Let me ask you this: What if the left are wrong about man-made global warming?
The left is asking us to reduce the by-products of industry (and thus global economic output) by a significant amount, in order to “save mankind.” But that reduction in itself will result in a far less viable society, with a seriously negative impact on the welfare of its people. It is guaranteed to hurt mankind while trying to “save it.” If we did go along with the left in their demands for humans to produce and consume less, we would definitely be harmed, and many people would likely die as a consequence.
On the other hand, if we continue with the course we are on, there is a chance that “great harm” will come to people through environmental impact, but isn’t there also a chance that no additional harm will come to people? They claim it to be a certainty, but how can they know that? Fact is, they can’t. After all, nobody can possibly know that global warming claims are true - it is all theory and conjecture based on human-designed modeling. “True” implies that it is based in fact, and it most certainly is not.
Further, is the Earth not capable of adapting to a changing environment? It always has, and it always will. It has been much warmer than today, in years past, and much, much colder. Ice once covered the planet down to the Great Lakes, and beyond. Ice, ice, baby.
Are people not capable of adapting also, no matter what the Earth presents us with? There is no doubt we are. We are the most adaptable creatures on the planet. Not only that, but even if it were true that man’s activities do affect our climate negatively, the important question should be: How long will it take to significantly alter the climate in order to produce such negative effects?
Question: If you live in Chicago, where will you move when the next ice age puts your house under a sheet of ice? (Hint: You won’t, because you will be long dead, and all your progeny will have migrated to Panama over the centuries as the ice slowly inched its way down across Canada, because they got tired of shoveling snow).
If you listen to the liberals (or watch their movies such as “The Day After Tomorrow”), you would think that the Earth is going to descend into climate chaos not only within our lifetimes, but in the next decade or two, or even the day after tomorrow! But that is exponential preposterousness. Man’s activities are surely increasing rapidly, but it is a damned big planet, and if anything the effects could only increase gradually, over several decades or even centuries.
There is no “tipping point” in which the climate suddenly changes for the worse. There will not be a super-freezing cold front sweeping across the northern hemisphere, knocking helicopters out of the sky. To believe such things is to be seriously ignorant and gullible, bordering on delusional.
So, even if we are affecting the climate, the fact is that we will adapt to it as it slowly changes, even if there were an increase in tornadoes and hurricanes, floods and droughts, rising ocean levels, heat and/or cold. And although many people do live on the coasts, only some of it is in a “danger zone” for flooding from elevated ocean levels. If that ever does happen to any significant degree, man will deal with it, with dykes or by infilling, or simply moving if it becomes a serious problem, such as islands in the Pacific that will be under water when the oceans rise.
You may lose your beach-front home, but somebody else will gain one. That’s what insurance is for. And - most people don’t know this - most of the earth’s land is sparsely populated or unoccupied land, and there is plenty of room for people to move to, even in California.
But again, all of this would happen over a period of lifetimes. Nobody will be affected in any short-term scenario. Nobody will wake up one day to find their homes “gone” due to changing sea levels. Think of Venice, Italy, which is slowly sinking into the sea because it was built on a mud island. It is taking hundreds of years to affect the people there, who have to deal with high tides encroaching into San Marcos Plaza, and sometimes entering into their buildings.
They can sandbag it, but in the worst-case scenario, they will just eventually move upstairs into the second floor, and maybe eventually raise the sidewalks to accommodate that. Otherwise, life goes on as though nothing is the matter - they will adjust their structures and infra-structures over time to deal with the slowly changing conditions. And it will be no big deal. Even in Miami Or Manhatten - if oceans do rise, it will take HUNDREDS OF YEARS to significantly flood those cities.
Do you not think that man could adapt to it easily? Of course we could. People would bring in trainloads of dirt and raise the streets up to accommodate the higher ocean levels. We'd build breakwaters, and pave new streets and open new storefronts in the second floor level, just as they may have to do in Venice, even if the oceans do not rise. And the amount of effort/expense would be paltry compared to the infrastructure that is already there. Humans would NOT abandon those cities just because of changing tides - we would adjust to it, and would continue living there as if nothing changed.
The same would be true of all low-lying areas. People would, over hundreds of years (just to reiterate my point), adjust their structures and the infrastructure to accommodate the new realities. TRUMP XIV wants to build another skyscraper condo on the beach? Wherever that beach is, he'll be there.
Let's also not forget that man-made structures do not last forever. Let's say the ocean levels rose several feet over a couple hundred years, and the beach is now twenty miles inland in Florida. The people who own the homes, condos and business will adapt to the changing environment at some small cost, compared to the investments already made. But eventually it may not be worth further investments, and they will stop sinking money into them. As the decades pass, the buildings will become dilapidated and eventually abandoned.
But the cost of upkeep (or further expansions) will have been diverted to other, more stable areas. The present structures will exceed their lifespans and all tax credits will have been used up. In time nature will reclaim them, and they will become reefs for the fish, or sand dunes for the snakes and lizards. Nature will not only will out, but man will not have lost all that much in terms of his wealth. He will have "used up" his structures, and moved on.
This is not dissimilar to what has happened in New England and other Northern states. Just look at Detroit, or Pennsylvania. Auto makers and steel mills have moved elsewhere. Abandoned factories, businesses and homes cover vast swaths of the land. Land values have plummeted. But it happened over several decades, and though we can look back on it and say: Tisk, risk, those Democrats are soooo stupid, look what they did to our industries - the fact is that the people adapted, one way or the other.
Those industries adapted to its changing (man-made) environment, and sprang up elsewhere (although oftentimes not within our country). But the principle is the same: we adapt over time, and it is not the do-or-die crisis that the Democrats make it out to be. As the song goes: "Tiiiiiiime, is on our side, yes it is...." (Rolling Stones). Yes, some people lost their savings in the process, but how does that differ with bad investments in the stock market? Should we stop all industry in order to protect those people from losing their investments?
Do you not think that man could adapt to it easily? Of course we could. People would bring in trainloads of dirt and raise the streets up to accommodate the higher ocean levels. We'd build breakwaters, and pave new streets and open new storefronts in the second floor level, just as they may have to do in Venice, even if the oceans do not rise. And the amount of effort/expense would be paltry compared to the infrastructure that is already there. Humans would NOT abandon those cities just because of changing tides - we would adjust to it, and would continue living there as if nothing changed.
The same would be true of all low-lying areas. People would, over hundreds of years (just to reiterate my point), adjust their structures and the infrastructure to accommodate the new realities. TRUMP XIV wants to build another skyscraper condo on the beach? Wherever that beach is, he'll be there.
Let's also not forget that man-made structures do not last forever. Let's say the ocean levels rose several feet over a couple hundred years, and the beach is now twenty miles inland in Florida. The people who own the homes, condos and business will adapt to the changing environment at some small cost, compared to the investments already made. But eventually it may not be worth further investments, and they will stop sinking money into them. As the decades pass, the buildings will become dilapidated and eventually abandoned.
But the cost of upkeep (or further expansions) will have been diverted to other, more stable areas. The present structures will exceed their lifespans and all tax credits will have been used up. In time nature will reclaim them, and they will become reefs for the fish, or sand dunes for the snakes and lizards. Nature will not only will out, but man will not have lost all that much in terms of his wealth. He will have "used up" his structures, and moved on.
This is not dissimilar to what has happened in New England and other Northern states. Just look at Detroit, or Pennsylvania. Auto makers and steel mills have moved elsewhere. Abandoned factories, businesses and homes cover vast swaths of the land. Land values have plummeted. But it happened over several decades, and though we can look back on it and say: Tisk, risk, those Democrats are soooo stupid, look what they did to our industries - the fact is that the people adapted, one way or the other.
Those industries adapted to its changing (man-made) environment, and sprang up elsewhere (although oftentimes not within our country). But the principle is the same: we adapt over time, and it is not the do-or-die crisis that the Democrats make it out to be. As the song goes: "Tiiiiiiime, is on our side, yes it is...." (Rolling Stones). Yes, some people lost their savings in the process, but how does that differ with bad investments in the stock market? Should we stop all industry in order to protect those people from losing their investments?
This time-factor is where the left is lying to people flat out. They make dire predictions and insinuate that the effects will happen soon, and will cause untold damage and death. But it won't happen anytime soon. Even if “man-made global warming” were real, there won’t suddenly be twice as many hurricanes and tornadoes. And even if there were, deaths from them are minimal - almost nothing - compared to the number of people who die from car accidents and diseases. So in any scenario, it is not a big deal.
So why is it that the left want to restrict our activities so much? And for that matter, who gets to decide which activities and how much is restricted? Oh, yes - the government. They get to tell us who can produce, and how much. Just like Nazi Germany, they will be the ones in charge. Duh - so THAT’S why they keep pushing this global warming bullshit on us.
The "cure" of preventing "global warming" will cost far more than the cost of adapting to it. If warming doesn't prove to be an issue over the next 200+ years, there is no cost. If it does prove to be an issue, the cost is only to those directly affected, and it can be represented by X. But if we follow the left's admonition and retrench in all of our productive activities - for all of humanity over the next 200 years - what effect do you think that would have on the world? X times a hundred-fold. Or more, who really knows? But it's a lot.
The "cure" of preventing "global warming" will cost far more than the cost of adapting to it. If warming doesn't prove to be an issue over the next 200+ years, there is no cost. If it does prove to be an issue, the cost is only to those directly affected, and it can be represented by X. But if we follow the left's admonition and retrench in all of our productive activities - for all of humanity over the next 200 years - what effect do you think that would have on the world? X times a hundred-fold. Or more, who really knows? But it's a lot.
And who says that only bad things would come of it, if it were true? Why wouldn’t we get better weather out of it? Why wouldn’t it increase our agricultural output, or reduce tornadoes, hurricanes, floods and droughts? And don’t you think the Canadians would like some more warmth? Why does all this not sound like serious stupidity to people on the left? Have they no ability to think at all? Are they all a bunch of idiots?
And one last thing - “climate change” will not be mitigated by a 30% decrease in human activity - we would have to cease to function almost entirely to make a difference. Yes, we have already "done our damage," according to them. A small decrease in pollutive output will only affect climate change hardly at all, so what must be done? Ban cars, power-generating stations and most human activity. You gonna die, sucka!
Seriously - handicapping civilization upfront and across the board is a certainty that our capacity to live will degrade significantly. A reduction in economic capacity reduces overall wealth, causing people, as a whole, to be less well off. A significant reduction will cause massive disruption of our system of productivity, bringing hardship and misery to billions of people, and quite probably millions of deaths.
So choose: If you follow the leftist alarmism about the climate, you can enjoy the certain degradation in the lives of all the people of the planet (except for those who are already rich). Or, if you just want to wait and see what happens, you will probably find that nothing bad will happen, and that climate change negatively affecting mankind is only a very remote possibility.
For more on this read these links:
http://www.express.co.uk/news/nature/526191/Climate-change-is-a-lie-global-warming-not-real-claims-weather-channel-founder
http://www.express.co.uk/news/nature/526191/Climate-change-is-a-lie-global-warming-not-real-claims-weather-channel-founder
Copyright notice: All the articles in this blog are written and copyrighted by Thomas M. Kempf, unless otherwise noted. You may link to, copy, use and disseminate these essays in any non-profit capacity so long as the copyright notice and the following links are included.
http://givinguponamerica.blogspot.jp/p/introduction-to-my-blog-giving-up-on.html and: www.ttssfa.com
No comments:
Post a Comment
This site is dedicated to understanding where America is headed politically, and to discovering what we might do about it.
The comments section is open to anyone, but is moderated so that spam and unwanted or mean-spirited comments will not be allowed. I will see your comments every day and may approve them immediately if I am online, or up to 24 hours if I am busy. In any case, I do appreciate your worthwhile comments and ideas.