User Rating: 0 / 5

Star inactiveStar inactiveStar inactiveStar inactiveStar inactive

Global Warming for VotesTHE SOLUTION

OK, OK. We get it. But if you people are so smart, what's your solution?

Fair enough. Here it goes. But you won't like it, this much we can guarantee.

Let's begin by stating and for the record that we unquestionably, absolutely, positively, definitively and without a shadow of a doubt support global warming scientific research. The more the merrier. However, please note, we said scientific, not pseudo-scientific nor political so-called "research". Got that?

Secondly, we fully agree that something is definitively wrong with our planet. Temperature is raising and this raise will bring devastation. However, although we expect this devastation to be significant, we don't really know the extent of it. This is for two reasons;

a) because we don't know how much the temperature will raise (it may be less than forecasted - hopefully)

b) because we don't know what else will get affected (think for example the Jet Stream changing or stopping or ocean currents stopping - this would be devastating).

So, with all those unknowns, how do we proceed?

Simple, we stop all attempts to try to minimize, stop or even reverse global warming. We stop capping CO2 and making the lives of billions of people even worse than they need to be.

Instead, we focus 100% with coping with global warming. We focus on the areas that will be affected. We focus on population displacement. We focus on food and water scarcities. We focus on new sources of energy. We focus on making everything, everywhere energy-efficient. We focus on harnessing the unstable weather patterns that global warming is sure to bring. And so on. And lastly we focus on research, research and more research into global warming and possible ways to control it (e.g. blocking the sun with reflective particles). We focus on new, revolutionary sources of non-carbon-based energy. Can't be done? Why? What is there in our proposal that is undoable? With current technology and research? Today?


Nothing! It's all doable.

And what will this bring to the table? Two things:

  • The first one is that we won't be acting on informed guesses
  • The second is that we will be acting positively and decidedly to ensure the lives of people in the near future will be as good as possible.

But is this enough? It certainly is. Think about it. We would be taking measures that we absolutely know that we need. Nobody in their right mind believes that catastrophes are not in the horizon. We can act now to minimize them. But if we focus solely on curtailing CO2, those catastrophes will still reach us!

At the same time, we wouldn't be condemning billions of people to misery today and in the near future through artificial financial burdens.

In parallel with those processes we would be searching for other sources of energy that are not carbon dependent, should the CO2 sensitivity theory be correct. However, even if the CO2 theory is not correct, non-carbon-based energy generators are highly desirable in and by themselves as they curtail all kinds of pollution and provide limitless -comparatively speaking- energy.

Lastly, should the current CO2 theory be proven accurate, we could use those new energy generators to re-terraform earth by converting CO2 into other, harmless, molecules. Can't be done?  It sure can. One of the most basic premises of chemistry and biochemistry is that pretty much any molecule that is compatible with atomic physics can be build or transformed; it is just a matter of energy… which we would have in abundance!


What we propose is consistent with the free market (no surprises here) where humans left to their own devices would be looking after themselves first. This means that they would create a gigantic market (i.e. demand) for devices and technologies that will minimize the effects of global warming. At the same time and knowing that nobody but themselves are in charge, they would demand from manufacturers higher and higher efficiencies as well as non-pollution and minimization of CO2 emissions based on their own self-interest.

Furthermore, people would fund research in global warming voluntarily, again based on self-interest. Imagine. No more government boondoggles where crackpot pseudo-scientists bid for grants. No more preferential treatment for politically connected scientists. Plenty of money from industries profiting from global warming. Presto! A growing body of research.

Not only that, but as markets provide just-in-time solutions, so will markets be operating at the cutting edge of global warming scientific research because it would be in their best interest to be the first on the market with yet another solution. No delays. No bullshit. No bureaucracy. Just solutions… which the free market will judge and determine their worth!

Eventually and in the end and as new sources of energy are discovered and brought online, people will being to purchase re-terraforming technologies out of their own self-interest. This is simple to understand. If you are living with permanent high temperatures and erratic, violent weather, wouldn't you pledge money to bring about a lasting solution? Of course you would! It is the same principle for which we take care of our properties. We want to maintain their value and we want to live comfortably. Of course we would!

But what about new energy sources?

Simple. Free markets always provided just-in-time solutions to problems. There is no reason to believe that non-carbon-based sources of energy won't be available just-in-time to solve our problems. Why would it be so? Because our current energy sources are becoming too expensive, not only in terms of commodity prices but in terms of the cost of preparing for global warming catastrophes. Think about it. Would you invest in a company that researches such sources of energy if you see your cost of living raising and raising with no end in sight? Of course you would! And so would many other capitalist investors and they would do so out of their own self-interest.

And here is the last wrinkle. If we would be living in a Libertarian culture, we would be far, far wealthier than what we are now. All of us. The entire world over. Can you imagine what such wealth would do for global warming; this time in the right (i.e. your) hands?


In the end global warming is not about temperatures or gases or anything else. It is about energy. If we find abundant sources of non-carbon-based energy, we can solve global warming today. Think about it. If we would to find just one of such sources (and we suspect that there are many of those "out there") we could remove all industrial sources of CO2 within a few years. Now think again. We are not talking about capping the CO2 levels to 2010 or 2000. We are talking about eliminating all industrial CO2 sources as in zero sources! There. That would solve all CO2 emission issues (if CO2 is truly to be blamed).

  • With such sources we could re-terraform earth.
  • With such sources we could eliminate pollution (yes, as in 100%).
  • With such sources we could have a quantum leap on quality of life for everybody on earth.

Yes, we could.

Yet, what are governments doing in this front; the only front worth fighting? Nothing new. It is business as usual.

Now a question, do you believe it is business as usual?

Thought so.


Global warming is here to stay. That much is a fact. However, the course of action that governments are taking (or cheating on) is not the appropriate course of action. This is so because it will accomplish very little, very late. Misery and devastation is now in our future but that's not the worst of it. The worst of it is that a great deal of harm will be inflicted to us by governments simply due to politics. Which begs the question, how many lives is worth one political job? If you ask us, our answer wold be none. Zero.

But then again, the world is not Libertarian. The world does not operate in a free market. The world is a shitty place where we are constantly under threat and fear; economic and physical. We fear our government. We fear all governments. And that's the truth.

Yet, in the end it is your choice. You may choose to believe in government action. That's fair; just one warning. When global warming finally arrives don't expect any help from us. We gave you plenty of advanced notice. Deal with it!

Note: please see the Glossary if you are unfamiliar with certain words.
2 Comments | Add yours
  • Guest (Bede Kerr)

    Forehead slap. This site has been captured.
    I suggest that everyone ignore the tripe submitted here and head to or to get informed on this issue and that f and p ditches whatever poisonous dittz wrote this so we can all move on.

    Like 0
  • First at all, thank you kindly for posting, even if we don't share the same opinion.
    Secondly, FYI: the address does not exist. Just sayin…
    In the third place, thank you kindly for giving us a practical demonstration of what this article is all about. More specifically, about people that are not scientists having the temerity to pretend they understand science. Let's begin.
    The website pointed at is at best chaotic and confusing. It is very difficult -if not nearly impossible- to determine if the author(s) are for or against the idea of global warming. The only place where (seemingly) there seems to be a defined position, is in the FAQ.
    The website in question is composed (almost entirely) from excerpts from scientific investigations and amateur reporting. The website in question is not written by qualified climatologists (to the best of our knowledge). The owner itself is a meteorologist, not a climatologist. Big difference. Same difference as in between an art critic and a creative artist. And that is our point.
    Climatology is a tricky science which requires in-depth knowledge of meteorology, physics, dynamics, mathematics, chemistry and computer science among other skills. It is a specialty and for a very good reason; the climate is a *very* complex system that cannot be trivialized and/or simplified. Just because amateurs can plot a graph and/or quote a scientific paper, this does not mean that they are able to place such elements in their proper context and assign them the proper value. How can they? They are amateurs. They simply don't have the skills.
    We are very sorry, but it is true that any sufficiently advanced science has the appearance of magic. People believe in this appearance and thus they try to debunk this "magic" if it does not fit in their "belief system". And that is the point. Science, true science, it is not a belief system. These people are missing the point altogether. It is only an appearance they are attacking. Underneath it all is a very advanced science which they are totally unable to grasp and even less reach.
    If you want to have a taste for what science (real science) looks like, go to Once there, select "Most Used Climate Myths" then "It's the sun" and then go to the "Advanced" tab. And remember, this tab is not really that advanced. It has been dumbed-down so that other scientists (i.e. non-climatologists) may have a better understanding of what's going on. In this section of the website and if you scroll down, there is a sub-section of Comments. If you have the stamina to go through, we recommend you to do so because in there, there are several instances of amateurs that attempt to use climatological data to support their point(s) of view and it soon becomes patently obvious that they are simply not qualified to understand what's going on. This process illustrates our point of view far better than what our explanations can.
    Amateurs are downright dangerous because they mislead people. Most of them do so simply because they are unable to deal with bad news. Some of them do so because of an inflated ego and a belief that they know better. And some of them do so because they have something to gain, such as politicians. This is one of the biggest problems with Global Warming; that politics drags amateurs into science and in so doing they muddle the waters.
    It is utterly clear that science is not a matter of opinion; it is a process whereby reality (as exposed through empirical measurements and tests) is the ultimate judge. Unfortunately, climatology due to its inherent complexity is a big, fat target because there are many scientific discussions going on and such discussions can and are used by neophytes to support their pet point of view. What they don't grasp (and we pointed out in our article) is that they don't understand those discussions, they don't understand science.
    Science is based on models of reality and discussions. Some of the discussions support those models and some do not. However, where there is a preponderance of evidence (as in empirical evidence) a model stands (i.e. gets adopted). For a new model to supersede the existing model, two things must happen:
    a) The new model must be as accurate as the old model (or better)
    b) The new model must predict something novel that the old model cannot
    In the case of Global Warming, this has not yet happened; thus, the existing model (i.e. the world is getting warmer) stands. The same can be applied to the CO2 sensitivity theory. They both stand because despite of all the "opinions" and "points of view" and "excerpts" and "complaints", all those people, have not yet come up with a better model that fulfills requirements a) and b). They can't do so precisely because they are not climatologists. Until such time this happens (if it happens) the models stand.
    Now, FYI, requirements a) and b) are not our requirements but the minimum necessary conditions for a model change according to the general theories describing how science (real science) operates. And please, don't believe us. Take a course in History of Science!
    It is for this reason, because current models stand, that we agree with Global Warming. However, we also hedged our position because in science there are no absolutes. In the future, some of the discussions against the notion of Global Warming may turn up to be correct. If this is the case, then the model will change and we will change our opinion by adopting the new model.
    The person who posted the comment above is a typical example of an amateur who does not have neither the training nor the experience to understand what's going on. It is also for this reason that in our article we pointed out that the original "consensus" is BS insofar such "consensus" is full of people who also do not have neither the training nor the experience. However, if we bother examining the consensus of those who actually have the training and experience, you will notice that they do concur; and this concurrence is what makes the current model of Global Warming a valid scientific "fact".
    In a nutshell, amateurs in Global Warming are dangerous and yes, at least for now, science states that the world is getting warmer and that CO2 is the culprit. Tomorrow? Tomorrow this may change but we are not betting on it. But that's just us. You can believe whatever you choose to believe. However, if you make your decisions based on your beliefs instead of science, don't blame us if the consequences bite you in the ass.

    Like 0
English French German Italian Portuguese Russian Spanish
FacebookMySpaceTwitterDiggDeliciousStumbleuponGoogle BookmarksRedditNewsvineTechnoratiLinkedinMixxRSS FeedPinterest
Pin It