Al Gore supporters and either gotten no answer at all, or some list of alleged (and exaggerated) disadvantages that completely overlooked the benefits.
This is a point I made before, Thanks Global Warming, in which I noted that Ithaca once was under two miles of ice. I asked the question
“So at what point in time should global warming have stopped?”
I have yet to hear the answer.
——————————————–
Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
Visit the Legal Insurrection Shop on CafePress!
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
"So at what point in time should global warming have stopped?"
At the point that marginal cost of stopping additional global warming equals the marginal benefit of stopping further global warming.
… Oh, you mean you wanted a concrete answer? Well, isn't that a toughie.
Idea for video of the day:
"Some LIKE It Hot!"
This is pretzel logic by the Left.
First, they declare there is global warming.
Then, faced with reality, they declare global warming causes global cooling.
Then they ask if global warming, which isn't happening, really is so bad.
If you study historical geology, you'll learn that glaciers advanced and retreated 25 times during the Pleistocene epoch. That's only about 2 million years of so which equals a lot of movement and a lot of weather pattern changes. It's only been about 10,000 years since the last ice age (and that was about 100,000 years long) so to declare a movement of a degree or two or even three as manmade and a certain sign of imminent disaster is ludicrous.
Follow the money folks. The people who scream the loudest for global warming have the most money to gain.
Me, being one of "the dufus goobers who follow your lazy writings"
Earthquakes, Hurricanes and Erupting Volcanoes are so far down the to-do list. Surely, after the climate control thermostats are installed, they can wave the wand to eliminate them too.
Anything they want stopped or eliminated will happen when they say so.
We're all back on the playground just with more bosses and bullies.
well, really, consider all the hardships endured by humans and animals during the Little Ice Age. We saw the rise of the Black Plague (fleas loved the atmosphere), Vikings in Iceland wiped out, people ice skating on the Thames, difficult agriculture, people starving because they couldn't raise enough food. Prior to that time, potatoes were considered really crappy food, even to the peasants. The king of France pushed hard for them to be accepted, so people wouldn't starve to death (potatoes are very hardy even in that climate, because they are grown in ground, vs the above ground grains which were the staple food source.)
But, you know, the alarmists want to stop globull warming and return to that because….well, because. And, I suspect it is all the fault of William Jacobson, for using electricity. I bet you even drive a *gasp* fossil fueled vehicle and turn your heat on, too.
I fondly remember buying a sailboat (Laser – 13 footer) the year after graduating from Cornell.
Since my first job was in Syracuse, I braved the waters of Skaneateles Lake. I remember breaking through ice in April and it was August before I would sail without a wetsuit.
Although I fondly remember those days of snow, snow and more snow, I now live in sunny Oklahoma.
Seasons Greetings, Professor.
.
""So at what point in time should global warming have stopped?""
Yours is a nice bit of sophistry. One asks a question one knows cannot be answered (Have you stopped beating your wife?). One then implies the fact that the question cannot be answered, subsequently casts doubt on the validity of the subject.
You want to avoid discussing the subject of man's involvement in the effects of man's polluting man's environment. So you bring up 'global warming' in hopes of conflating the two. And of course the dufus gobbers who blindly follow your lazy writings run about soiling themselves about alarmists.
So at what point in time should an Associate Clinical Professor at Cornell Law School be reminded that the quality of his work is reflected in its factual accuracy?
Ema Nymton
~@:o?
The LEFT – taking shit for being right since long before you were born.
.
Scientists predict extreme TAXES as a result of global climate change: http://www.leftcoastrebel.com/2010/12/global-warming-white-christmas-extreme.html
@RightKlik – our course taxes will rise, along with the oceans; we will need more money to pay the climate change scientists.
Ema: "You want to avoid discussing the subject of man's involvement in the effects of man's polluting man's environment."
No, his post didn't imply anything of the sort.
"So you bring up 'global warming' in hopes of conflating the two."
Again, no. You're conflating the two. It is a common alarmist tactic to imply that denial of AGW alarmism is somehow also a denial of man's ability to pollute his environment.
Ema: CO2 is a pollutant only so far as it contributes to global warming. (And methane, etc.) It is completely benign otherwise. Further, the question is not impossible to ask; James posited a broad answer, we just need specifics.
So the ball is back in your park: what is the optimal temperature?
One optimal temp is 98.6 at the beach. Also, 85 in my tomato garden, 45 on a bracing fall day and 28 when skiing.
Merry Christmas, everyone!
What evidence is there that current global temperatures are optimal? Maybe they should be warmer, maybe cooler.
@emma how is it possible to be so arrogant, stupid and self righteous and still be able to type unless you are a sophisticated parody of a leftist?
AGW proponents argue that C02 is a pollutant. AGW proponents emit C02 by exhaling. Kill all AGW proponents and problem resolved or greatly diminished. And as a for a bonus we get to increase the average IQ of humanity 10 points. A win-win proposition.
Ben: what is the optimal temperature?
Stability is preferable to instability. Rapid anthropomorphic climate change may result in massive loss of habitat, crop failures, spread of disease, coastal flooding, with the resulting human migration, political instability and widespread suffering.