The world and our nation has experienced some of the coldest temperatures in memory and records have been broken. Some attribute this to AGW, others attribute this to other factors such as differing amounts of solar radiation reaching our planet. Even so, many believe the planet has (and still is) warmed up some degree (how much is at debate) and contention is made as to whether mankind (AGW) or natural causes (solar radiation, natural cycles of the Earth, etc.) are the root of our gradual warming. Many people also believe man in and of himself can effective control the climate of the planet by regulating emissions of gases said by some to cause AGW. BUT, what if, during say the next ten years (or twenty years...) temps are shown to be steadily declining (I am not stating it is or is not happening now, just a 'what if'). What if temperatures decline to such a point that massive crop failures become commonplace because of longer and colder periods in agricultural areas? Would many still believe man could control and effectively halt declining temperatures by actually putting more CO2 into the atmosphere? Would businesses be penalized or pay carbon taxes because they did not put ENOUGH carbon into the atmosphere? Would liberals deny global cooling is happening and conservatives contend it is happening? Would it be a political issue? I pose this as not an argument for or against the current thinking of AGW. Let's not go down that road, it's been done too many times before in the past. Please, keep in mind this is just a 'WHAT IF' exercise. Rick #4 2006
I doubt if anyone would be penalized for not producing enough CO2 although the thought is amusing. The science behind the idea references long periods of time, and I doubt the science community would change its mind due to 10-20 years of non-correlating data.
Yes, probably somewhat far-fetched regarding the CO2 output (or lack thereof) for businesses. However, in some European countries you can get in serious legal trouble for not rendering aid to someone in need which is contrary to the provenance of English law. I don't doubt you that most scientists would be swayed by only 10 or 20 years of change, BUT I guarantee you politicians would be swayed by as little as one or two years of change. And the fact is they are the ones who count, politicians make the laws, not the scientists. Rick #4 2006
