The Tipping Point

The Washington Post is running an article called

Warming debate shifts to ‘tipping point’

Some scientists worry it’s too late to reverse climate change

In this article, they take the leap of faith that scientists have concluded that global warming has been accepted, so what’s the next step?  This leads to “the tipping point”.  At that point three things could potentially occur:

  1. widespread coral bleaching that could damage the world’s fisheries within three decades
  2. sea level rise by the end of the century that would take tens of thousands of years to reverse
  3. within 200 years, a shutdown of the ocean current that moderates temperatures in northern Europe

Now, my gripe with the global warming argument politically has been that the world expects the US to carry the brunt of fixing it.  I can see some merit to that argument, we have the most money.  However, if the US fixes everything that’s wrong here, there’s nothing to stop China and other developing countries from abusing the ecology in much worse ways than the US is now.  There are some obvious things the entire world could be doing now, but they are a tough economic pill to swallow.  Until I’m expected to swallow that pill, I want to know that it’s not in vain. When I see China doing the things they need to be doing to thwart “the tipping point” and Brazil stops destroying their rain forests, I’ll be a lot more agreeable to reacting to what so far has been an unproven theory.  Just because we’ve had a couple of warm years does not prove the Earth is heading for an ecological meltdown.  The things that have been thrown at me as proof, such as hurricanes, have in reality been shown to be returning to normal levels of previous years that they don’t include in their message.  When the global warmists start putting what is happening now in perspective to the entire picture instead of nitpicking the facts they want to use, then I’ll be more receptive.

Note to the Washington Post, I don’t think global warming on the scale they’re describing has been accepted.  Referring to “some scientists” and then assuming it’s generally accepted is misleading.  And, that’s primarily what’s undermining the entire argument they are pushing.