Denial of the science of global warming is not really about science, a point Dan Calabrese makes with admirable clarity and directness on Cain TV.
Global warming is not about climate at all. Global warming is about government. It’s about political power, both for nations and for the UN. The global warming hysteria has always been accompanied by their insistence that the only answer is carbon taxes and controls on industry. And because it’s supposedly a problem that knows no borders, it necessitates a stronger global entity with enforcement power.
In a small attempt to overcome this distrust, I propose a thought experiment. I ask those of you who share Mr. Calabrese’s opinion to suspend your disbelief and consider the following.
- Let us suppose that global warming (a.k.a. global climate change) is real, caused by humanity, and is a problem for human civilization, especially if it continues unchecked.
- Let us further suppose that the Academies of Science from 13 nations (representing 64% of human greenhouse gas emissions in 2010) are correct when they jointly stated in 2009, “The need for urgent action to address climate change is now indisputable.” In other words, we must reduce greenhouse gas emissions to avoid the most negative consequences of climate change. Let us pick a concrete goal of following scenario RCP2.6 from the new IPCC report (Box 1.1 in Chapter 1 of AR5).
If both of these suppositions were true, what would be the best way of achieving the goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions from the United States and the world?
How could this be done without validating the fears expressed by Mr. Calabrese?
Note: I wrote this in Feb. of 2014 but did not publish it until now. In the almost two years since, I have learned that an entire conservative organization called RepublicEn was formed to answered the questions above.