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


    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.


    Ema: CO2 is a pollutant only so far as it contributes to global warming. (And methane, etc.) It is completely benign otherwise. Further, the question is not impossible to ask; James posited a broad answer, we just need specifics.

    So the ball is back in your park: what is the optimal temperature?

    sort of runic rhyme | December 25, 2010 at 2:19 pm

    One optimal temp is 98.6 at the beach. Also, 85 in my tomato garden, 45 on a bracing fall day and 28 when skiing.

    Merry Christmas, everyone!

    What evidence is there that current global temperatures are optimal? Maybe they should be warmer, maybe cooler.

    @emma how is it possible to be so arrogant, stupid and self righteous and still be able to type unless you are a sophisticated parody of a leftist?

    AGW proponents argue that C02 is a pollutant. AGW proponents emit C02 by exhaling. Kill all AGW proponents and problem resolved or greatly diminished. And as a for a bonus we get to increase the average IQ of humanity 10 points. A win-win proposition.

    Ben: what is the optimal temperature?

    Stability is preferable to instability. Rapid anthropomorphic climate change may result in massive loss of habitat, crop failures, spread of disease, coastal flooding, with the resulting human migration, political instability and widespread suffering.

    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