GUEST POST from Don – Global Warming Re-Imagined (Again)

GLOBAL WARMING RE-IMAGINED (AGAIN)

Popular Mechanics, a left-leaning publication, had this headline recently:  “Earth’s Disastrous 10th Tipping Point Has Been Identified.”

Seriously?  The earth NEEDS another “tipping point?”  Aside from the humor, considering the earth is basically a BALL … there is no “tipping point.”  If the earth were a table it COULD have a tipping point.  (Before you respond … I know what they are trying to say … and they are wrong about that for the reason I will soon mention.)

This morning I read another article (forget where, sorry) that had a chart which showed earth average temperature since about 1880 (I forget the exact year).  It took over a century, according to earth scientists, for the earth to “warm” a single degree F.  I remember 1982  fairly well.  “Scientists” were warning, even then, that we were facing “Man-made Global Warming” and that we would “pass the tipping point in less than 12 years.”  (For those who have a problem with math … we passed the first “tipping point” 32 years ago.  Half of the population was not even born yet.)  In those 32 years we have increased the world population by 2.6 BILLION (an increase of +46%).  Each person adds to the “problem.”  What are the earth scientists doing about population growth?  

Considering population growth ALONE, if each person has a negative impact on the planet temperature (I don’t think so, but lets go with it), then the speed of damage should have increased by 46% since 1994 if no efforts were made to reduce greenhouse gases produced.  When we look at the temperature chart with that in mind, we do see that earth “temperature” has increased in line with population growth (if we consider 1880 as a “normal” heating year).

Honestly, I don’t know it if matters.  However, earth scientists don’t seem all that concerned by the rapid increase of population even though they wildly proclaim that we have to reduce the things humans create (carbon, cow farts, personal jets that transport earth scientists to earth death seminars, etc.).  And since world population is growing faster than we can slow the production of carbon, etc. it only makes sense that some effort should be made to slow or stop population growth.  BUT THEY AREN’T.  I suggest that the fact they aren’t is creating another “tipping point.”  That would be # 11, wouldn’t it (sarcasm intended).

Let’s re-imagine how to slow MMGW.  What causes it?  The answer is in the title, by the way: man (human beings).  The obvious solution then, logically (we wouldn’t want to use logic would we?): is to reduce or stabilize the number of humans (men and women).  What is the easiest way to reduce humans?  Birth control.  Birth control is cheap compared to everyone in the world buying e-cars.  Therefore we have a sensible and inexpensive solution to the problem they imagine we have.

Here’s an article headline from AP:  “What if 1 in 10 people changed how they eat, drive or heat?”

What is the first thing you notice about that headline?  I first noticed is that the writer ASSUMED no population growth.  The second is the assumption that a tiny change would make an ACTUAL definable difference,  In the USA, strangely enough, we have reduced greenhouse gas emissions by 37% already (even with population growth), but the rest of the world hasn’t.  What this person is imagining is that all we need do is reduce it by a tiny fraction more.  If that is all we need, why the big push?  But we already know (a government agency evaluated this) that even if EVERY person ate less red meat, and every vehicle was electric, and every home was all-electric we still wouldn’t meet the established climate goal.  Therefore this article’s premise is false.

That brings me to the largest criticism I have with the MMGW conversation.  No one has an answer to this question:  “How much is enough?”

The corollary question is:  “What happens if we do TOO MUCH?”  That points to the very issue at hand.  If we don’t know the actual goal (and no one has defined that for us yet), how will we know when we have arrived?

Regarding construction: before we build the house we already know how many squares of shingles it will take to roof it.  Regarding manufacturing:  before we start the process we already know how many pieces of angle iron will be needed per day.  But when it comes to “doing things” to correct MMGW we have no insight?  “Let’s just do SOMETHING?”  That is a real problem.  At some point the average person will ask, “How much more do I need to do?”  The earth scientists don’t have an answer or even a prediction.  It is always “Just a little more!”

So, eventually the kids in the car are going to whine:  “Are we there yet?”  And our earth scientist “parents’” only answer is, “We don’t know where ‘there’ is.”

So, no one knows where THERE is and no one knows how much more we need to do to arrive.  I see that as an existential problem.  We know something will kill us but we don’t know how much we need to do to prevent our extinction.  All they do is add warning to warning, and tell us is that the earth has another “tipping point.”  That’s not very helpful, is it!

One more criticism of MMGW scientists…they care more about when we will reach a tipping point than they are about defining all that we must do to solve (stop) it.  Just tell us the whole story!  Do we have to reduce emissions by 99%, 89%, 79% or 49.137% from 2026 production?  The corollary is: “If we are allowing population growth, how will we ever achieve the solution?”  So, if global population grows by another 50%, what value is there to reducing carbon output by 33% per person?  Wouldn’t the extra number of people produce the exact same tonnage of carbon emissions?  (Yes, they would, by the way, which I will now illustrate).  

Here’s a math ILLUSTRATION to explain the issue:  Let’s say we presently have 100 people on the planet and each person produces 1 ton of planet-killing carbon per year.  If the population grows by 50%, the planet has 150 people.  Thankfully, through technology we have reduced the carbon production per person to 2/3 ton.  When there were 100 people they produced a total of 100 tons of carbon per year.  Now, with 150 people, and each producing 2/3 ton, the population produces exactly 100 tons of carbon.  Technology can never win if we don’t have population control.  See?

(By the way, I’m not for population control.  I’m merely explaining the lack of logic among earth scientists, writers, and politicians.)

Copyright 2026 Donald Whelpley

[PLEASE NOTE that Don is always open to discussing the thoughts and opinions he shares here and welcomes comments as shared in the comment section. He doesn’t use other social media platforms and won’t see whatever you’d like to share with him if you post it elsewhere.
ALSO, Don is always open to offer his thoughts on various topics. If you have a specific request, you can let him know in a comment; he reads – and replies to – them all. ~ Sherry]

See more GUEST POSTS from Don