If we are going to take liberal arguments at face value and follow this line of reasoning to its logical conclusion: the only way to stop global warming is to stop life
A Problem Solving Approach to Global Warming, Part II
Comments | Print friendly | Subscribe | Email Us
A few weeks ago I wrote a column for the Canada Free Press in which I tried to approach the global warming issue from a logical, problem-solving standpoint. I teach logic and problem solving at the university level, and I thought it would be interesting to see if I could take a hot political topic like global warming and apply basic problem-solving logic to it.
I learned a couple of things:
- A lot of liberals read this publication. This was shocking to me. The Canada Free Press is clearly a journal of conservative thought, by which I mean it’s intended for logical, clear-minded, non-deluded, freedom-loving people. Despite that, I got TONS of comments from brainwashed, illogical, big-government-loving liberals. How much free time do you have when you are reading the publications of “the enemy” and then taking the time to actually respond to the articles you find there, knowing full well that nobody is going to give heed to your illogical rantings?
- Liberals don’t read very well. In one section of that original column, I noted that, contrary to liberal propaganda that the vast majority of climate researchers blame humans for global warming, several surveys have been done in the past few years that demonstrate that there is in fact widely differing views among climate scientists with regards to the causes of global warming. Many of the comments I received from liberals showed that they either didn’t read that section or simply ignored it. They all said, “A vast majority of climate researchers blame humans…” It’s like a mantra with these poor, deluded people.
In that last column, I pointed out that a problem-solving approach to any issue must involve these steps:
- First, I must present to the reader the “situation” (all problems start as situations).
- Second, I must convince the reader that this situation is a problem.
- Third, I must convince the reader of the causes of this problem.
- Fourth, I must present a solution that addresses the causes and solves the problem.
When I applied these steps to global warming, here’s what I got:
THE SITUATION: There is large disagreement that global warming or climate change is even occurring outside the norms that it has always occurred.
WHY IT’S A PROBLEM: There is no guarantee that if it is occurring, it would be a net negative/problem for the world.
WHAT IS CAUSING IT: There is no consensus about what is causing it (if it even exists).
SOLUTIONS: Considering the first three of these, there doesn’t seem any need for a solution.
I have decided that I should probably address the SOLUTION part of this equation. If I were dealing exclusively with logical types (the normal, conservative readers of this publication), it would be clear that there is no need for a solution when a problem is unclear and most likely non-existent. But since I seem to have more than my fair share of liberal readers, let’s take this a step further.
Let’s assume that the following is true: global warming is occurring outside historical norms, it’s a terrible thing, and human activity is causing it because we’re producing so much CO2. Now, what do we do?
THE FACT IS, THERE IS VERY LITTLE THAT WE CAN DO. Environmentalists suggest things like replacing incandescent light bulbs, turning down the thermostat in summer and up in winter, buying energy efficient appliances, taking showers instead of baths, buying hybrid or other fuel-efficient cars, eating less meat, and recycling (among many, many others).
These are all very “feel good” suggestions, but if every American followed every one of these suggestions, it would do nothing to stop global warming. There are nearly 7 billion human beings on this planet, each one breathing out CO2, and most using internal-combustion-engine-based transportation, requiring energy (largely produced by fossil-fuel fired power plants), and eating meat (HUGE methane producers, those cows). If you and I and every American took nothing but showers instead of baths for the rest of our lives, it wouldn’t come close to offseting the CO2 output of a single coal-fired power plant for a year. And China is building these power plants almost as fast as we can count them.
Which brings us to the real fallacy of liberal-minded global warming policy: we can’t control the world. I visited the UK recently, and had an interesting discussion with a gentleman intimately acquainted with the UK’s work to stop global warming. First he noted how the UK had decreased its carbon footprint significantly in the past few years. Then with a sad smile he added, “And every CO2-producing factory we pushed out of the country immediately set up shop in India or China, taking its jobs and CO2 with it.” In other words, the UK did NOTHING to decrease the total world output of CO2, but it was successful in sending a whole bunch of high-paying jobs to other countries. Hooray for Britain!
Even if liberals are 100 percent correct in their analysis of global warming (and I know, the thought of liberals being correct about ANYTHING is laughable), the fact is, if humans really are causing global warming because of CO2, there is no way to stop it. LIFE creates CO2. There is no way for living things to NOT create CO2. Even if we reverted to caveman days: no fossil-fuel burning of any kind (and even cavemen burned wood—which releases, believe it or not, CO2), no cars, no airplanes, no power plants, etc., we could not stop releasing CO2 into the atmosphere.
Which leads us with this: if we are going to take liberal arguments at face value and follow this line of reasoning to its logical conclusion: the only way to stop global warming is to stop life. You ready to do that?