Syndicate content

Add new comment

Submitted by John Lukens on

07 07 13

Paul Phillips was kind enough to reply in detail to my question as to why we are so concerned about climate change when scientists admit that they don't understand the current global cooling cycle, nor past cycles that don't fit the now-discredited CO2 hypothesis. Basically, Paul made my point for me by admitting that there are myriads of components of the earth-ocean-atmosphere dynamics that scientists don't even begin to understand. Unfortunately, all of Paul explanations, based on surmises, not hard data, still implicate industry as the culprit in climate change, which indicates to me that he is not so much interested in "saving humanity" as in punishing capitalism.

His arguments are now based on appeals to have faith that industry is somehow to blame, and that any industrial by-product, is adversely affecting the climate, even though we have had these same types of warming and cooling cycles long before the industrial age. It’s the same tired agenda used by the leftists when we thought we were entering the next ice age in the 1970s, and then recast when we found global warming religion in the decade after that – and the science was “settled”.

I would have much more trust in Paul’s judgment if he didn’t try to appeal to our emotions. In fact, if he could take a dispassionate look, he could find some positive effects of these natural cycles, such as better crop yields in some parts of the tropics (a combination of increased atmospheric CO2 and warmer weather). He might also wonder why it appears that increases in atmospheric CO2 seem to follow warming trends, as much as precede them. As it is now, Paul, unfortunately is casting about to find some way to continue to implicate industry no matter what the climate does. This is a very questionable approach for very questionable reasons.

His arguments for pouring money at an issue that we don’t understand are based on faith, not science. (He might as well advocate spending trillions to protect humanity by creating a meteorite impact warning system. By his arguments, we can’t afford not to do it!) Further, even the IPCC admits that even if CO2 were responsible for the past warming cycle, the trillions of dollars the Bank and others wish to spend combating the problem would have a negligible effect. As it stands, many credible climate scientists believe that should wait for fifty years or more until we have hard, scientific evidence for continuing anti-global warming activities.

The Bank could much better spend its money on real problems affecting the region’s poor, not the global warming chimera. There are plenty of weather-related issues, like adaptation to drought and flooding, that demand the Bank’s immediate attention. And, as with most of these issues, the bio-physical factors take a back seat to the socio-economic factors.

John Lukens