User Rating: 0 / 5

Star inactiveStar inactiveStar inactiveStar inactiveStar inactive

Global Warming for Votes


As you can surmise from the previous section about science, it would seem that there is a lot that we don't know. And this is true. However, this should not deviate us from the main point which is as follows.

Science is the best process we have which allows us to create models of reality. No model will ever be perfect and in that respect, there will always be debates, corrections and modifications. This is science. Period.

Yet, this does not mean that we can't use such models successfully. We can and we should. It's just that we should only use them to the degree we have confidence in them and never beyond that point.


There is yet another issue. The so-called 95% scientific consensus in the idea that global warming is real and that it is anthropogenic in origin (i.e. it is human-made). We hate such statements because if we actually look at that 95% we find a great percentage of:

  1. People that are not scientists in it
  2. Scientists that do not have the skills to understand the science of global warming

Allow us to put it this way. If you have a medical problem, do you ask your lawyer for an informed opinion as to the best medical treatment? No, right? See what we mean?

This insistence of the 95% in itself goes against the scientific process. In science opposing points of view are not only desirable, they are a vital necessity for the scientific process to move forward and not becoming a religious belief. However, meaningless opposing or supporting points of view are not only… well… meaningless, but they muddle the waters and waste everybody's time.

We urge you to take the 95% with a healthy dose of skepticism.

But again, this is not to say that within the scientists with the adequate skills and knowledge there is no consensus. There is.


And here is where everything falls into the trash can. Politics operates on the basis of winning votes. In order to do so, politicians must have a "sexy topic" that will appeal voters unquestionably. In order to have so, politicians need a clear answer to the question: are humans causing global warming?

Unfortunately, science is not designed to do that. Science is designed to go wherever reality drives it. Thus, from a political perspective, science must now be driven wherever politicians want to go; and this is the anthropocentric root cause of global warming.

In order to do so, politicians must hijack the scientific process and they have done so in many ways. Basically, they have politicised the research and this is not good. As politicians must lie for a living (see for example Government Morality), their debates are not based on science but on rhetoric. As such they not only have the power to distort scientific findings but to apply pressure to force science to go in one or another direction.

And here is where we must clarify the difference.

True scientific debates will always exist and we do look forward to them.

Scenarios of politicians meddling in scientific debates are rare indeed and they have the effect of making things obscure, incomprehensible, distorted and ultimately un-scientific. We have seen this time and time again when politicians state that there is no global warming or that it is not anthropocentric or that it is not that critical or… or… or… neither points of view are shared by current science. Yet, those actions have the effect of confusing people. Even more considering that global warming is not, repeat, not a subject that an untrained person can even begin to understand.

And so we arrive at CO2 treaties.


From the previous sections is has now become obvious that science is marching forward and that what we know today may change tomorrow. The CO2 issue is one of those topics. Current scientific information indicates that due to sensitivity of the climate to minute changes to CO2, it would be a good gas to "do something about it". Yet, that's not the whole story. We don't fully understand what CO2 is doing and how is it doing it. We don't understand what other gases are doing and how (if any) are they interacting with CO2, Methane, Water and other substances.

Furthermore, if we look at our warming models, we do have a relatively large margin of error in terms of forecasts. Yes, it is true that all forecasts are bad, but at the same time we don't know what will happen (with sufficient accuracy) if we stop or decrease the amount of CO2 present in the atmosphere or to be generated in the near future. This is so precisely because feedback mechanisms related to CO2 are not sufficiently known. Science today can give us a best-guess, but nothing more.


Attempting to place the cost of global warming in terms of money is a daunting task to say the least. This is so precisely because we don't yet have a good scientific understanding of what is going to happen. There are ludicrously low estimates of about 0.2% to 2% of the global GDP and ridiculously high ones of about 40% or more.

All we know at this point is that a great deal of capital will be destroyed by global warming. We know this. Today. The question is, should we do something about it and if so, then what?


Politicians' position is that yes, we should do something about it and that that "something" is to curb CO2 emissions through taxation. However, as we have explained above, we don't really know what will this do to global warming. We do know, however, that it will be horrifically expensive in terms of money and human lives. Not to mention the fact that the main CO2 emitters will be cheating (USA or China or Russia anyone?).

This means that in the countries where CO2 taxation (or by any other name) will be implemented will only mean that the lives of their inhabitants will become even more miserable do to the increases in costs of… everything!

And what will the world get for all that sacrifice? Nothing. Or almost nothing as the usual suspects will continue cheating and thus CO2 won't stabilize nor decrease. And this is assuming that the main culprit is indeed CO2.

And how about the other gases? Thank you very much.

And will this massive effort be enough? Probably not, but maybe, perhaps or will see?

Now, think about this.

Curtailing CO2 will have a humongous cost for many people. Billions of people in fact. This much we know. Who is calculating this cost? Nobody.

But if we don't calculate this cost versus the cost of global warming, how can we make an informed decision?


We can't and that's precisely our point.

We loath the "we must do something about it" policies that politicians implement because they are not based on reality, but on the interpretation of reality that politicians give it for their own selfish purposes.

Consider just for a second what would happen if the cost of curtailing CO2 is higher than the cost of global warming? Or even worse! What if CO2 plays a smaller role in global warming than currently believed; then what?

Note: please see the Glossary if you are unfamiliar with certain words.
English French German Italian Portuguese Russian Spanish
FacebookMySpaceTwitterDiggDeliciousStumbleuponGoogle BookmarksRedditNewsvineTechnoratiLinkedinMixxRSS FeedPinterest
Pin It