Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

    “So at what point in time should global warming have stopped?”

    “So at what point in time should global warming have stopped?”

    An op-ed in The Christian Science Monitor poses the question, Would Global Warming Be So Bad?

    What has always troubled me the most with the view that we needs to stop “climate change” in the form of “global warming” is the idea that it would be bad if the Earth became warmer.

    The writer, a Swedish free-market economist (talk about lonely) points out that some regions would benefit, some would suffer:

    So what is there to say that the pre-industrial era climate is really the optimal climate? That the benefits of a possible warmer climates wouldn’t outweigh the disadvantages? I have asked that many times to Al Gore supporters and either gotten no answer at all, or some list of alleged (and exaggerated) disadvantages that completely overlooked the benefits.

    This is a point I made before, Thanks Global Warming, in which I noted that Ithaca once was under two miles of ice.  I asked the question

    “So at what point in time should global warming have stopped?”

    I have yet to hear the answer.

    ——————————————–
    Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
    Visit the Legal Insurrection Shop on CafePress!
    Bookmark and Share

    DONATE

    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.

    Comments


    I fondly remember buying a sailboat (Laser – 13 footer) the year after graduating from Cornell.

    Since my first job was in Syracuse, I braved the waters of Skaneateles Lake. I remember breaking through ice in April and it was August before I would sail without a wetsuit.

    Although I fondly remember those days of snow, snow and more snow, I now live in sunny Oklahoma.

    Seasons Greetings, Professor.

    .

    ""So at what point in time should global warming have stopped?""

    Yours is a nice bit of sophistry. One asks a question one knows cannot be answered (Have you stopped beating your wife?). One then implies the fact that the question cannot be answered, subsequently casts doubt on the validity of the subject.

    You want to avoid discussing the subject of man's involvement in the effects of man's polluting man's environment. So you bring up 'global warming' in hopes of conflating the two. And of course the dufus gobbers who blindly follow your lazy writings run about soiling themselves about alarmists.

    So at what point in time should an Associate Clinical Professor at Cornell Law School be reminded that the quality of his work is reflected in its factual accuracy?

    Ema Nymton
    [email protected]:o?
    The LEFT – taking shit for being right since long before you were born.
    .

    Scientists predict extreme TAXES as a result of global climate change: http://www.leftcoastrebel.com/2010/12/global-warming-white-christmas-extreme.html

    @RightKlik – our course taxes will rise, along with the oceans; we will need more money to pay the climate change scientists.

    Ema: "You want to avoid discussing the subject of man's involvement in the effects of man's polluting man's environment."

    No, his post didn't imply anything of the sort.

    "So you bring up 'global warming' in hopes of conflating the two."

    Again, no. You're conflating the two. It is a common alarmist tactic to imply that denial of AGW alarmism is somehow also a denial of man's ability to pollute his environment.


    Leave a Comment

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (or subscribe without commenting.)

    Font Resize
    Contrast Mode
    Send this to a friend