[Demosthenes]

Iain- As promised, just a couple days later...


Despite the many fears and worries we have heard over the years, it appears global warming isn’t such a big deal after all. Since the late 1970s we have heard many claims that our burning of fossil fuels was contributing to a large rise in temperature on the planet Earth. We have been led to believe that due to our sloth and greed we are slowly going to roast ourselves out of our homes as the temperature soars. Many claims also exist stating that there is a scientific consensus on the matter, yet careful examination of the facts reveals this to be untrue as well. The case for global warming is still mostly speculative, and in most aspects unprovable at this time.
The first fact that any global warming advocate will make you aware of is the rising temperature pattern around the globe. This fact, while partly true doesn’t really tell the whole story. According to the Environmental Protection Agency (Global Warming) the average temperature of the planet has risen one degree Fahrenheit in the last century. This fact is not widely disputed by any source. What we find, however, is a dispute on what will occur in the next century. The EPA goes on to “...[project] further global warming of 2.2-10 degrees F...by the year 2100.” (Uncertainties) However scientists like John Christy dispute such a number. Christy, a respected climatologistand professor of Earth Science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, claims to have found little sign of global warming in satellite data. He simply says such forecasts are wrong. Christy’s major contribution to the field has been to analyze millions of measurements from these weather satellites.
Proponents of the global warming hypothesis claim this warming trend is caused by rising levels of carbon dioxide in the lower atmosphere that has been increased by man’s burning of fossil fuels. According to Arther B. And Zachary W. Robinson (Science Has Spoken...) it is indeed true that the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has risen. They state that: “It [Carbon Dioxide levels] is now about 360 parts per million, vs. 290 at the beginning of the 20th century...” They further offer that “This rise probably results from human burning of coal, oil, and natural gas, although this is not certain.” Indeed a true consensus based on facts and not speculation or supposition proved quite difficult to determine. The pair go on to say there is 50 times as much carbon dioxide in the air as there is in the atmosphere, further stating, “...movement between these reservoirs...is poorly understood.” So from here we are left to assume that the higher levels of carbon dioxide in the air are probably the result of man’s use of fossil fuels. Both sides of the issue seem willing to accept that.
All this talk of carbon dioxide, while not exactly stimulating to the casual reader, might lead one to believe that this compound plays quite a large role in containing heat within the atmosphere. This assumption, like so many others pertaining to global warming would be false. As a greenhouse gas CO2 is most often mentioned in conjunction with global warming as the major offender in the quest to heat up the planet. To place the offending gas in proper perspective though we must note that in fact it accounts for just under 2% of the total volume of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. David Allen Jared notes the make-up of greenhouse gases as, “97% WATER VAPOR, 1.7%CO2 & 1.3% a variety of other substances–including CFCs, neon, argon, smoke particles (suspended solids), etc.” Which leads one to wonder just what all the fuss about carbon dioxide is in the first place? It would seem that one of ole’ Bill Shakespeare’s plays comes to mind: Much Ado About Nothing!
Even if we assume that the scientists noted above have some super secret hidden agenda we have to wonder at this point what elevated levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would actually mean to us on planet Earth. According to the EPA,

Rising global temperatures are expected to raise sea level, and change precipitation and other local climate conditions. Changing regional climate could alter forests, crop yields, and water supplies. It could also affect human health, animals, and many types of ecosystems. Deserts may expand into existing rangelands, and features of some of our National Parks may be permanently altered.

That certainly sounds terrible. According to that just about everything we know and love will be affected by this terrible phenomenon. I wouldn’t lay awake at night over it though. It seems carbon dioxide, despite it’s less than glowing reputation among global warming hypothesizers, does have some useful functions. One of the primary functions is of course plant growth. There is mounting evidence that instead of destroying habitats the increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will actually be beneficial to plant life, which in turn supports the growth of more animal life. Indeed Christopher Joyce of National Public Radio reports that, “Forests in a remote part of the Amazon are suddenly growing like teenagers in a growth spurt. Scientists think it might be caused by the extra carbon dioxide humans are putting into the air...”
The Robinson brothers (Science Has Spoken...) also add a good deal to this topic stating,

A great deal of research has shown that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide accelerate the growth of plants and also permit plants to grow in drier regions. Animal life, which depends upon plants, also increases. Standing timber in the United States has already increased by 30% since 1950. There are now 60 tons of timber for every American...It has also been found that mature Amazonian rain forests are increasing in biomass at about two tons per acre per year. A composite of 279 studies predicts that overall plant growth rates will ultimately double as carbon dioxide increases.

When taken together these statements cast doubt on the whole issue. Surely global warming proponents have to re-examine their data and motives in light of these facts. Yet, unfortunately there are those that persist in spite of this evidence. Once again David Allen Jared offers his take on their motives,

...reducing greenhouse gases is NOT the final agenda of these people. Stopping humankind from burning oil and gas is. Understanding that oil and gas are the two most important substances that...fuel the engine of the American economy, they are intent on causing that engine to come to a grinding halt–or, at the very least, slow it to a crawl. Why? Because there are those in our own country who honestly believe that the world economy is a pie and we enjoy too large a slice.

Though I’m not sure I’m ready to buy into his logic completely I do think Mr. Jared’s insight into the rationale of these people is useful. I think when it comes right down to it those who support the global warming hypothesis are politically motivated, thereby rendering their conclusions suspect.
Finally, we examine the scientific consensus that is alleged to exist in regard to the global warming hypothesis. David Ridenour, vice president of The National Center for Public Policy Research offers an example of one such claim citing “A page one story appearing in The Washington Post on November 12...blared, ‘Consensus Emerges Earth is Warming–Now What?’.” Ridenour then goes on to explain that newspapers like the Post, and even politicians like former Vice-President Al Gore had accepted these statements based on letters like one entitled “Scientists’ Statement on Global Climatic Disruption.” You may ask what’s wrong with that? What’s wrong is as Ridenour again illustrates,

It purported to have as signatories 2, 611 scientists from the U.S. and abroad endorsing the idea that the scientific evidence of global warming was conclusive. The only problem is, most of the signers have little or no background in climate science... only about 10% of the letter’s signers have experience in fields connected with climate science.

That would not seem to be a valid consensus then. This glaring error in the Washington Post’s article is hardly the only example Ridenour can muster of shady journalism covering for even shadier claims by the global warming proponents. Namely the group from the United Nations responsible for the Kyoto Protocol. The Intergovernment Panel on Climate Change or IPCC. He goes on to show how this particular group railroaded it’s own scientists into supporting the claims of global warming,

...The report, which purports to be the culmanation of some 2,000 scientists’ work, found that the ‘balance of evidence suggests a discernable human influence’ on climate. But this is misleading: While many scientists did work on the Second Assessment Report, they did not necessarily support the conclusions of the final report. As Dr. John Zillman, one of the scientist who participated in the process noted, ‘[The IPCC was] meticulous in insisting that the final decision on whether to accept particular review comments should reside with chapter Lead Authors. This was at variance with the normal role of journal editorial boards and led to suggestions that some Lead Authors ignored valid critical comments or failed to adequately reflect dissenting views when revising their text.’

Well it’s no wonder the Kyoto Protocol has been under such scrutiny in the United States. If Dr. Zillman’s experience was as widespread as is implied we certainly have to look even more strongly at Mr. Ridenour’s comments earlier about partisanship as a motive behind not just the Kyoto Protocol but indeed global warming as a whole.
So then in an attempt to sort out all this we are left with a disturbing picture, at least in as far as what we’ve always been told about global warming. First it seems temperature rise is fairly steady. Further we see that, while man is adding some carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, there is evidence that this extra greenhouse gas is actually good for our long term survival on planet Earth. We then note that carbon dioxide isn’t even that significant in terms of over all greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, lagging behind water vapor by more than 95%. Finally when we examine the partisanship and downright stubbornness of those who can purportedly counter the points made here, which then renders their counterpoints moot, we come to the inevitable conclusion that global warming isn’t such a given after all.






http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/index.html EPA Global Warming, Climate, Emissions, and Impacts. October 2002.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1893089 NPR. 2004, Richard Harris. Part 2: John Christy, University of Alabama Climatologist

http://www.junkscience.com/news/robinson.htmScience Junk Science. 1997, Arther B. Robinson, Zachary W. Robinson (reprinted with permission of Dow Jones & Co., Inc. The Wall Street Journal (December 4, 1997)

http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA177.html National Policy Analysis. David Ridenour, The Myth of Scientific Consensus on Global Warming.

http://www.useless-knowledge.com/articles/apr/july137.htmlUseless Knowledge. July 14, 2004, David Allen Jared, Junk Science and Global Warming.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1756130
NPR. March 10, 2004, Christopher Joyce, Amazon Forest Growth Puzzles Scientists.

*EDIT- links fixed.

[XX55XX]

I think we can take better steps to limit the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, but, this doesn't really sway me at all. What about the smog in the cities? What about the hottest years back in 1999 and 2000, where many died in the heat waves?

[Demosthenes]

Why do we need to limit CO2 when there is growing evidence that CO2 increases plant growth? Why, when 97% of greenhouse gas(es) is Water Vapor?

C'mon...Did you even read the whole thing?

[Iain]

Interesting piece.

My initial thought is that there's little examination of the science behind the proponents of human-caused climate change. For example, why is it that scientists believe that global warming is likely to accelerate in the next century and what evidence is there that the models they use for those predictions are flawed?

I think the comments about the proportion of climatologists signing various documents are a little weak. Exactly the same comments could be made about documents against climate change.

I didn't agree with the CO2 comments either. The comments about the number of trees are very misleading. Rich western nations are planting more trees; but that is cancelled out several times over by the numbers being cut down elsewhere.

To understand why CO2 is important, despite the small proportion of greenhouse gases it makes up, we need to appreciate that it isn't CO2 itself but a feedback effect CO2 has on water vapour in the troposphere and water vapour, as you rightly say, is a major greenhouse gas.

Not all greenhouse gasses are equal - they each absorb & reflect radiation at different wavelengths. This all means that just saying CO2 makes up 2% of greenhouse gases doesn't actually tell you anything very useful.

Lastly, comments about the politicisation of the issue also aren't very useful. The claims come from both sides and I've looked at it in a bit of detail and found no evidence that the political impetus from either side is particularly stronger than from the other.