Anthropogenic “climate change”
2 Oct., 2017
Neil Snarr wrote about the woes of anthropogenic “climate change” in which he especially assigns blame to the “explosion in human population numbers” along with other “vicissitudes of nature.” As a willing contributor, with eleven children, I thought reasoned reply might be appropriate in defense of children and in contradiction to the hoopla about threats to the “environment,” a.k.a. “creation.”
Unnecessary government intervention and restriction upon human enterprise (and the creation of jobs and livelihoods) is the tragedy that we are facing. Given the impact that such a clamp-down is having and will continue to have upon the well-being of citizens, it is important to consider the facts. What are they?
The Global Warming Policy Foundation http://www.thegwpf.org based in England offers another assessment on over-regulation of human enterprise. As one Dr. Tim Ball, opines, “Sadly, the true cost is hard to estimate because it is impossible to measure the emotional costs to people losing their jobs, their homes, and their communities. What makes these costs even more egregious is that they were completely unnecessary.”
“Climate change” has occurred from time to time over the centuries, long before the industrial age. And it isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Terence J. Hughes, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus of Earth Sciences and Climate Change, University of Maine writes as follows:
I maintain climate warming would be good, in balance, and not catastrophic. Here are my reasons. (1) It would thaw frozen ground in the arctic and sub-arctic, opening vast lands to economic development, especially agriculture with two harvests annually due to 18 to 24 hours of summer sunlight. (2) “Greenhouse” warming gives plants carbon dioxide, which then give us oxygen, so agricultural production and our food supply will soar. (3) reduction of arctic sea ice will open shipping lanes to the Orient that are half as long as present shipping lanes, thereby facilitating international trade. (4) If sea-level does rise, it will be only a few feet over centuries, not “catastrophic” and mankind can adjust to it. (5) The increase of open seas due to melting sea ice and rising sea level will open vast new fishing grounds that will feed mankind. (6) Rebuilding port facilities and relocating coastal cities as sea-level rises will provide many millions of jobs worldwide that will last for many generations.
I am of the mind that the “environment” is ultimately in the hands of the One who made all things for man and for His glory. And I am told that this creation may well be abused – uh, i.e. “judged” – by the Creator, Himself, when His land is defiled with the shedding of innocent blood of those created in His image. (Now there is a foreboding environmental threat!) Best, then, to consider regulating our national behavior and prohibit that behavior which displeases Him. Do we defile the land with our sin? Shedding innocent blood and defiling holy marriage? And does He, or does He not, spew people out of the land that he gives them? Indeed, an incentive to enforce Law!
Taking up this world view, that which gave us Western Civilization, we can press on with optimistic productivity rather than quench the human spirit of its innovation and creativity.