What’s So Bad About “Climate Change”?

So President Trump rightly decided to pull the US out of the so-called “Paris Agreement” on climate change. Predictably, the political- and media establisment were outraged.

What is missing here is a discussion of the real issue: What’s so bad about climate change?

I don’t deny that there’s climate change. Climat change has happened ever since this planet was created and will continue until the  sun blows up and takes this planet with it.

Nor do I deny that human activity hasn’t had any effect on this planet’s climate. That seems to be the view of almost every scientist in this area.

But what climate hysterics have yet to explain is: why is a bad thing? Why is it assumed that the “pre-industrial era” temperatures are optimal? I’ve asked climate hysterics this question dozens of times, but I’ve never gotten an answer.

Sure, one degree difference in temperature could have negative effects, but it could also have positive effects. The fact that warmer weather can have positive effects is illustrated by the fact that no one wants to live in Antarctica.

So the real issue here isn’t if “man-made climate change” exists, the issue is why it is assumed that it would only be a bad thing.


1 Comment

  1. Yes, and here’s a good example.

    Global warming is said to have expanded the range of the mountain pine beetle into the formerly beetle-free Canadian province of British Columbia. Since 1999 these beetles have decimated BC forests resulting in the release of a billion tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere.

    But wait, alarmists. Higher temperatures have also resulted in a “fertilization effect” which has accelerated tree growth rates, especially at higher latitudes. Scientists now estimate that all of the carbon released by the BC beetle infestation will be re-absorbed by new tree growth in the province by 2020. Thereafter, the effect of the beetles will have been fully reversed and BC forests will again be a carbon sink. Presumably if the increased growth rates continue, BC forests will sequester more CO2 after 202 than they did before 1999.

    And if the fertilization effect increases forest growth, might it also increase food crop growth rates? Seems plausible.

    See “Global warming induced ‘fertilization effect’ causing B.C.’s forests to grow back faster than expected”, National Post, April 12, 2016, at:


    Markus Buchart
    Winnipeg, Canada

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s