What's the Benefit?

Global warming realists (that is, those who don't buy the Al Gore-like catastrophism because they see the earth is no warmer than it was 12 years ago) often argue against various forms of energy taxes, but too many stop short of asking alarmists, "What's the benefit?"

Those in conservative talk radio and punditry often don't go far enough, because telling the cost side tells only half. Listeners and readers are left with the impression that "yeah, it costs a fortune." But then you can hear their Gore-pressed consciences wonder, "but don't we still have to do something?"

This leads to the next (should be) obvious question -- one the alarmists never have to answer -- which is, "If we do what you are proposing we should do, what will we (or the Earth) get in exchange for what we spend?"

But instead of boldly proclaiming the great thermostatic results their policies will produce, they run away from the science they so adamantly claim that they stand behind. How? Because they cannot explain how much greenhouse gas reduction will cause global temperatures to change.

For all their jargon-filled technological conversations about how to "solve the problem," they only measure their goals in terms of emissions averted or reduced -- usually quantified in "million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent," or MMtCO2e. How's that for an absurd acronym?

So it's easy to stump the alarmists when you ask: What will the climate do when we lower MMtCO2e's? Can you doomsayers who so haughtily and demandingly chant "Science! Science! Science!" tell us how your plans will lower temps, save sea levels, and spare species?

They never answer in terms of degrees, so you can conclude that the "benefit" side of the ledger is zero.

Sound like a deal you'd want in on?

READ MORE