Dear Friends,
It seems to me, the climate of our planet is constantly changing. It’s perpetually going into a glacial period or an inter glacial epoch. Of the two, an inter glacial epoch is preferred, for civilization and the ecosystem. If the Earth were to be covered with glaciers again, civilization would go off planet, underground, else die out. So of the two, if we indeed have an effect on the planet, warming it is the ideal situation. Moreover, warming it, and adding plant food to the air at the same time works not only in mankind’s favor, but the entire ecosystem will benefit from the increase in plant productivity. Were we to stop global warming, there’s the chance there would be global cooling, leading to another ice age. Making our increasing CO2 emissions a life expanding act.
An ice age would bring humanity to the edge of extinction again. As it did before. Because when the weather is unpredictable crops can’t be grown. Wild vegetation, the backup for human grown crops, is diminished and wildlife is displaced. The entire ecosystem goes into shock. As ice piles up, the weight changes tectonic action leading to out of place earthquakes, subduction zones and activating formerly dead faults. Our cities would be buried under perhaps a mile think sheet of ice. Then crushed and scraped to the bedrock. Moreover, an ice age could take much more CO2 out of the atmosphere… leading to more global cooling. An ice age could be upon us in a century, should we stop global warming and replace it with a cooling climate. Like some scientists want to do.
A warming climate can only lead to more healthier flora, fauna and farms. Despite the arguments of changing rain patterns, there will always be rain. It simply may fall more at some locations that were dry and less at some that were wet. Meanwhile the USDA zones will rise so that the planet is able to produce more food to sustain more animal life. In my book, more life, is better than less life. So to have my druthers, I would choose global warming, and avoid global cooling. Especially since we’re not that far above ice age temperatures right now. As they acknowledged in the 1970’s global cooling panic. In many times in the past, the Jurassic for example, global temperatures were so much higher than today, there were forests and dinosaurs living at the Arctic circle!
CO2 is aerial plant food. The more of it there is the faster plants grow. The level today is at a near historic low. Making it harder for plants to create carbohydrates from sunlight. Only recently has the level of CO2 increased due to man’s burning carbon based fuels. That small increase has led to substantial increases in forest coverage on the planet, the Sahara desert appears to be greening, and farm productivity has increased, beyond that which would be expected from fertilizer use alone. If the level of CO2 increased to that of the Jurassic, the fecundity of the planet would rise by orders of magnitude. Benefiting plants, animals and Man. So lowering it, or merely stopping new introduction, is an attack on the ecosystem. By suffocating it of CO2, and possibly cooling the planet.
The only reason someone would want to lower CO2 is to harm the ecosystem. Someone who wants there to be less life, lower fecundity and fewer, hungrier people. Because anyone smart enough to understand the role of CO2, is smart enough to know what reducing it would do. The stupid argument doesn’t hold water here. Since the scientists must know the outcome, and to strive for an outcome of less life, is outright malevolent. All good people want there to be more life, healthier life and increasing life. To be anti life is to be a hypocrite in the most evil way. Because what demon that seeks to end the life of others… would freely give up his own? Personally, I don’t believe in anthropogenic climate change, but if I did, I would be firmly on the side of global warming!
Sincerely,
John Pepin
