… and there is considerable evidence of that (Rare Earth Principle*), what difference would that make to global warming, if caused by humans?
If not caused by humans? Readers?
Re Vince Torley’s Straight talk about global warming: an open letter to the Catholic clergy:
As I said here, it is good that someone is trying to come up with the real costs of whatever people say we must DOOOO!! NOWWW!!
Usually a recipe for disaster except for a few profiteers. Solyndra, anyone?
Oh, and tinpot dictators just love that sort of thing because they can regulate vast new classes of activities without dumping any old ones – and it doesn’t matter if they fail. There are no costs to the bureaucracy for failure.
That said, I don’t know if AGW is real. But I live in a part of the world where nature is ever the enemy, not man. You would never know AGW was true from the last few winters where I live (Ottawa), but things may be different in Beijing or Cairo.
How would I know? I mistrust all claims from activists because they have so much to gain from fronting the acrockalypse. Anyone remember the Population Bomb?
1. Most sovereign countries will just walk away from politically inconvenient commitments.
2. The people who suffer most will be those with the most to lose.
After all, any urban layabout or twit can be “concerned” about the environment. It’s different to watch your job up north go down the drain because of that twit’s “concern.”
That should have implications for the Church but in this climate of opinion, I bet it won’t.
I liked Bjorn Lomborg’s talk at the world science journalists’ conference in 2004, as he raised the question of real costs and benefits.
And Chicken Little was out of the office for once.
* The ID version is called the Privileged Planet principle.
Follow UD News at Twitter!