Global Warming, Evolution, and Cosmology An Objective Analysis of How Each Impacts Our Future

By Vince Milum, J.D., MBA, CPCU, ARM

Copyright © 2018.  All rights reserved.

Introductory Note:

There are many issues whose discussion in the public sphere is too-often driven by ill-informed windbags (of both left-leaning and right-leaning persuasions).  Among these topics are Global Warming, Evolution, and Cosmology.  Because the least-qualified among us dominate these debates, little truth / clarity ever reaches "the masses."  The intent of this mini-treatise is to counter that trend / tendency.  Thank you (in advance) for your forbearance as I delve into each of these subjects in what may seem (at times) to some an overly mundane way.
GLOBAL WARMING: Enough of the "Hot Air," "Just Gimme Some Truth"

"Global Warming" is (arguably) the pre-eminent topic upon which both "The Left" and "The Right" dispatch their least-qualified candidates to present their cases.  When befuddled lefties could not intelligently contradict the counter-assertions of scientists promoted by the right, the left re-invented the game and called it "Climate Change."  Let's now concede the obvious: there is and always* will be CHANGE, be it climatic or otherwise.  But let me upset my conservative friends by further conceding there really is a long-term trend of "mean" temperature increase across the planet.  Had the left simply put forth their "hard" scientists rather than their POLITICAL SCIENTISTS to present this case, the broader population would have come to understand and respect this reality.  Because the political-left could not sublimate its collective ego and allow only the modern-day Carl Sagans to argue their position, we have now gotten to the point that whenever any meteorological or geological event occurs, a cacophony of lefty voices shouts: "See, that's climate change!"  And, a counter-cacophony of voices on the right points to its scriptures to proclaim that "the world will have no end" and that "man" is not powerful enough to alter that (purported) "God-given truth."  (*In the subsequent section on the Cosmos, we will put some limits on the concept of "always" and "eternity.")

So, what if everyone suddenly came to their senses and only let "the smart people talk"?  Well, I am glad you asked because, as I said, mean-temperature-rise is a reality.  Another reality is something virtually no one understands today that being that, like most difficult issues, we are looking at a "multivariate" problem which, in turn, means a numerable of variables are driving "global warming" and one variable BUT NOT THE ONLY ONE is a human contribution factor.  The term for this human-generated component to global warming is called "anthropogenic."

In my opinion (note how I use the word "opinion" here because that is what I am about to express, not some "undeniable truth") remediating global warming may be necessary to ensure the long-term health and survivability of the human race.  (For example:) Without "boring" you with the details, one derivative effect of global warming has been a rise in skin cancers.  Another effect has been the PERMANENT flooding of some coastal areas around the world.  These trends will continue unless abated (either by us or some preternatural event(s) that we do not as yet foresee).

Let's restate what we have covered thus far...

"Climate Change" is a meaningless catch-all term to bolster arguments by a scientific illiterate after he / she has had too much to drink.

"Global Warming" is a scientific / statistical reality that MAY need to be redressed by humans.

Now comes the Hard Part (HP)...

HP 1: Domestic Incentives Conservatives want a "simple" tax code with low rates and little or no fiscal incentives.  Liberals want to "tax the rich" and oppose "tax breaks" for corporations.  Given this construct, I see little room to incentivize businesses and families to help in the remediation of global warming.  Unless this myopic thinking is modified, one of the prime avenues of correction is a dead-end (pun intended).

HP 2: Global Cooperation this is the section where all of you get to do some homework.  My cynical take is that global warming conferences tend to contribute more to global warming than to eliminate it.  But, that snide remark aside, I encourage you to read this article for background:

Reinforcing my cynicism are these two sections (see "HB 2A" and "HP 2B" below):

(HP 2A:) Non-ratification by the US

The US signed the Protocol on 12 November 1998, during the Clinton presidency.  To become binding in the US, however, the treaty had to be ratified by the Senate, which had already passed the 1997 non-binding Byrd-Hagel Resolution, expressing disapproval of any international agreement that did not require developing countries to make emission reductions and "would seriously harm the economy of the United States".  The resolution passed 95-0.  Therefore, even though the Clinton administration signed the treaty, it was never submitted to the Senate for ratification.

When George W. Bush was elected US president in 2000, he was asked by US Senator Chuck Hagel what his administration's position was on climate change.  Bush replied that he took climate change "very seriously", but that he opposed the Kyoto treaty because "it exempts 80% of the world, including major population centers such as China and India, from compliance, and would cause serious harm to the US economy."


As of 2016, the US is the only signatory that has not ratified the Protocol.  The US accounted for 36% of emissions in 1990.  As such, for the treaty to go into legal effect without US ratification, it would require a coalition including the EU, Russia, Japan, and small parties.

(HP 2B:) Withdrawal of Canada

In 2011, Canada, Japan and Russia stated that they would not take on further Kyoto targets.  The Canadian government announced its withdrawal possible at any time three years after ratification from the Kyoto Protocol on 12 December 2011, effective 15 December 2012.  Canada was committed to cutting its greenhouse emissions to 6% below 1990 levels by 2012, but in 2009 emissions were 17% higher than in 1990.  The Harper government prioritized oil sands development in Alberta, and deprioritized improving the environment.  Environment minister Peter Kent cited Canada's liability to "enormous financial penalties" under the treaty unless it withdrew.  He also suggested that the recently signed Durban agreement may provide an alternative way forward.  The Harper government claimed it would find a "Made in Canada" solution, but never found any such solution....

For an update on the preceding article, see:

(HP 2C:) "Russia, Russia, Russia!"

As if the above was not testament enough to the difficulties of reaching international consensus, let me illustrate a vital matter that virtually no one in "The Great Global Warming Debate" ever mentions that being that (at least for the near-term) not everyone is a loser.  In fact, one notable country actually comes out ahead as a result of global warming.

Look at this map below.  In it, you will see that Russia experiences a net increase in arable land.  With US and EU sanctions on Russia, why would it not want to stimulate an environment that will allow it to feed its people.  And with virtually no warm weather ports at its ready disposal in winter, why would not the Russian military (particularly its navy) want to manifest an environment that will produce such ports on its coasts?

One cannot stick a dagger into the heart of Russia as Americans and Western Europeans routinely do and then expect the Russians to then make sacrifices to serve the "salon" interests of their tormenters.


2050 Global Warming Map

Let's summarize the preceding section on Global Warming...

"Climate Change" is (still) meaningless (when absent much-needed context).

"Global Warming" is a scientific / statistical reality that MAY need to be redressed by humans but to do so will require (a) ego reductions by nearly everyone, (b) alterations of tax codes to the displeasure of both liberals and conservatives, and (c) a rethinking by the US and the EU of how to engage countries (such as Russia, but China and India as well) that do not take kindly to their dictates.

(Sections on Evolution and Global Warming will be forthcoming in the weeks ahead)


Wikipedia Disclaimer by Vince Milum: I am well aware of the limitations of Wikipedia, however, I choose it as a reference source (when sharing articles with others in an informal / non-technical manner) because it is both free and readily accessible, thereby eliminating any unnecessary hardship for "non-insiders" to sufficiently grasp my writings without the need to resort to a system of over-technicalities of formal citation merely to convey a simple point.  When writing a more formal or academic piece, I assure you that I use more traditional reference sources and citation methods as is custom to whatever audience I may be writing for at that time.




Copyright © 2018.  All rights reserved.