Why the Greens are Bluffing on Manmade Global Warming

Time to call the enviro-commies’ bluff.  I’m going all in on a monster.

The manmade climate change debate has centered around the question of whether or not man contributes to climate change. To answer this question shortly: Yes, man does.

But the debate really needs to center around three interrelated questions.

1. How much does man contribute to the greenhouse effect?
2. If the answer is ‘significantly,’ what if anything can man do to offset any rising temperatures caused by carbon dioxide emissions?
3. Fundamentally, would it be wise or far-sighted for man to attempt to change the climate (thereby changing the climate once again)?

Let’s lay out the facts first.  Then we’ll carve the watermelon.

1. According to figures taken from the Department of Energy, the following shows man’s contribution to global greenhouse gases.

• Water vapor is 95% of the greenhouse effect, and 99.999% of water vapor in the atmosphere is naturally occurring.
• Carbon dioxide contributes 3.618% to the greenhouse effect.
• Man contributes about 3.207% to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
• Man thus contributes .28% to the greenhouse effect. Put in terms of a ratio, man contributes 1/357.14 to the greenhouse effect.

This scientifically verifiable answer should be interpreted to mean that man does not contribute significantly to the greenhouse effect, which is not even the only factor in global warming. Solar fluctuations also play a role.

2. But, if man should shrug off these facts and decide to stop producing carbon dioxide altogether, what effect would it have?

• In raw terms, man contributes yearly about 2 parts per million (ppm) carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.
• There is currently about 380ppm total carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
• According to scientific projections, man could stop producing carbon dioxide altogether, including by going into extinction, and this would drop global temperatures by .1  degree Celsius.
• In fifty years.

3. Finally, if man should decide to go ahead anyway and do everything short of complete extinction to prevent climate cataclysm, what effect would it have? This answer is a bit more prosaic.

Civilization rose along with global warming since the end of the last ice age 10,000 years ago. The idea that man can single-handedly reverse the course of “climate change” is not only Sysiphean in its absurdity, it is self-defeating.

Who is to say the moment we take action in the name of affecting the climate, for example, stripping our industrial base and inhibiting development in third world nations, that the world would not be hit by another ice age the likes of the Little Ice Age that began in the sixteenth century? Wouldn’t our actions taken in the name of climate justice have been self-defeating?

A closing question.  Should the sheer fact that man contributes in some miniscule fashion to climate change give the government carte blanche to regulate all aspects of human life? Is such control justified by some vague appeal to a “dirty hands” argument? Only in the mind of a totalitarian politician or a cloistered bureaucrat would this be the case, and neither tend to have any appreciable respect for individual rights or the market. But that’s kind of the point, isn’t it?

So you green grifters thought you were going to be ushered into power on the BIG LIE that man is responsible for catastrophic climate change? Think again.  Hundreds of millions of people are catching on to the environmentalist myths, and the truth-sayers are gaining ground on the professional liars every day.

Hell hounds on your trail, boys.  Hell hounds on your trail.

The Fraudulent Debate on Manmade Climate Change

The anthropogenic climate change debate has centered around the question of whether or not man contributes to climate change. To answer this question shortly: Yes, man does. But the debate really needs to center around three interrelated questions: How much does man contributes to the greenhouse effect; if the answer is ‘significantly,’ what if anything can man do to offset the ostensible centennial trend of rising temperatures; and more fundamentally, would it be wise or far-sighted for man to attempt to change the climate (thereby changing the climate once again)?

To address the first debate, man contributes insignificantly to global greenhouse gases, particularly so in the case of carbon dioxide emissions. First of all, water vapor is 95% of the greenhouse effect, and 99.999% of water vapor in the atmosphere is naturally occurring. Secondly, carbon dioxide contributes .117% of the greenhouse effect. Thirdly, man contributes about 3.207% of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. Thus, the scientific answer is that man does not contribute significantly to the greenhouse effect, purported to be the cause of the centennial trend of global warming.

In regards to the question if man should attempt to halt global warming, there are two things to bear in mind. First of all, if mobilizing for action requires rendering control to a central economic body, which would determine the allocation and use of natural resources, not only have we established that its actions would be unlikely to have a significant effect on the climate, in all likelihood, it’s results compared to the status quo would be worse. Central command economies are notorious for their misuse of resources and their disregard for human health; this is a direct consequence of the inherently anti-humanistic philosophy that animates them and their inability to account for resource scarcity.

Secondly, markets are better at stewarding the environment because firms are interested in efficiency, long-term investment and profits, milking natural resource supplies, and replenishing stores of renewable resources. The price competitiveness of alternative goods, including alternative resources, virtually guarantees maximum economic efficiency; while the openness of the market system gives rise to new technologies; both make the adaptation of societies to external variables like climate change much more smooth, incremental, and stable over the long term.

Thirdly, in regards to the wisdom of acting to halt climate change, people tend to forget that civilization rose with global warming since the end of the last ice age 10,000 years ago. The idea that man can single-handedly reverse the course of “climate change” is not only Sysiphean in its absurdity, it is possibly self-defeating.

Who is to say the moment we take action in the name of affecting the climate, for example, stripping our industrial base and inhibiting development in third world nations, that the world will not be hit by another ice age the likes of the Little Ice Age that began in the sixteenth century and we will be set that much further back in terms of advancing civilization?

Should the sheer fact that man contributes to climate change give the government carte blanche to regulate all aspects of the economy, by appeal to the “dirty hands” argument? Only in the mind of a totalitarian politician or a cloistered bureaucrat, neither of which tend to have any appreciable respect for individual rights or the market, is the answer an indisputable yes.