THE “GLOBAL WARMING” PARADIGM

I recently attended a session on the “global warming” problem at a friend's church. There were no “denial advocates” with shrill denunciations in attendance – yet the reception was still lukewarm. Several facts came up in discussion to add to the mix of standard arguments. There were more questions posed by the “facts” than in the original debate.

The first fact that came to light was that since the beginning of history global temperatures were on a steady rise. Score one for warming. Secondly the main factor in this steady rise was human progress. Score another for warming. Thirdly, if this global warming had not occurred, our planet could not support our present population and civilization. Score two for denial [but subtract for faulty reasoning]. Maybe global warming is a good thing. The Russians are saying “bring it on”: maybe Siberia will become the new bread basket or at least it will be easier to extract minerals. Fourthly, we already know that it takes time for the “carbon pollutants” to reach the area where they trap heat and immediate action guarantees nothing: the die is already cast. Our current situation is due to carbon releases done roughly 30 years ago. A fifth fact that emerged related to the shrinkage and expansion of glaciers: they recede in the Northern Hemisphere – where ¾ of the population reside – and are shrinking in the Southern Hemisphere. Score for warming only on implication.

Gore's argument about “tipping points” resonates. However, tipping points also work both ways. Anyone who has used an exercise regimen long term to lose weight and improve health. This is why all serious exercise regimens experience little gain early and major gains later as tipping points accelerate progress. And nature tends to respond to changes to restore equilibrium. This was exploited in Day After Tomorrow to depict a “little ice age” on steroids with catastrophic outcomes that make for great cinema. However, using the global warming logic we are in uncharted territory and any scenarios are purely speculative.

We still have no idea what the “optimal” temperature is for human civilization. And nature has a built in balance to carbon based warming effects: there is a limited and not inexhaustible supply of carbon energy. We can't possibly sustain our current energy use forever. We may even run out of carbon energy before our optimal human temperature is reached – and the natural equilibrium of the planet may not be compatible with the demands of human civilization.

We could consider the short term effects of solar flares that induce short term rises in temperature followed by colder temperatures. But that only explains short term trends and while it mitigates the claims of warming advocates it also works against deniers. Score this factor as irrelevant – even if it makes for lively discussions. The fact is that a world that fully utilizes the bounty of renewable energy [as depicted in my next book of fiction] would be unaffected by a global cooling trend. If food was produced underground in energy intensive hydroponic farms and skyscraper greenhouses [like some of our marijuana grow ops are today] crappy weather and soil would be largely irrelevant. If energy was virtually limitless large populations could thrive in hostile environments.

The point is that the “global warming” controversy is all political theater deflecting attention from solving our long term energy problem to one of political and economic control. In my book nobody controls the renewable technology for personal gain and influence – which is an intolerable scenario for nearly all the “people who matter”.

Theoretically, in a perfect universe money is merely a means to facilitate commerce and the exchange of wealth measured in terms of actual goods and services from nature and human labor. Instead, since well before the times of Jesus, money has been used by those in power to limit, control and steal wealth from others. Large accumulations of money have been responsible for all of history's major wars between nations exploiting racism, religion, national pride, or the favorite: alleged abuses of rival abusers to rally public support. Wars tend to divide people without money and diverts attention from those who cause the very problems that wars are supposed to solve. The “War on global warming” involves responses that insulate those with money and punish the rest of us. They don't address the core issues that must be dealt with. 

Those solutions are delayed to facilitate exploitation of the status quo and to design government solutions to preserve power and influence for “those who matter”. As with nearly all government mandates – whether done locally or internationally – they have nothing to do with solving actual problems. If they did they would involve more specific goals and means that would limit governmental power and abuse. The reason that the “party of less government” and “the party of the people” both refuse to define policies should be obvious. They work for people who want more government to forcefully impose barriers for “those who don't matter” - like 98% or more of the world's citizen taxpayers.