Diary 20130422: Oh snap! I missed Earth Day!

However, global warming is based on bad science as is anti-global warming. Both anti and pro elements of global warming tend to emotional pleas in their propaganda, which indicates a fallacy is being purported as truth. I call this bad science because the same statistics may be interpreted to please the other side.

Would it not be easier just to SLOW DOWN the economy so that it can handle BOTH scenarios without getting colder /warmer??

"No, that's unfeasible!" cry the number crunchers.

Yet a 3 percent downturn is a lot if the GDP is over 10 billion dollars i.ze. 300 million dollar while it's only 30 million for a 1 billion dollar GDP.

Though the 1 billion dollar GDP is greatly impacted by a 30 million dollar loss even though it's ten times smaller.

I don't know why this is so, but it could be that the larger GDP has a wider variety of income streams while the smaller GDP has less income streams.

Likewise a 1 degree change in surface temperature has a larger effect on the Earth than 0.1 change. It means either flooding will occur or it won't but it could change coastlines, ports, harbours...

On the other hand, the anti-global warming people want to exploit more oil, and pollute the earth whilst trading carbon taxes for ways of looking greener than they were yesterday.

I don't think so.

I think either way, things will run a little faster, but the global warming proponents who don't want more and say it exists but still cause as much pollution as the anti-global warming action.

Even creating a green computer pollutes.

Hopefully it outweighs the pollution it takes to make things green.

It would be better to be honest about global warming: it exists when you tweak the statistics to support the pros and cons.