iEntry 10th Anniversary RSS Feed About Us

And if Global Warming Turns Out to be a Myth, So What?

Photo courtesy heartsr3.

I recently read a comment on the Internet from a global warming activist that presented that exact same connotation.  If global warming turns out to be a myth, so what?  The narrow-mindedness and intense focus of climate change proponents on one issue, global warming, has the potential to cause massive economic failures globally.  The lack of care, comprehension, or both with regard to anthropogenic climate change and the impact of measures designed to counteract it is completely immoral.

Global warming activists have one item on their agenda:  stop climate change at all costs.  The term “all costs” can mean anything from using more energy-efficient but more expensive and potentially toxic light bulbs to grinding world economies to a halt.  It almost seems that climate change advocates hate progressive and successful nations as they will be the ones to feel the economic impact of any legislation designed to curb an activity that isn’t scientifically proven.  As I wrote a couple of weeks ago, environmentalism isn’t a progressive movement.  It’s a scheme designed to push technology backwards instead of moving us forward.  And while the advent of the jet engine allows Gore and his followers to go from continent to continent preaching the gospel of global warming, its existence is also frowned upon because of its large carbon footprint.

Not every country is going to buy into the global warming hoax, either for social or economic reasons.  China isn’t doing anything to combat staggering greenhouse gas emissions as their economy is moving ahead quickly.  The People’s Republic understands the economic impact of enacting carbon reduction schemes.  And with China not participating in the global warming myth, it leaves many industries in other developed nations fearful of the economic fallout.  Already, farmers in British Columbia fear gas taxes as they already work on razor-thin profit margins.  In the Netherlands, an airport passenger tax to combat global warming will cause an estimated 50,000 fewer people to use the facility this year.  And trillions will be spend on curbing greenhouse gas emissions each year.  Companies in various sectors across the globe can’t compete with companies that aren’t under the influence of carbon taxes or cap-and-trade schemes.  Both systems place an additional tax layer on corporations that emit carbon dioxide – something in the order of $20 per ton to start.  This number will only grow as time passes and stricter carbon emission regulations take hold.  So for a company that emits tens or hundreds of thousands of tons of carbon each year, there’s no way to compete with companies not under carbon regulations.  They’ll be forced to reduce expenses, often in terms of benefits, raises, bonuses or personnel and, in the most extreme cases, the company itself may go under from the inability to compete in the marketplace.  With so many Democrats and environmentalists walking hand-in-hand during this election, the lack of enthusiasm for a carbon tax and tougher greenhouse gas emissions controls will be a liberal attack point until November in the United States.  They’ll also blame the slow (but still growing) economy on the current administration without telling you that their plan to bring about new laws to reverse global warming will likely cause a spike in unemployment and a true recession not possibly seen since 1929.  And if global warming turns out to be a myth, so what?  First-world countries will be in economic despair.  Millions may be without a job.  Millions could be homeless.  Millions could go hungry.  All while countries like China enjoy a great economic expansion not seen in their histories.  There are consequences to action without irrefutable evidence of global warming.  It’s just that the environmentalists don’t care.

Keep up-to-date with the latest at Skeptics Global Warming!
Subscribe to my FREE RSS Feed in your reader today!
Or, subscribe to FREE updates in your email.
Alternatively, you can follow me on Twitter.

About the Author

has written 2022 stories on this site.

A social and fiscal conservative, I scour the news for information that disputes the current man-made global warming indoctrination that takes place around the world. I take a rather sarcastic approach to reporting on the nonsense being spewed by the talking heads in the media and the governments around the world.

8 Comments on “And if Global Warming Turns Out to be a Myth, So What?”

  • Earl E wrote on 26 August, 2008, 14:17

    You say global warming is a scheme to reverse technology.

    Have you any idea how complex the physics is in a photo-voltaic panel?

    Probably not. You think pouring gas on something and lighting it is space age, don’t you?

    What is amazing is how long your conspiracy paper drags on. There is no debate about climate change, just whether you have an interest in fossil fuels, or are just a lonely old man wanting for any attention, good or bad.

    It doesn’t appear that anyone else is motivated to leave a response to your lunatic ramblings…

    So here is one.. gosh yer smart. I knew them government folks were trying to steal my Chevy truck! I’m gonna go get me some more shells fer my shotgun and hold out next to the outhouse as long as I can.

  • Skeptic wrote on 26 August, 2008, 14:33

    Yes, Earl, I understand the complexities of a photo-voltaic solar panel. I also know it’s inefficient.

    No, I don’t appreciate the personal attacks. You’re going to the spam blocker permanently the next time. Just as is typical of liberals, when their talking points are refuted, they resort to personal attacks.

    When environmentalists and anthropogenic global warming advocates come up with an alternative form of energy that actually works, unlike solar or wind, I’ll listen. Until that time, nuclear and fossil fuels are the only options. Liberal environmentalists are completely against nuclear plants for no good reason and against fossil fuels for no good reason as well. If you examine any of the global temperature charts, you’ll see that temperatures continue to fall from 1998, even though carbon emissions continue to rise. I’d say 10 years is a good sample size to make that kind of statement. What is your counter argument for that?

  • Earl E wrote on 26 August, 2008, 15:04

    Gotta run, but here is a quickie. No good reason like Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, Love Canal… etc.

    I didn’t realize efficiency wins over survival. Again, your pollution is legendary and to continue to burn fossil fuels with the mounting evidence of global dimming and the changes in rainfall patterns causing decades long drought, is just inhuman.

    I don’t care if you name call, you call me a lefty, or a liberal. I am a Ron Paul republican and won’t vote for either of the other two candidates. They are both from the Media Party.

    Sorry about the personal attacks, I am tiring of responding to these denialists, the people who act like the southwest isn’t in a decade long drought, that act like wildfires are just bigger because of liberalism, that all global warming talk stems from Al Gore, that all of this is a scam to get rich.

    I play golf all winter long, I used to cross frozen rivers. I don’t need to read about it, I see my bulbs coming up in January, only to get wasted by and Easter blizzard year after year.

    So do you hold any stock in any polluting indusry?

  • corey the conservative wrote on 26 August, 2008, 18:19

    Your article is right on!! Earl is just mad because he spent all his money on solar panels and a wind turbine to find out that if the sun dont shine and the wind dont blow he will have to use fossil fuels to heat or cool his outhouse. One more thing Earl E this earth is 4.5 billion years old no co2 or ghg is going to destroy this great place only people like you will with your liberal leftwing extreme enviromentalists who hate capitalism. Lets just all crap in the woods and live like animals.

  • Skeptic wrote on 26 August, 2008, 20:42

    The Chernobyl accident, while tragic, was base on faulty safety measures in the former Soviet Union. There’s no reason to think that would happen here. Three Mile Island was blown out of proportion and isn’t even comparable to Chernobyl. No health effects or deaths were ever attributed to the accident. Love Canal was just pure stupidity.

    There is no debate of efficiency over survival. Simply put, people aren’t going to buy alternative forms of energy until its efficient and cost-effective. That is, unless the government mandates it which, if you’re truly a Ron Paul Republican, you’d understand the problem with more government intervention. While global dimming may indeed be an issue, the world has taken measures to reduce particulates in the air since the ozone hole was discovered to have formed over Antarctica. I’m not well versed on global dimming enough to debate the topic. In any sense, I’d hope a Ron Paul Republican would recognize that more government intervention is not needed. I agree with many of Paul’s principles and advocated his legitimacy as a candidate prior to the primary election. I didn’t think Paul got a fair shake from the media while others like Rudy and Edwards received too much attention. (So we’re in agreement with the Ron Paul thing!)

    Al Gore is an easy target because he’s a hypocrite. As I wrote a few months ago, if this was truly a planetary emergency, Gore would stop with the personal jet-setting and either fly commercial or not fly at all instead of buying carbon credits. Wouldn’t reducing your own carbon footprint in addition to buying carbon credits to reduce someone else’s be more effective. It’s not like Gore doesn’t have the money. With as much as these Democrats loathe “rich” people, you’d think they’d give their funds away freely since it’s so dirty.

    You can read the “About” page on here to read about my personal financial interests. But, for the record, I have no interest in oil, pollution or any other industry perceived to be anti-global warming to my knowledge. Nor do I have any personal financial interest in green companies to my knowledge, either.

    Come back sometime and let’s debate something else I write. I don’t typically delete comments on here unless they’re just pure silliness or the person pesters me asking why I haven’t approved their comment. Both sides of the debate are welcome.

  • AGWDoubter wrote on 27 August, 2008, 15:30

    Love Canal had nothing to do with nuclear energy or the energy industry period. The California wildfires, from what I understand, had more to do with lousy forest management over most of the last century – trying to supress fires at all cost (man’s fault, kind of, but not due to CO2 emissions). It’s actually GOOD for forests to undergo periodic burnings (my dad was a forester).
    The most severe drought in the U.S. was in the 1930s – the great dustbowl – no global warming there, at least none caused by CO2.
    The problem I find with climate alarmists is that they rarely ever debate actual science at all. What actually first turned me to ‘the dark side’ was actually the sort of sarcastic, rude responses I’d continually see by proponents such as the above on realclimate, and various internet forums. And I’ve said over and over (I get tired too!) that if the science and the facts are really on your side, then there’s no need for ad hominem attacks, accusations of vested financial interests, and propagandist tactics (such as invoking the notorious Love Canal when the issues have nothing to do with it).

  • hyonmin wrote on 29 August, 2008, 18:01

    Your ethanol doubled the price of food in third world countries. This caused starvation or worse for millions of people. You and most ‘environmentalist’ take no credit for your actions when they were not well thought out. The doubling of the price of food was a disaster of wide human proportion and only recognized by some as an economic ‘difficulty’. You are silly enough to bring up Love Canal and not mention direct government supported action.

  • Rick wrote on 1 September, 2008, 21:32

    Very often people will be too enthusiastic about their own ideas, and forget to view the other side with the same interest with which they view their own. Born out of ignorance and sometimes just plain laziness, it can grow and even cause discrimination and prejudice, making anger and ceasing forward motion in economy and technology. We are too busy saying that “old” and “greener” ideas are better or worse than the other that we aren’t focusing on progressing either. Its possible for them to work together!! Believe it or not, people can work together, and actually accomplish more! Sorry for the sarcasm, but it’s true. People need to work together on different ideas, because both sides could use some major changes. Oil, coal, and other fossil fuels could cause less emissions, and alternative fuels could be cheaper and easier to access. People need to express their ideas in a positive manner and make their ideas heard. Just keep personal insults about the other side to yourself. Debate is a powerful and needed thing, but it has to end with a solution, not with anger and unsolved or unasked questions. Sorry that my input isn’t as complete as it could be, but sadly I have to leave. Just remember these words, and that they came out of a twelve year old’s mouth. That’s right. Leave your input. This is the first time I’e done something like this and would love constructive critisism (I know I spelled that wrong, sorry). is an Privacy Policy and Legal
SEO Powered by Platinum SEO from Techblissonline