Much of the debate over global warming is predicated on fear, rather than science. Global-warming alarmists see a future plagued by catastrophic flooding, war, terrorism, economic dislocation, droughts, crop failure, mosquito-borne disease and harsh weather - all caused by man-made greenhouse gas emissions.
Hans Blix, the UN weapons inspector, sounded ridiculous and alarmist when he said in March: "I'm more worried about global warming than I am of any major military conflict." No wonder the late political scientist Aaron Wildavsky called global warming the "mother of all environmental scares".
Blix sounds like those who warned us in the 1970s that the planet was headed for a catastrophic global cooling. How quickly things change. Fear of the coming ice age is old hat, but fear that man-made greenhouse gases are causing temperatures to rise to harmful levels is in vogue.
Yet anyone who pays even cursory attention to the issue understands that scientists vigorously disagree over whether human activities are responsible for global warming, or whether those activities will precipitate natural disasters.
I would submit that not only is there a debate, but the debate is shifting away from those who subscribe to global-warming alarmism. After studying the issue over several years, I believe that the balance of the evidence offers strong proof that natural variability is the overwhelming factor influencing climate. No one has seriously demonstrated scientific proof that increased temperatures would lead to the catastrophes predicted by alarmists. In fact, it appears that just the opposite is true: that increases in global temperatures may have a beneficial effect on how we live our lives.Reuse content