Experts Making Our Climate Policy

This does not surprise me the least bit. It is now become fashionable to talk about global warming and those that voice points of view are seldom
thoroughly questioned.


While the data on global warming and the effects on weather are irrefutable at this point, I am still skeptical about the villain being CO2. It is 0.4%
of the atmosphere and even though there is clear evidence to show that it does act as a blanket for heat, I cannot find any experimental/empirical
data that shows that 0.4% can do the damage that it does. 

The experiments that I was able to dig up were all done in atmospheric conditions where CO2 was 100% of the experimental atmospheric chamber. That proves that it's a blanket but doesn't prove that 0.4% will kill you. If you do experiment on rats and feed them 100% salt, they die.


I also have problems with the way CO2 was hung as the culprit. It seems to me that they looked for atmospheric conditions to explain the increases in
temperature and the only thing they could find was the increase in CO2, express in parts per million [that's' small]. From that, they deduced that CO2 is the culprit. What if it's something else we are still ignorant about?  This could be Man at his arrogant best..."all I know is truth and I know it all". And they set the world on a path to spend gobs of money trying to get alternative energy forms as the savior.


Now, I'm not a global warming denier and I do believe that alternative energy is worth perusing [but with balance]. But the questions I would raise
are:

1. Should we be accepting that global warming is beyond our control and spend more money providing a solution to protect vulnerable areas . A good example of this would be to figure out how to protect countries like Holland and Singapore for being drowned.

2 . In the same vein, should we be looking at how the agricultural map is changing and how to redesign the agricultural map. This could protect us from high food prices in the rich countries and famine in the poor countries.

3. We should be educating the public on the role of increased population. It is clear we cannot support 8 billion people. Anyone who's been to a decent Business School should have learned the difference between cause and effect. All the culprits like CO2 increases from industry, cars, housing, agriculture and deforestation are all effects. NOT CAUSES!

The cause is the population increase from 1 billion people in 1900 to 8 billion people today! While you cannot mandate people to have fewer children, you can educate people and let them make their own decisions. This in combination with the rising price of raising children may do the trick. 

In Hong Kong, Singapore and Japan, birth rates have fallen 0.8, 1.1, and 1.3 respectively. These numbers are basically affected by the price of kids but it does show that we are capable of reining in the old urge to reproduce ourselves.

And here is my greatest fear. If we are wrong, charging down a single unproven course of action while neglecting others could spell disaster. But do we care? No because it is our great grandkids, not us, who will face the music. And I have never met them so.......