Could Global Warming Be A Good Thing?

The “powerful rebuke” to Islamic terrorists, also known as the 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference, is underway. Forget guns, the military, or a strong and focused foreign policy designed to kill our enemies before they can kill us. We’ll show those terrorists, by holding a conference- on climate. Can there be a bigger, stronger display that is more fearsome to a liberal than a conference?
 
There is a strong case against global warming, so much so that those perpetrating the fraud changed the name to “climate change.” The alarmists realize that their battle, at least in the scientific realm, will ultimately fail, so a term such as “climate change” can mean anything necessary, including wildfires, droughts, floods, heat, cold, or the Chicago Cubs finally winning the World Series.
 
The actual argument against global warming is easy to make when looking at the science. As I put it in a March 2015 column:
 
                Part of the scientific method dictates that if the evidence disproves the theory,
                the theory must be discarded. To apply the scientific method to anthropogenic
                (or man-made) global warming (AGW), the theory states that the steady rise in
                carbon dioxide, from a little over 310 parts per million (ppm) in 1958 to 399 ppm
                in 2014, should have resulted in a commensurate increase in temperatures in the
                lower atmosphere, where carbon dioxide gathers. However, temperatures in the
                lower atmosphere have remained steady or dropped slightly, depending on the
                study.
 
                The evidence disproves the theory. Throw it out. That’s it. One paragraph. Less
                than one minute of explanation. Nothing sexy, nothing complex, but the theory
                of anthropogenic global warming must be thrown out. Go feed a cow some beans.
                Idle your car for awhile. Burn some trash.
 
That’s that. It is really that easy when viewing the whole global warming scare through the lens of the scientific method. But let us ask an irreverent question- irreverent from the point of few of scientific and intellectual seriousness:  Do we really want global warming? Is that really such a bad thing? Or, assuming that somehow we really are powerful enough creatures to control climate, should we root for a cooler climate? Yes, the question is a bit narcissistic, as if we really are more powerful than the Sun, natural climate cycles and meteorological forces, and God Himself, but ask yourself:  is global warming a bad thing?
 
Here is what we know about cold weather:  it stinks. Plumbing freezes, crops do not grow, and driving conditions become hazardous. But wait. There’s more. Much more.
 
A US Department of the Interior study (2000) previously has shown that cold-related deaths in the US out-number heat-related deaths by a 2-1 margin. Hot weather brings heat stroke, heart attacks, and asthma attacks, just as cold weather does- minus the heat strokes. Cold weather is a cardiovascular threat; illnesses and diseases spread.
 
The Centers for Disease Control has affirmed the 2-1 ratio for temperature-related deaths in the US between 2006-2010. The National Weather Service disputes the findings, releasing statistics that show that heat kills more people; however, there are two important matters to consider:  1) the NWS only considers direct causation; 2) both the CDC and the NWS are only considering data in a stable society- the United States. Bring on crop failure, food shortages, widespread rioting, and economic collapse, and one suspects that opinions at the NWS might change.
 
Earlier in 2015, a study published in the British journal “The Lancet” found that, based upon data collected from 13 different countries, cold-weather deaths outpaced hot-weather deaths by a ratio of nearly 20-1. This study found that, from 1985 to 2012, there were 5.4 million cold-weather related deaths in these countries compared to 311,000 heat-related deaths. The study claimed a better diversity in socio-economic factors and climate than multiple studies completed in just the US.
 
Looking at the subject on a wider scale, the year 1816 was the “Year Without Summer” due to a massive volcanic eruption at Mount Tambora, in Indonesia. The results of the drop in temperatures were crop failure, riots, and death. Despite what that harmless little old socialist tells people, it’s cold, not warmth, that ushers in chaos and war. But what does “democratic socialist” Bernie Sanders know if he fails to even understand that socialism cannot exist without being enforced- emphasis on “force?”
 
Crop failures bring starvation and food shortages; food shortages bring weakened economies, riots, and economic collapse. Economic collapse brings more starvation and refugees. Refugees bring President Obama to press conferences to tell us that this is not who we are. It’s all frightening.
 
Historically, what is important to note is- with the exception of the Vikings, who were able to navigate the seas more freely, away from their cold homelands- warming periods in the Roman era, the Enlightenment era, and the mid-Nineteenth centuries did not lead directly to chaos and war. True, there were and always will be war; but the key is the lack of a direct causal relationship due to heat.
 
Warm weather brings longer planting seasons, an abundance of food, and general prosperity. The only good that comes from global cooling are hockey and snow men displays in people’s front yards- well, and all the global warming people will be too busy drinking hot chocolate instead of trying to scare everyone about global warming; if the economy is intact to allow anyone to afford hot chocolate, that is.
 
While that “powerful rebuke” to terrorists is ongoing in the locked down city of Paris, remind yourself that we want warming. Warming is better for humanity. It’s who we are.