Global Warming

From Defending Conservatism Encyclopedia
Revision as of 12:12, 29 October 2018 by Jzyehoshua (talk | contribs)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

That global warming is occurring is evident. However, the questions are (1) why is it occurring?, (2) to what extent is it occurring?, and (3) is it even bad that it is occurring?

Why the Warming?

See also Climategate Emails

Historical Cyclical Warming

The Earth was much warmer than it is now, e.g. during a period that scientists would refer to as the Jurassic, and that Young-Earth Creationists (myself included) consider the Garden of Eden (for a discussion of Creationism, see my other primary site, Even more recently, the Earth was warmer, during the Medieval Warming Period, which was followed by the Little Ice Age. As seen from the Climategate Emails, scientists involved in the peer-review process refused to consider papers that addressed the Medieval Warming Period (MWP) or the possibility of cyclical solar warming and went to considerable lengths to cover up evidence of the MWP.

Carbon Dioxide

A major source of increased warming is carbon dioxide. This is due in part to growing global population, now in excess of 6 billion. Humans breathe out cO2 (Carbon Dioxide) and breathe in h2o (Oxygen). As such it's very important that we maintain our rainforests and phytoplankton, which are both responsible for converting carbon dioxide to oxygen.[1] However, there has been a disturbing degree of apathy about stopping destruction of phytoplankton and the rain forests, whereas emphasis has been instead on funding the green energy industry. This isn't particularly surprising, given that the green energy industry has been heavily subsidized by the U.S. Government in the past (although to be fair, so too has the oil & gas industry, depending on which party is in power). There is money in green energy subsidies, but not in stopping destruction of phytoplankton and rain forests.


Yet another major source of warming unrelated to corporate pollution is methane caused by farting cows (not a typo). Methane, by the way, is about 50 times more powerful in creating global warming than carbon dioxide is.[2] Nor is China even close to being the worst country when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions. That distinction belongs clearly to China, which produces over 25% already of global emissions (and its emissions are increasing), more than the U.S. and Europe combined, and is notoriously rebellious when it comes to obeying western demands.[3]


Regardless of how many regulations the U.S. and Europe enact to stop greenhouse emissions, greenhouse gas emissions look likely to continue increasing because of Chinese stubbornness, growing global population, and yes, cow farts. So unless liberals intend to enact strict population controls and force the world to cut back on its cheeseburgers-which would doubtless result in another American Revolution-increased warming appears inevitable.

Is Warming Bad?

Liberal Democrats like to congregate on America's coasts, for whatever reason. The west coast (California, Washington, Oregon) is extremely liberal, as is much of the east coast (New York, Maine, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island). Even areas near major bodies of water like Hawaii and Illinois tend to be more liberal. By contrast, midwestern states are overwhelmingly Republican. As such, it's quite possible that much of the concern about global warming is actually driven by liberal fears that their oceanfront properties are going to be affected by rising sea levels as the ice caps melt.

However, warming could actually benefit the global population more than harm it. After all, large portions of the globe are covered in ice and snow, barely if at all habitable, and would become arable (useful for farming) as well as habitable if the world was to warm. Given overpopulation in places like China and India, warming might prove a solution that benefits those starving in 3rd-world countries.

Furthermore, from a Biblical perspective per the Canopy Theory, humans once lived centuries longer than they do today as the result of a greenhouse effect caused by increased atmospheric thickness and oxygen levels. That the atmosphere was indeed thicker with oxygen levels 50% higher than today's is now acknowledged, even though academia spent decades scoffing at Canopy Theory.[4] The health benefits of modern hyperbaric chambers invented by Creationist Carl Baugh are now undeniable. As such, warming, if coinciding with a greenhouse environment caused by growth of rainforests under a more tropical Earth model, could produce health benefits.

Real Problems

The real problems, again, are destruction of phyotoplankton and the rain forests which convert carbon dioxide into clean oxygen. Similarly, pollution and destruction of the ozone layer are likewise cause for concern. Warming itself should not be cause for concern, given how much warmer the Earth was in the past.

Prediction Problems

The scientific community once warmed of global cooling in the 1970s, then of global warming, and now, recognizing their constant problems in providing provable predictions of either, has simply adopted a broad umbrella term of 'Climate Change.' Al Gore, he of the billion dollar private jet and high-pollution mansion,[5] predicted that the ice caps would have melted by now. Instead they grew in both size and volume.[6]

Green Energy

See also Keystone Pipeline

The energy debate is not as clear-cut as the left would like to portray. Natural gas, despite being a fossil fuel, is proving one of the cleanest vehicle fuels. Meanwhile, there is growing evidence that solar energy and wind turbines are not as environmentally friendly as has been portrayed. Wind turbines, even moreso than solar panels, kill numerous endangered birds each year (including the Bald Eagle, symbol of American Independence), which is why Obama even gave the industry an exemption from the Endangered Species Act.[7] Furthermore, cheap solar panels are extremely hazardous to the environment, meaning that all that money the Obama administration poured into the solar industry could end up hurting the environment.[8]

And ethanol? It's transported the same way crude oil is, meaning there's the same likelihood of oil spills. However, ethanol spills are proving even more dangerous to the environment than crude oil spills because crude oil mixes with water whereas crude oil floats on top of the water, so ethanol is harder and more expensive to clean up while producing more damage to the environment.[9]


Sensible protection of the environment, particularly rainforests and phytoplankton, is vital to preserving the human race. However, God made the Earth, like our bodies, more difficult to destroy than academics have given it credit for. Natural gas, a fossil fuel, holds promise as an automotive fuel source. I am generally more concerned with U.S. jobs than minor environmental impacts, we should be most concerned with human life. Any environmental regulation should be simplistic and based on clear and consistent research showing it to be absolutely necessary, with as little red tape obstructing business growth as possible. Furthermore, the oil and gas industry is highly profitable. Perhaps it would be best for taxpayers, given budget issues, if the industry funded its own pipelines in the future. I question whether either the oil and gas or green energy industries should be subsidized as much by taxpayers as has previously been the case.


  1. Roach, John (June 7, 2004). "Source of Half Earth's Oxygen Gets Little Credit." National Geographic.
  2. Lemonick, Sam (2017, September 29). "Scientists Underestimated How Bad Cow Farts Are." Forbes.
  3. Bradsher, Keith and Friedman, Lisa (2018, January 25). "China’s Emissions: More Than U.S. Plus Europe, and Still Rising." New York Times.
  4. Than, Ker (2011, August 8). "Why Giant Bugs Once Roamed the Earth." National Geographic.
    Choi, C.Q. (2006, October 10). "More Oxygen Could Make Giant Bugs." LiveScience.
    Welsh, J. (2012, March 28). "Ancient Raindrops Reveal Early Earth's Hazy Skies." LiveScience.
  5. (2017, August 3). "Al Gore's Climate Change Hypocrisy Is As Big As His Energy-Sucking Mansion." Investors Daily.
  6. Guenette, Jasmin (2017, May 17). "Al Gore's Predictions Of Doom Scramble His Message." Huffington Post.
    (2014, October 7). "Antarctic Sea Ice Reaches New Record Maximum." NASA.
  7. Flows, Capital (2013, July 16). "Angry Birds? No, But Obama's Wind Energy Subsidies Have Them Very Frightened. Forbes.
    Ernst, Douglas (2016, December 14). "Obama Admin Regulation Allows Wind Turbines to Kill Up to 4,200 Bald Eagles Per Company. Washington Times.
  8. Chen, Angela (2018, October 25). "More Solar Panels Mean More Waste and There's No Easy Solution. The Verge.
  9. Lane, Isabel (2012, November 19). "Ethanol Aquatic Spills May Be Worse for Environment, Aquatic Life. Biofuels Digest.