|
When I consider a subject, I give my best attempt at being an alien. What I mean by this is that I attempt to understand things as an alien visiting Earth with no vested interest would observe and report.
I just read a horribly nonobjective article on cleantechnica.com about the difference in overall subsidy paid to the fossil fuel industry compared to the alternative energy industry. The article made no attempt to be honest about what a subsidy is. It considers tax deductions due to business expenses as a subsidy. In that case, the government subsidizes the porn industry since paying the "actors" is a business expense that is tax deductible.
Anyhow, this alien perspective got me thinking about how to observe the impact of global warming on humans. As an alien observer, I would make note of things such as human life expectancy, infant mortality rates, overall standard of living, death rates due to violence and such to determine if GW is a net negative to humanity.
It isn't useful to look at a single instance, such as 1 hurricane, or 1 war and proclaim it as the result of global warming. If GW is a net harm to humanity, the 50,000 ft view will bear that out. Life expectancy will drop, or economic prosperity, or violence will be on the rise. If the warming trend strongly correlates with these negatives, then it would be very difficult to have alternative theories to explain them.
Is there currently a correlation of warming with a decline in human life expectancy, prosperity, or increasing rates of violence? If not, at what level of warming would we expect to begin seeing this correlation?
|