No, I’m Not Worried about Global Warming, and Neither Are You

I understand* that there was a big rally in New York City last Sunday.  The creepily named People’s Climate March drew more than 300,000 people (according to organizers’ estimates) to spread “a message of alarm” and call for action (presumably government action to restrict carbon emissions).

Noted scientist and statesman Leonardo DiCaprio told the United Nations, “You can make history … or be vilified by it” (ellipsis in original), which perhaps admits a little too much.

I just want to make two points.

1 — As I’ve suggested before, I’ll take reducing carbon emissions seriously when the warm-mongers show by their actions that they take it seriously.

Global-warming Projections Not Borne Out

Via Eternity Matters, The Economist had an interesting article recently.

More on Global Warming and the Limits of Human Knowledge

For those who have been wondering:

After an unusually cold winter in 2011 (December 2010-February 2011) the winter of 2012 was unusually warm in the continental United States. But the winter of 2012 was bitter in Europe, Asia and Alaska.

(from “Global Warming Models Are Wrong Again”, opinion section, Wall Street Journal)

Related entries:

• “More on Global Warming”
• “Re Global Warming, Be Reasonable”
• “On Conservatism and Global Warming”

More on Global Warming

A fascinating piece recently appeared in the UK Daily Mail:

“Forget global warming — it’s Cycle 25 we need to worry about (and if NASA scientists are right the Thames will be freezing over again): Met Office releases new figures which show no warming in 15 years”

The Met Office itself, Discover magazine, Think Progress (and again), Mother Jones, and Newser have responded and criticized the piece.  (I’m not assuming they’re the best criticisms liberals have to offer, but they’re the ones my Internet search turned up.)  I’m no scientist, but I’m trying to sift through and understand what’s going on.  

Re Global Warming, Be Reasonable

Sixteen scientists in the opinion section of the Wall Street Journal argue, “No Need to Panic About Global Warming: There’s no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to ‘decarbonize’ the world’s economy”.  Selected excerpts (emphasis added):

In spite of a multidecade international campaign to enforce the message that increasing amounts of the “pollutant” carbon dioxide will destroy civilization, large numbers of scientists, many very prominent, share the opinions of Dr. Giaever. And the number of scientific “heretics” is growing with each passing year. The reason is a collection of stubborn scientific facts.

Coverage of Climategate and Climategate 2, Respectively

From a liberal perspective: “Climategate: What Really Happened?”, Mother Jones, April 21st, 2011.

From a conservative perspective: “Scientists Behaving Badly”, National Review Online, November 28th, 2011.

Bonus: “Nothing Has Changed Post-Climategate”, the Corner, National Review Online, October 28th, 2010.

Hat tip to the Reformed Pastor.

Lights Out

Did you know that Congress has already banned incandescent light bulbs in the future?  Neither do most Americans.  The law was passed in 2007; the phase-out begins with the 100-watt bulb in 2012.  (You can also read more about it at a Web site created for the movement to repeal the ban.)

Practically speaking, like most overweening big-government schemes, this will have unintended consequences.  In this case, we already know what some of them will be: 

1 — Scientists find that the main alternative, compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs), should be used sparingly and not left on for very long, because they are poisonous and may give you cancer: 

On Conservatism and Global Warming

I had a conversation a few days ago with a (liberal) friend of mine about conservatism and liberalism, liberty and tyranny, regulations, “entitlements”, and other things.  It was a good conversation, but she asked one question that got lost in the back-and-forth and I never answered:

What is the conservative answer to global warming?

It’s a good question.  I have some thoughts.  My answer can be divided into two parts.