An Insincere Challenge

I ran across this video clip recently. The author claims that he has a argument that "even the most hardened skeptic and the most panicked activist both can agree on."

He also said the he's putting it out there, to check if his" reasoning is dellusional. Because frankly, no one [he's] shown it to so far, has been able to poke a hole in it."

But there's nothing I adore more than a challenge






Really? If it is so airtight, then why are the comments over at YouTube closed? Why is it impossible to post a video response to his argument? Apparently, like Al Gore, the Debate is Over before it even started. It is really easy to win a debate when you shut out the opposition

Here's a couple holes I found: First, he's exaggerating trmendously. I think he said it best himself, when describing a post-climate-changed world, he said "This is a world straight out of Science Fiction."

I couldn't agree more. Because the scenario he mentioned IS fiction. As a mater of fact it seemed to resemble some science fiction thrillers like the Day after Tomorrow , and An Inconvenient Truth , much more than actual science. He not only said that Global warming would cause more storms, he invoked Katrina. The truth is, no reputable Scientist is claiming that Global Warming will cause storms.

According to Kevin Trenberth, a lead author for the IPCC:

Despite this enhanced activity, there is no sound theoretical basis for drawing any conclusions about how anthropogenic climate change affects hurricane numbers or tracks, and thus how many hit land.

In fairness Kevin did say that there is a possible link to Hurricane Intensity and Global Warming. This is because his paper was published in 2005, right after Kerry Emanuel, published a paper finding a link. But that was three years ago.

Today Dr. Emanuel realizes he was completely wrong:

The hurricane expert, Kerry Emanuel ... suggests that, even in a dramatically warming world, hurricane frequency and intensity may not substantially rise during the next two centuries.

Finally, from the latest report of the IPCC:

There is insufficient evidence to determine whether trends exist in the meridional overturning circulation (MOC) of the global ocean or in small-scale phenomena such as tornadoes, hail, lightning and dust-storms.

So it seems that we don't have to worry about SUVs starting storms.

But my biggest concern, is that if we take action to curb Co2 emissions, it causes a worldwide Depression. He brings this up and suggests that the trade off would be worth the risk. But what if the actions we take, have no effect on CO2. In that case we're stuck with a warmer world AND a Depression.

There is no evidence, scientific or historic, that treaties, taxes, or carbon caps have any effect on the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Look at what's happening to Food Prices right now, because we tried to substitute Ethanol for Petroleum. There are actually food riots going on worldwide, and there has been no measurable reduction of atmospheric CO2.

Finally he claims that the only downside of an Economic Depression is the actual Depression, whereas Global Warming will cause Political Breakdown, Social Upheaval, Wars, Environmental Destruction, and Health Consequences. But all those things usually happen during a Depression as well.

The last Depression caused every one of those things to occur. So here's the real choice: Do we want a World Wide Depressoion for no reason, or do we want to have a good economy, in case we will need to fund relief efforts from a Global Warming catastrophe.

I think THAT answer is obvious.