The Selective Science of Global Warming

Global warming trends IPCC 2013 AR5

This past week there was a lot of a hubbub over the UN Report on Global Warming. The biggest talking point was this:

“It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together. The best estimate of the human-induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period.”

So now we know with 95% certainty that half of the increase in the past 60 years has been man made. This finding was met with an “I told you so” but not much else. Everyone agrees its very important something be done, but no one really knew what that something is.

Columnists have  basically positioned themselves as the anti Vanilla Ice. While the now Amish home builder declares “If there was a problem,Yo, I’ll solve it, Check out the hook while my DJ revolves it,”  climate change writers scream “I acknowledge climate change therefore I am smart! I offer no solutions but please click on this article! The HuffPo pays me in Whole Foods gift cards based on clicks and I’m all out of Pirate Booty!”




While bloggers and scientists now have hard evidence global warming is real and man made, they lack two important things – consequences and a solution. They are screaming that there is a problem, yet the effects of the problem are amorphous, and they offer no way of solving it. Then it somehow shocks them when people don’t care:

Fast-forward to today, with the release of the IPCC’s latest report on the state of climate science, and it is clear that public concern and political enthusiasm have not kept up with the science. Apathy, lack of interest, and even outright denial are more widespread than they were in 2008.

How did the rational arguments of science and economics fail to win the day?

The answer is because the alarmists have failed to make a compelling case of what to do about climate change and why we need to do it. Sure, there are vague claims that rising temperatures will lead to food shortages and natural disasters. But the problem with this is that these aren’t problems that most Americans recognize.

The temperature has risen a degree over the past century – which is the same amount it is supposed to rise in the next century. However during that rise we have learned to grow more and more food and also learned how not to die in storms. In 1900 the Galveston hurricane killed 8,000 people. In 2012 Hurricane Sandy killed 148 people despite going through a much more populated area. Basically, scientists ignore that while storms may become more and more severe, our dwellings are becoming stronger at a quicker rate. Our prediction models also are much more advanced.

A hurricane in 1900 meant you were outside spitting in your spittoon when all of the sudden it started raining and you and your stick house were flying through the air for an impromptu Quidditch match. A hurricane in 2013 means I get a warning text three days before so I can buy Homeland and stream it on my couch until it quits raining.

Similar advances in food production make any global warming induced famine unfathomable to most Americans. Crop production has doubled since 1970 and yields have increased by 50%. Americans throw away half of their food.  So if we like, ran out of food, we could probably like, not throw away so much of it.

But the biggest problem is that there is no solution to the global warming problem. Usually we are either told that we need to stop using fossil fuels (which run society) or invest in clean energy (which at present is absolutely uncapable of running society). We invented ways to use less energy – like LEED certification for becoming green. But all that created was a Bank of America Tower with Al Gore’s approval, bicycle racks, and twice as much energy consumption per square foot as the Empire State Building which is 80 years older.

So the left is very good at using their coal powered laptops to fire up blog posts, or to burn jet fuel to attend conferences to explain how we must get off fossil fuels, but they’re not good at actually not using fossil fuels. What we are good at, is spending money – and remember, when people are spending money, someone else is making money.

For almost $20 trillion, temperatures by the end of the century will be reduced by a negligible 0.05 degrees Celsius.

Half of global warming is man made. Yes, the bloggers were enlightened. They were on board with this doomsday scenario before everyone else. They were Nick Cage saving the world in every shitty Nick Cage movie, while the dumb republicans were either the villains or the people who wrongly believed Nick Cage’s hair line was real – whichever enemy you prefer.

But now we can stop with the braggart articles where people pat themselves on the back for “siding with science” on this issue.  Let’s figure out how to deal with it. Do we want to go with the current plan of never using oil while simultaneously telling India and China to also stop using oil? Up the spending from $20 trillion to $40 trillion so we can at least reduce it a full tenth of a  degree?

Or should we instead just not throw out half our food and stay inside when we’re told a storm is coming?



Related posts

Leave a Comment