Expensive and Wrong

The main concept of Anthropogenic Global Warming has always annoyed me. Climate change may be occurring, and the planet may be warming, but that the ratio of greenhouse gases had to be in such a balance on its tipping point, that the meager contribution of carbon dioxide that industrial economies throw up into the atmosphere, started the boulder rolling down the hill? Pardon me, but that's laughable. I'm an ex-astronomer, and I know astronomical odds when I see them. Unfortunately, the environmental activists have so successfully tied man-made Global Warming with plain old global warming, that policy makers and politicians think that we humans can actually do something about reversing it. Similar to the Illegal Immigration debate here in America, activists have been so loud and vocal with tying all immigration to the debate, rational thought has left the arena.

So now, Britain, which has been totally hornswaggled about Man's arrogance, first that we are so powerful to affect the planet so, and second that we are still so powerful to reaffect it, has published a government report that dealing with climate change's effects over the next century will cost between 5 to 20 percent of a country's GDP. But, saving grace of all saving graces, countries can spend only 1 percent of their GDP's and reverse Global Warming. Um, what if you're wrong, and we are not this all powerful acne rash on Mother Gaia's face, and we spend this money, but Global Warming happens anyway, so that we've ruined our economies and we still have to deal with drought, coastal intrusion, and stronger hurricanes? Pretty expensive gamble, don't you think?

Now, this report is based on the "science" of climate change as it exists today. What if those theories are wrong? What if the warming we saw in the 1990's was a brief phenomenon? It's pretty unwise to base your next 50 years of economic and environmental policy on a science that is only accurate to a timeline of 100 years or so, based on data taken during a trend of 10 years. But here's the other side of the gamble the Greens are willing to take: if the warming trend peters out, and we've placed all these carbon credit scams all over the world, they can claim that we acted in time and reversed global warming. Although, other climate scientists can call shenanigans on that since it takes 30 to 50 years for carbon dioxide put into the atmosphere now to affect global temperature. But who cares? No one listens to those rational climate scientist Today, so why would we listen to them in the future? But, the Greens are collectivist at their philosophic core, so slowing down the elite economies, and transfering their wealth to developing countries through the carbon trading scheme, will be all to the benefit of their ideology.

However, even if the Greens are wrong, and spending all this crap to reverse Global Warming doesn't work, and Global Warming happens anyway, they can claim we waited too long, other countries didn't do enough, or Mother Gaia was angrier than we thought. It doesn't matter, because global economies would have been ruined, industrial wealth would have been redistributed, and capitalist powerhouses would have been weakened, so the "little" countries could compete with them. A more even playing field would make it easier for socialist policies to spread. It really is win-win for the enviro-bats, whether the Earth cooperates with them or not.