Disproving The Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) Problem

ADMINISTRATOR'S NOTE: This post was co-written by Craig and Kelly in discussion and brainstorming. These are open speculations on the topic of climate change and are not meant to offer any definitive conclusions. Our interest here is only in trying to get past the current strawmen blocking meaningful advancement of dialogue from both sides, and to offer possible constructions to assist the way forward. Part of the imperative of governance is how our collective social structure (the State) reflects how we handle disagreement. The flip side is how government is supposed to participate in debates of this nature, no pun intended.

Disproving The Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) Problem

After reading through this article and comments, it seems that the author’s stated purpose of “disproving” AGW is a bit ambitious for what he is able to accomplish. Nevertheless, he does successfully highlight the fact that there is a lot of disagreement. The facts do not support the AGW theory nearly as definitively as its supporters claim.

We see a disconnect in the debate on several fronts. First, is the global climate warming? Second, is global warming going to lead to devastating results? Third, is global warming caused by human activity?

If the first two are true, it doesn’t matter whether the third is or not. Somehow the debate keeps centering on wither humans are the cause instead of whether the climate is actually warming. We have some evidence of a warming trend during the 20th century but even that leads to quibbling over whether the trend will reverse itself naturally, whether it is just another natural cycle. The merits of investigating cost-effective remedies are still present regardless of human involvement - the type and mix of remedies change only if humans are significant contributors, but not the need for remedies.

Humans have a poor record of leadership in this area. On one side you have those who are certain (but wrong) and advocate outrageous action, e.g. Heaven’s Gate; and on the other you have those who advocate no action, which is reported to happen with European countries' unwillingness to believe in Hitler’s death camps, or more recently with reports of genocide in Africa.

In Texas you have to have proof of insurance before being allowed to drive on public roads. Does this mean that the State thinks you are going to have a wreck with 100% certainty? Of course not. The insurance is a small cost which mitigates the huge cost of damages from an accident. The probability of you making a claim contributes to the price of the policy. If you are a safe driver, your policy is less expensive.

As for the climate, let’s talk about what would be cheap insurance against a catastrophic claim. Is there something we can do that might have a much smaller cost compared against the worst case scenario. Do we have to believe in Anthropogenic Global Warming, or even a natural warming cycle? No. Good drivers seek protection from outside events as opposed to the State’s mandate which is to make sure bad drivers take responsibility for their actions. Both of which are at the core of conservative ideals.

Driver’s-Ed and defensive driving techniques can be considered as cheap forms of insurance. A low-cost way to reduce the risk. It is disappointing that instead of working on the cheap and easy solution, the debate has degenerated to arguing either that everyone needs $1,000,000 of comprehensive insurance, i.e. the more rabid GW alarmists, or adamantly declaring that we don’t need insurance at all, i.e. demagogues shouting that there is no absolute proof humans are causing climate change and thus should do nothing. If we want to be pragmatic about it, we should be agreeing that even if we can’t be sure whether we are the cause, we definitely don’t want to become part of the problem either. We could talk about cheap and defensive solutions like supporting green house-building techniques, reforestation, and sources of bio-fuel - which has a nation security aspect as we'd wane ourselves from dependence on tin-pot foreign dictators. At least such a discussion would be productive, unlike two sides trying to out-bloviate each other.

Seen this way, insurance is both a sign of personal responsibility – the state’s mandate – and a sign of conservatism, as in conserving the long-term viability of our planet's environment and declaring that you won’t need to rely on others to take care of you if the worst happened. Not only that, there is a national security aspect also, as we'd wane ourselves from dependence on tin-pot foreign dictators.

In the global warming debate, we should discuss the severity of the different scenarios and how much it would cost to mitigate them. We don’t have to believe in the worst case to discuss it. Insurance is about the transference of risk. You don’t believe you will necessarily total your car when you discuss a quote for comprehensive insurance; there are dozens of scenarios less severe for which you seek coverage. You want to know what the cost would be to recover or mitigate the damage. What insurance can we buy against climate change? Let’s talk about that.