by Selwyn Duke
Late last year, I got into a discussion with a fellow who was quite
sold on the idea that man's activities were warming the Earth.
While not a hardcore ideologue, it was apparent the gentleman had
climate change narrative presented by mainstream media
and believed we truly were imperiling the planet...
I didn't say much to him initially, as we were engaged in some
recreation, but later on, I resurrected the topic and told him I
just wanted to pose one question.
"What is the ideal
average temperature of the Earth?" I asked.
It was clear he was
without an answer, so I explained my rationale.
"If we don't know
what the Earth's ideal average temperature is," I stated, "how
can we know if a given type of climate change - whether
naturally occurring or induced by man - is good or bad?
After all, we can't
then know whether it's bringing us closer to or moving us
further away from that 'ideal temperature'..."
It was as if a little
light bulb had lit up in his head, and he said,
"You know, that's a
I haven't seen the man
since, as we were just two ships passing in the night, and I don't
know how his thinking has evolved (or regressed) between then and
I do know, however, that someone who'd seemed so confident and
perhaps even unbending in his position had his mind opened with one
simple question and a 20-second explanation.
Of course, part of the question's beauty is that no one can answer
There is no "ideal" average Earth temperature, only a range
within which it must remain for life as we know it to exist...
At the spectrum's
polar creatures proliferate.
At its higher-end, tropical animals
do though warmer temperatures do breed more life, which is why the
10 times as many species as does the Arctic.
crop yields increase when
CO2 levels are
This brings us to
another important point:
Apocalyptic warmist dogma is buttressed by
the virtually unchallenged assumption that if man changes something
"natural," it is by definition bad.
But this is
Most of us certainly don't believe this, for instance,
when humans cure disease and use science to preserve and extend
human life (or that of our pets).
As for climate,
there have been at least five major ice ages, and,
"the most recent
one began approximately three million years ago and continues today
(yes, we live in an ice age...!),"
informs the Utah Geological Survey.
Then there was the
Cryogenian period, during which the Earth was completely, or almost
completely, covered with snow and ice.
If man had existed during
that time, would it have been bad if his activities had raised the
temperature a couple of degrees...?
Within ice ages are
shorter-term cycles known as,
last approximately 100,000 years
interglacials last about 10,000 to 30,000 years...
We're currently in
an interglacial called the
Holocene Epoch, which began 11,500 to
12,000 years ago.
This means that we could, conceivably, be poised
to soon enter
more frigid glacial period...
is mitigated by a couple of degrees via man's activities, would that
be a bad thing?
Warmists suggest this is the case.
For example, citing
research, science news magazine Eos
wrote in 2016 that our Holocene Epoch,
"may last much
longer because of the increased levels of atmospheric greenhouse
gases resulting from human activity."
this be bad?
ideal average Earth temperature that this climate change
would supposedly be moving us further away from?
If you're a member
of one of the vast majority of Earth's species, those prospering in
(relative) warmth, it sounds like good news.
The question in
question won't cut any ice (pun intended) with those emotionally
invested in the doom-and-gloom
global warming thesis.
reason a man out of a position he has not reasoned himself
paraphrase Anglo-Irish satirist Jonathan Swift.
But with the more
open-minded majority, the question can turn down the heat on the