Using a spurious line of reasoning, one could argue that the asteroid which slammed into the Earth 65 million years ago was a “good” thing because although it caused the extinction of ¾ of the planet’s species – including the dinosaurs – it nevertheless resulted in the rise of the mammals – and eventually humans. From that line of reasoning, should we conclude that if another asteroid were to collide with our planet, it too would be a “good” thing? Incidentally, asteroid hits are entirely natural and not caused by human activity.
Now if a department head of an executive Cabinet claimed that a warming Earth (global warming) is a “good” thing because he knows that… “humans have most flourished during times of warming trends…and disputes that a warming climate “…is necessarily is a bad thing” what should be the response to that line of reasoning?
Well, for starters we’ll begin by stating that most of today’s reputable scientists agree that “global warming” is caused by humans burning fossil fuels and is therefore not natural. Atmospheric levels of CO2 are now over 410 ppm, which is the highest in human history. And 16 of the 17 warmest years on record have occurred since 2001.
Further, we’ll mention that those scientists are predicting some very dire climate-related events as a result of global warming including a rising sea level, more droughts, stronger hurricanes, increased wildfires, vast numbers of climate refugees, and an ice-free Arctic, to name a few. And the cost of mitigating these human-caused events will be enormous.
So, unless one is a lackey of a vast petrochemical empire whose existence depends on the continued use of fossil fuel, a reasonable person would conclude that man-made global warming does not look “good.” Rather, it looks “bad.” Very bad.
— Mike Kamandulis, Kersey