Tomorrow ~ Warmer weather is not a bad thing


By Paul Quigg, columnist

I can’t understand how warm weather has been allowed to be vilified as the root cause of a catastrophic future. The earth blooms and prospers in the warmth of spring and summer and things wither and die in the fall and winter. The human death rate is 15 percent higher in January than in July, and the graph of this fact is eerily consistent year to year. Today people are moving to the warm south, away from the cold north, the warm south is booming and the colder north is stagnating.

Our doomsday friends have nothing good to say about the coming warming, not a peep. Never acknowledging the fact that CO2 is a gaseous fertilizer, which is already having a very noticeable positive effect on plant growth. As an example, greenhouses pump in 1000 parts-per-million of CO2 to stimulate growth while we live with 415 ppm. The earth has warmed about 1.1 degrees Celsius in the last 140 years. The warming has been fairly consistent except for a slight dip in temperature from 1945 to 1983, in spite of rapidly growing CO2 emissions after WWII. The dip in the 50’s, 60’s and 70’s resulted in a “global cooling” scare which died later as the temperature returned to its upward trend. 

It is plain to see that the global temperature is rising, and will continue to rise as we pour more and more CO2 into the atmosphere. My concern is that the climate activists say the  higher temperature will be catastrophic. They predict more localized droughts, more localized rainfall, more disease, less food, more intense storms, and more of anything bad that they can think of. Over the past 20 years they have become more and more confident in their predictions based almost entirely on increased computer power. No new evidence to support their catastrophic claims. 

It sounds crazy to make such a dramatic accusation that warming is good, but when you take the time to explore the evolution of future climate science you can see that climate scientists never wanted to find anything good to say about warming. I have followed the careers of many climate scientists and if they fail to follow the party line they are soon dropped from consideration in future government, United Nations and thick tank publications.

I don’t know what the future climate will be like, there are just too many variables to predict what it will be like in 50 or 75 years. When I look at the total failure of past emission reductions, I feel secure in assuming the global community will continue to emit greenhouse gases and rationalize the results as the temperature continues to rise in basically the same trajectory as in the past. This should result in a 2C total temperature rise toward the end of this century. 

The doomsday projections of 3C, 4C, 5C do nothing but muddy the waters and scare the hell out of everyone. The voices at both ends of the climate discussion dominate the conversation and the middle ground is where we will find the solution. A realistic appraisal of a future 2C climate is mandatory for planning future mitigation and adaptation efforts. 

Mr. Quigg, a University of Virginia graduate and resident of Luray, has practiced architecture in the Mid-Atlantic region since 1962. As a lifelong environmentalist, in the 70’s he was appalled at the polluted air and water and has dedicated much of his time since in studying and commenting on the environment. He has been published in the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal and other publications. 



Tomorrow ~ Without subsidies, solar industry would dry up

Tomorrow ~ Thank you planning commission

Planning commission recommends denial of Cape Solar application by unanimous vote


New moratorium placed on future solar farm applications after Cape Solar mix up

Vaughan submits two late motions to waive moratorium on Cape Solar application

Top Post Ad


  1. You admit that there will be a 2-degree celsius rise in temps because of the use of fossil fuels. To do the math for us Americans, that means a 3.6-degree rise in fahrenheit. So if its a 100-degrees outside now on a hot summer day in Luray, imagine 103.6-degree day. You think our local farmers are excited by that?

    • I can’t remember the last time I had a 100 degree day. In the past I remember having one or two each summer. I lived through a 114 degree day in Australia, The humidity was low and I didn’t even break a sweat. I lived through a 90-plus degree day in humid Florida and was miserable. I lived through a 107 degree day in the Grand Canyon when the humidity was 4 percent, no sweat. Humidity makes all the difference to me.

      • Paul, buddy, they aint growing crops in the Grand Canyon or the deserts of Australia. There’s life beyond the air conditioning of your nice retired life.

        • There is an Indian Reservation at the bottom of the Grand Canyon where the temperature is the hottest. They grow many crops. I spent several days in Alice Springs in the Australian outback. I saw crops growing there. Its not 110 degrees very often anywhere. I have hiked and climbed all over the world and I will take hot over cold anytime.

  2. Paul is a nice guy, and appears to be smart and well intentioned, but his logic on climate changes “loses” and disappoints me…but I guess it’s really not a big deal to him, he won’t have to suffer the consequences…

    • Will; How does my logic “lose” and disappoint you? The future welfare of my 8 grandchildren and 3 great-grandchildren are of great concern to me. Over more than 53 years of environmental concerns I have continuously found that the doomsday rhetoric has totally missed the boat as mankind has prospered greatly.
      What kind of climate future do you see?


    The rise in temperature is probably not due to “greenhouse gases”.
    Greenland was once a place of lush forests. We aren’t back there yet in Greenland.

    “Ancient Greenland was green. New Danish research has shown that it was covered in conifer forest and had a relatively mild climate. The research is painting a picture which is overturning all previous assumptions about biological life and the climate in Greenland. The findings also show evidence of ice in Greenland during the Eemian interglacial period 125,000 years ago, which indicates that although we are now confronted with global warming, the whole ice sheet will probably not melt and bring about the tremendous sea-level rises which have been the subject of so much discussion.“

    • I read the “sciencedaily” article and I have a hard time tying events 125,000 years ago with todays climate.

  4. “I read the “sciencedaily” article and I have a hard time tying events 125,000 years ago with todays climate.“
    Well it’s pretty much the same thing except back then there wasn’t anybody to blame to make $$. The earth got warmer on its own. Imagine that!!

  5. Paul, please see April 22 above, identified as my post. I had not seen this until today.I do not recall saying it; it doesn’t sound like something I would say in a constructive discussion. Is there some other Will? If I DID say that, it was rude and I apologize.

    But to your question, since it’s a near certainty that we’ll surpass 1.5 C with decades to spare before 2100–the way we’re going–I’m not optimistic that we’ll be at “only” 2.0 in 78 years. And how would it happen, anyway, that we’d STAY at 2.0? That presupposes that we reach net zero through the kind of extraordinary efforts you appear to view as unrealistic.

    The unfulfilled doomsday predictions are conspicuous, but less prominent are all the times that warnings of bad futures turned out to be true. Hitler was no one to get very riled about, according to many Americans in the 30s.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.