Here is a different way to look at the global warming argument. There has been an argument about global warming going on for some time, but is it really a well structured argument? We know from our experience with political arguments that "false" logic can creep in and soil the process.
I was talking with a logger who believes that global warming is a serious problem and agrees that the primary cause in more carbon dioxide in the are as a result of burning coal. This person based his decision to agree with the global warming alarmists because of the larger percentage of professor types who hold this view. How could so many be wrong? Remember that 500 years ago 99% of humans believed the world was "flat" and they have been proven wrong.
This logger shifted to what is happening to trees and pointed out that in his state the trees were growing several times the rate that they are being cut. Since trees take carbon dioxide out of the air and store it in their wood, this is clearly good. What could be wrong with the above logic? It is partly true. Trees and other plants do take carbon dioxide out of the air, but trees die of different natural causes and then "rot" and put that same carbon back into the air in the form of carbon dioxide. Rather than only consider the cutting of trees and making paper and building homes out of it, we need to add in the natural death rate of trees. In a mature forest like the jungles of Brazil, if there was "zero" cutting, there would still be trees dying naturally. The net affect would be that the forest did not take out any carbon dioxide. The point is that tree hungers who are against cutting trees can actually make things worse. Wood in a home is actually like carbon stored in a bank and a book printed on paper and stored in a library. What is the problem? Do the arguments hold water?
The other point that people jump to is that global warming is bad. Why is that? It is human nature to be afraid of the unknown. They tend to expect any change to be "bad". What if we had a trend that pointed to the fact that the earth is getting cooler? Would that be considered as "good"? How about just staying the same? Is that better than either getting warmer or cooler? As I think you can see how any argument can easily get off track if we can't agree on a few ground rules.
Now for another perspective. For this example, I am going to define 3 ways that global warming might have its impact. Those are (1) Quality of life, (2) Length of life (3) Number of lives. Before we can say if global warming is good or bad, we first have to agree on what impact it would have on the above three parameters if we do not do anything different. Once we get an agreement on the above, we can then shift to what we can do to change rate of global warming and the cost or impact on the above three parameters. Does that sound like a logical approach? It would take more time than I have for this blog to exhaust all the alternatives above, but I think I can point out just a few.
Take quality of life. We know that the use of energy is the number one variable that controls the quality of life for us humans here on Earth. The more energy one uses, the higher quality of their life. The richest countries use the most energy per person and the poorest use the least. Those are the facts. If our use of energy is the driver of global warming, it seems clear that the trade off will have to be a lower quality of life. Follow that? A side point. Is there anything in nature that naturally counter acts an increase in carbon dioxide in the air? There is and it is trees and plants. The more carbon dioxide there is in the air and the warmer it is the faster the trees and plants grow and take carbon dioxide out of the air. This process has apparently been in balance before us humans started building campfires. If we cut down the use of energy, it has to be clear to all that we will lower our quality of life.
How about length of life? How important is that? I think that the USA is now about 35th in the world in life expectancy. Do you think that life expectancy will go down or up with global warming. It seems that human nature rather than facts predict that our life expectance will go down. I guess it will be the lack of food even in the face of the clear proof that plants will grow faster. Remember that 100% of our human food comes from plants and the energy to grow that food comes from the Sun.
How about the number of lives here on Earth? Is it good to have many more people here on Earth or not? We have to understand that what drives the use of energy and thus global warming is the number of people on Earth. How would things like the quality of life be different with fewer people on Earth? Would it be better or worse? From my perspective, it seems clear that the fewer people we have on Earth the higher the quality of life will be for the average person. If you have a different view, please post you position. If we were to limit the number of people on Earth, who would be injured by this action? I am not talking about killing anyone, just limiting the number of births. This is what we do with dogs and cats. Other wise, we would be over run with them, like rabbits in Australia.
The final point is the rate of global warming with "no" action and "with" the proposed actions. The rate is critical and has to be balance against the effort or cost. If the impact positive or negative is far in the future, the cost to off set it has to be small currently to be in balance. Here is an example. How much would you pay today so that your grandson could get a $10 gift 75 years from now? It would be a lot less than $10. How about a gift next year? You would pay a lot more for that. Right? Well it is the same with what is worth spending today to slow global warming. Since most agree that any significant impact from global warming will be well into the future, it can't be worth much today to slow that rate of change. Are any of you getting this?
PS---Check their batting average first. If they can not explain why the ice age ended, then they don't know enough to "predict" what might happen in the future. Ask them if they know what ozone is or what is heavy water. If they do not know these simple answers, don't waste your time discussing global warming with them.
I was talking with a logger who believes that global warming is a serious problem and agrees that the primary cause in more carbon dioxide in the are as a result of burning coal. This person based his decision to agree with the global warming alarmists because of the larger percentage of professor types who hold this view. How could so many be wrong? Remember that 500 years ago 99% of humans believed the world was "flat" and they have been proven wrong.
This logger shifted to what is happening to trees and pointed out that in his state the trees were growing several times the rate that they are being cut. Since trees take carbon dioxide out of the air and store it in their wood, this is clearly good. What could be wrong with the above logic? It is partly true. Trees and other plants do take carbon dioxide out of the air, but trees die of different natural causes and then "rot" and put that same carbon back into the air in the form of carbon dioxide. Rather than only consider the cutting of trees and making paper and building homes out of it, we need to add in the natural death rate of trees. In a mature forest like the jungles of Brazil, if there was "zero" cutting, there would still be trees dying naturally. The net affect would be that the forest did not take out any carbon dioxide. The point is that tree hungers who are against cutting trees can actually make things worse. Wood in a home is actually like carbon stored in a bank and a book printed on paper and stored in a library. What is the problem? Do the arguments hold water?
The other point that people jump to is that global warming is bad. Why is that? It is human nature to be afraid of the unknown. They tend to expect any change to be "bad". What if we had a trend that pointed to the fact that the earth is getting cooler? Would that be considered as "good"? How about just staying the same? Is that better than either getting warmer or cooler? As I think you can see how any argument can easily get off track if we can't agree on a few ground rules.
Now for another perspective. For this example, I am going to define 3 ways that global warming might have its impact. Those are (1) Quality of life, (2) Length of life (3) Number of lives. Before we can say if global warming is good or bad, we first have to agree on what impact it would have on the above three parameters if we do not do anything different. Once we get an agreement on the above, we can then shift to what we can do to change rate of global warming and the cost or impact on the above three parameters. Does that sound like a logical approach? It would take more time than I have for this blog to exhaust all the alternatives above, but I think I can point out just a few.
Take quality of life. We know that the use of energy is the number one variable that controls the quality of life for us humans here on Earth. The more energy one uses, the higher quality of their life. The richest countries use the most energy per person and the poorest use the least. Those are the facts. If our use of energy is the driver of global warming, it seems clear that the trade off will have to be a lower quality of life. Follow that? A side point. Is there anything in nature that naturally counter acts an increase in carbon dioxide in the air? There is and it is trees and plants. The more carbon dioxide there is in the air and the warmer it is the faster the trees and plants grow and take carbon dioxide out of the air. This process has apparently been in balance before us humans started building campfires. If we cut down the use of energy, it has to be clear to all that we will lower our quality of life.
How about length of life? How important is that? I think that the USA is now about 35th in the world in life expectancy. Do you think that life expectancy will go down or up with global warming. It seems that human nature rather than facts predict that our life expectance will go down. I guess it will be the lack of food even in the face of the clear proof that plants will grow faster. Remember that 100% of our human food comes from plants and the energy to grow that food comes from the Sun.
How about the number of lives here on Earth? Is it good to have many more people here on Earth or not? We have to understand that what drives the use of energy and thus global warming is the number of people on Earth. How would things like the quality of life be different with fewer people on Earth? Would it be better or worse? From my perspective, it seems clear that the fewer people we have on Earth the higher the quality of life will be for the average person. If you have a different view, please post you position. If we were to limit the number of people on Earth, who would be injured by this action? I am not talking about killing anyone, just limiting the number of births. This is what we do with dogs and cats. Other wise, we would be over run with them, like rabbits in Australia.
The final point is the rate of global warming with "no" action and "with" the proposed actions. The rate is critical and has to be balance against the effort or cost. If the impact positive or negative is far in the future, the cost to off set it has to be small currently to be in balance. Here is an example. How much would you pay today so that your grandson could get a $10 gift 75 years from now? It would be a lot less than $10. How about a gift next year? You would pay a lot more for that. Right? Well it is the same with what is worth spending today to slow global warming. Since most agree that any significant impact from global warming will be well into the future, it can't be worth much today to slow that rate of change. Are any of you getting this?
PS---Check their batting average first. If they can not explain why the ice age ended, then they don't know enough to "predict" what might happen in the future. Ask them if they know what ozone is or what is heavy water. If they do not know these simple answers, don't waste your time discussing global warming with them.
