Answer Key for Global Warming is Good for You

Thesis: Global warming is a good thing and is better than a new ice age that would threaten the existence of humanity.

Support: Global cooling caused by a reduction in sunlight (particles in the air or a fall in sunspots) is a well-recognized threat to human life, there being various instances of it in the (relatively) recent past (17th C England, AD540 Europe, and the collapse of civilizations in 1650BC and 2350BC). The usual state of the Earth is cold the norm is Ice Age and small drops in temperature can trigger a feedback loop which multiplies the cooling effect. It is better to keep our planet warming (i.e. through greenhouse gas emissions) than risk falling into a new ice age. (Steel uses the analogy of keeping a drunkard away from the edge of a cliff, thus implying that the deliberate maintenance of greenhouse emissions may help save us.) Changes in climatic conditions that result in the movement of peoples are a common feature of human history the status quo is the exception rather than the norm (Steel also quotes geological data, such as the change in coastlines) and we need to be prepared to adapt, even if it means abandoning low-lying cities, etc.

Evaluation: Steel offers a provocative counterpoint to current alarming reports on the catastrophic consequences of global warming; that is, he takes a broader, cosmological perspective (as one might expect from a space physicist) in addressing the threat to human life. As an alternative perspective, it is welcome. Steel is no doubt correct that change is the norm and that ice ages are a common feature of Earth on a more cosmological timescale (see Changing science, The Economist, 10 December 2005). However, while his grasp of science is sound and he does not for a moment deny the reality of global warming, he may have underestimated the effects on humanity, not to mention other terrestrial life. Giving up cities like Miami to rising seawaters could have tremendous economic and social implications (consider the recent debacle in New Orleans), and arguing that rich, greenhouse gas-emitting countries assist poorer affected countries like Bangladesh may be just wishful thinking. National boundaries and overpopulation

may also make population relocation much more difficult today than it was in the past. There is also a glibness to Steels treatment of these human dimensions that is rather disturbing. Although Steel is also correct that the Earths climate wavers between hot and cold and that no median can ever be maintained over the long term, he may have created something of a false dilemma by encouraging a passive response to the global warming that humankind no doubt contributes to. (Indeed, in relation to his point about keeping the man away from the cliff, he seems to positively encourage it.) Surely, some reduction of greenhouse gases would be prudent even if we accept Steels argument that it is better to be hot than cold. Just as there is a feedback loop that leads to the onset of ice ages, there is also one that seems to be driving global warming at the moment (see Global warming: passing the tipping point, The Independent, 11 February 2006), and a further irony is that the effect on sea currents resulting from the melting polar ice caps may lead to drastic cooling in certain regions producing something more akin to an ice age (Northern Europe, it has been suggested, could experience far colder winters if the moderating effect of the warm Gulf Stream were lost).