Slashdot Mirror
Global Warming's Silver Lining For the Arctic Rim
Pickens writes "According to Laurence C. Smith, an Arctic scientist who has consistently sounded alarms about the approach of global warming, within 40 years the Arctic rim may be transformed by climate change into a new economic powerhouse. As the Arctic ice recedes, ecosystems extend, and minerals and fossil fuels are discovered and exploited, the Arctic will become a place of 'great human activity, strategic value and economic importance.' Sparsely populated areas like Canada, Scandinavia, Russia and the northern United States — the northern rim countries, or NORCs — will become formidable economic powers and migration magnets. Predictions in Smith's new book The Earth in 2050 include the following: New shipping lanes will open during the summer in the Arctic, allowing Europe to realize its 500-year-old dream of direct trade between the Atlantic and the Far East, and resulting in new economic development in the north; NORCs will be among the few place on Earth where crop production will likely increase due to climate change; and NORCs will become the envy of the world for their reserves of fresh water, which may be sold and transported to other regions."
Well, you see that's the thing. You can argue the case from both sides. Scientific research shows that, for example, wearing a cycling helmet makes no difference. A helmet will not protect you in a serious accident and the slight increase in the risk taking behaviour you engage in by wearing one balances out the benefit you'd get from it, when compared to not wearing one when you're in a minor accident. Likewise unless you're a hyper-power, or have a nice stash of nukes, your strong military may be a threat to others and therefore you may be more likely to be attacked, not less.
To my mind even if the case is made that there is going to be warming, the economic "cure" is far, far, worse than the illness (cost of adaptation). So let us assume the scientific case is made (I don't believe it is); the economics of mitigation are truly from the mad-house.
If you want to look at the question objectively, all you have to do is examine the (vastly) available science and ask yourself "qui bono"? What would motivate a majority of the world's scientists to 'fabricate' climate change, or 'manipulate' the reasons behind climate change? Who are the most vociferous deniers, and what do they gain from their denial?
Personally speaking, I tend to group deniers - people who won't even try to examine the question objectively, but base their 'research' and 'conclusions' on predetermined opinions/positions - into two groups: Those paid by the very causers of the majority of CO2 emissions (and the emitters themselves, those who dare to come forward with their denial), and lonely blowhards seeking to attract attention to themselves through their 'controversial' opinion.
No, no sig. Really.
ThePromenader
Yes, these corporations are busy promoting alarmism. Goldman Sachs and a lot of other financial institutions want to trade carbon. The energy companies are looking forward to huge public subsidies for all of the various Great Green Elephants (indeed, they are already receiving them). The Government loves taxes.
I'm happy to be in the position that I can tell the difference between a fact and a model output. I will let you know when someone who doesn't have a grant-hunting interest in alarmism publishes a sceptical paper. We may have to wait a while; I think Michael Mann is on the editorial boards of a lot of journals.
Economics is not a scientific discipline. Those studies are not very credible.
May the Maths Be with you!
I would question whether our activities are the sole or even the primary cause of the growth in CO2. However, you leave out one thing I can question as well, which is do the fact that the CO2 concentrations are rising and temperatures are rising even imply that the CO2 rise is the cause of the temperature rise? Correlation does not imply causation, you know.
The Earth has been here a lot longer than the 100 years since mankind has started producing mass quantities of CO2. CO2 levels have been much higher than they are right now in the geologic history of the Earth. Further, a lot of the climate change proponent scientists have been proven to have been knowingly using bad science to scare people into an agenda.
When will Slashdot stop drinking the climate change Kool-Aid?
I thought the Romans burned the library of Alexandria? Accidentally by setting fire to their own ships, but it was the Romans while fighting with the Greeks.