Global meltdown?

There is an interesting article on global warming in the latest issue of the AARP Magazine by Andrew Revkin (of The New York Times) entitled "Global Meltdown." I don't subscribe to all of his assertions and conclusions, but at least it is a semi-fair discussion of the current state of the "debate" over greenhouse gases, global warming, and climate change.

I'm still waiting for somebody, anybody, to show that there is truly robust science that proves that our environment would not be able to adjust quite well to whatever level of carbon dioxide might accumulate in the atmosphere over the next century, especially given likely changes that would probably occur over that period. There are simply too many social, technology, economic, political variables for a so-called scientific "consensus" to credibly conclude that the future of the environment is as certain as they are claiming. Mechanically projecting from current trends out decades into the future is a fool's errand.

Besides, simple economic and efficiency considerations coupled with likely social changes over the coming decades will probably have many of the beneficial effects that the so-called alarmists are clamoring for anyway, and without the need for any significant economic or social disruptions. And definitely without the potentially disastrous "climate engineering" proposed by some apparrently well-meaning scientists, such as dispersing particulate clouds to "cool" the atmosphere, which have the potential hazard that if they work better than expected could result in a dangerous and unnatural cooling of the atmosphere.

Let's not fall prey to "quick fixes", but rather let us put more faith in the natural evolution of our social, technology, economic, and political systems.

The only "crisis" before us is the need to avoid succombing to the alarmist calls for "action now."

-- Jack Krupansky