Globull warm-mongers resort to confirmation bias, i.e. accept only the evidence that seems to confirm their theory and ignore evidence that contradicts. I.e. a very hot summer in Auckland is evidence for global warming, but an unusually cool and wet summer in Brisbane and unusually cold Florida winter is ignored.

Envirofanatics badly damage their credibility by still revering that charlatan and fraud, Paul R. Ehrlich. His prophecies of doom have been proven wrong again and again for 40 years, yet they still adulate him. He also lost a famous bet to economist Julian Simon about whether commodities of Ehrlich’s choice would be running out (as evidenced by higher prices) a decade later. Every one of them was cheaper, indicating the discovery of new sources that made the materials more plentiful.

Jonathan Sarfati, Brisbane

I think your positive feedback scenario is pure speculation and can’t possibly be based on any realistic model. If the planet warms up more, this results in warmer oceans which leads to more evaporation and therefore more moisture in the air above the oceans. More moisture means more clouds. More clouds means that light and heat from the sun is reflected away from earth. Light and heat reflected away from the earth means that the earth stops warming up, which is a strong negative feedback mechanism. One shouldn’t speculate about positive feedback mechanisms (that have not been demonstrated) causing doomsday scenarios without first addressing the negative feedback mechanisms that we DO know exist.

Not to mention the impact of volcanic activity. Volcanos release plenty of greenhouse gasses, and yet have a cooling impact because their emissions block out heat from the sun. I would not be surprised to find that the effects of clouds and volcanos are not factored into the models that predict such unstable outcomes.

Regards,
Mathew Markey

The dangers of the climate getting “a bit warmer” have little to do with personal discomfort. The predicted effects range from dramatic changes in the biosphere to increasing ocean levels from melting icecaps. You can scoff all you like, but the evidence is out there.

A bigger danger is that “a bit warmer” could rapidly turn into “a lot warmer” if the system goes into positive feedback territory as many models predict it could, i.e. a small increase in global temperatures accelerates the warming rate.

Steve Angelino, WA

It might actually be good for the climate to be a bit warmer. Bjørn Lomborg points out that more people die from the cold than from heat. Indeed, 30 years ago, the doom-mongers were screaming that we were in danger of an ice age!

Jonathan Sarfati, Brisbane

There are some glaring errors in your comments that are common misunderstandings about these issues.

Firstly, although the Carbon Cycle is a natural recirculating system, it is currently out of whack. By burning fossil fuels sequestered over millions of years, we are putting far more carbon into the atmosphere than can be re-absorbed, hence the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere is rapidly increasing. At the same time, we have been clearing forests, thus reducing an important carbon sink.

Secondly, although you scoff about belching cattle, they do contribute a significant amount of methane to the atmosphere, more so than other animals because of the nature of their digestive system. And methane has 23 times the greenhouse gas impact of CO2. All carbon is not equal.

I know it is considered good sport in this forum to scoff about the science behind climate change, but humanity faces serious problems. Uninformed comments like yours are unfortunately far too common amongst the general public, and this is unhelpful in addressing solutions.

Steve Angelino, WA

How much agricultural land is actually being used fully? There have been so many advancements that produce more and more from the same acre of land year after year. I don’t think we have to worry about the lack of food for growth of population.

Then I have to wonder about the whole thing with “cow burps”. Ha ha! I can only laugh! Do they not realize that to feed these cows we are growing crops that are taking the carbon out of the air? And scientifically, nothing can be created that is not already there. In other words, all the carbon on the earth was already on this earth in one form or another. Carbon from cow burps? Comes from the feed they eat. Carbon in the plants? Comes from air. Carbon is necessary for life. It’s called the carbon cycle. It sickens me how many people are completely uneducated in this regard… and I don’t even know all the details. What about death? More carbon. It’s the same with water. All the water on this earth? From what I’ve learned, there is no more or less than there was when the earth was created, granted there is fresh and salt, but I’m sure there are ways to turn salt water to fresh water if it came down to it… and I don’t see the need.

Sorry, that is just my input on the issue. I find Greenpeace at it’s current state is a joke. It had it’s place, but now it doesn’t know what to fight for anymore, so it is creating scenerios to make itself worth something again. Granted, what they stood for years ago was great, and we should try to do our best to conserve because there is no real reason to just aimlessly consume as much as we can, but to go as far as to reduce the population, or blame “cow burps” for our problems? I don’t think so.

Sabrina Kehler, Manitoba, Canada

Q. What happens if you introduce communism into the Sahara?
A. For he first 50 years — nothing. Then you’ll have a shortage of sand.

Jonathan Sarfati, Brisbane

It is not a matter of how much of any good we have. Government intervention with just the sort of price controls you advocate has brought famines to Ukraine and Zimbabwe, which used to be the breadbaskets of their continents. So how much more disastrous will it be when we have little to begin with?

In answer to “I don’t see how self-rationing could possibly be more effective than government imposed restrictions”, I have already explained: this addresses only the issue of consumption, while prices set by free buyers and sellers not only encourage conservation but also provide an incentive to obtain more of whatever is needed. E.g. heavy users would find it cost-effective to build large rainwater tanks to collect water that would previously been lost. This would result in a higher total amount of water to the community.

Jonathan Sarfati, Brisbane

Thomas Sowell has written a number of columns and books about why price controls produce shortages, e.g. An Ancient Fallacy: Price Controls, and even said:

As an economist, whenever I hear the word ‘shortage’ I wait for the other shoe to drop. That other shoe is usually ‘price control’.

And to show that water privatization really works, see John Stossel’s comments about Jersey City’s water supply after it was privatized. “Unfixable” pipes were repaired, there was clean water instead of foul, and taxpayers saved $35 million.

In my days as a semi-serious chessplayer, I once attended a chess seminar in the USSR as the NZ rep. While the chess was great, while looking around the shops, the results of a centrally planned economy were plain to see: long queues, surly service and poor quality. Less visible to an outside were shortages and surpluses depending on whether the decreed price was lower or higher than what people would freely pay.

It’s notable that the closest parallels to the Soviet economic monstrosity in the West are precisely those run by the government, and for the same reason. So it shouldn’t be surprising that we have water shortages. Another good example is the Airport Gestapo, which was shown to miss most of the test bombs, but scored 100% on confiscating water bottles!

Jonathan Sarfati, Brisbane