|
|
|
Advertisements
|
|
|
|
HELP TO OFFSET COUNTERFEIT GLOBAL WARMING
ARGUMENTS
B
Y KEN
THORNBERG
If there is one thing I have noticed, it is that
if you repeat a lie often enough, it wears down the opposition and people begin
to believe the lie. Global warming is one such issue. It seems that
everyone is finally accepting that global warming is the evil culprit for
environmental disasters, no matter what that disaster is. It is being touted
this way to such an extent, citizens are beginning to accept that it just might
be a huge problem and we will have to sacrifice our income and standard of
living to help save the planet. Pressures are building that have the potential
of distorting energy policies in a way that will severely damage national
economies, decrease standards of living, and increase poverty. This misdirection
of resources will adversely affect health and welfare in industrialized nations
and even more in developing nations.
Well, I have additional news for all of you that,
if shared, will turn peoples’ heads from believing this lie to understanding
what is really behind the façade. For example, it is fact that human
activities are not influencing the global climate in a perceptible way. Climate
has always, and will continue to, change. Warming and cooling trends are normal
to this planet, with or without human activity. For example, take this newspaper
heading from the Washington Post: “Arctic Ocean Getting Warm: Seals Vanish and
Icebergs Melt.” However, unfortunately for today’s environmentalists, the
date for this heading is November 2, 1922. It goes on to say that many
glaciers have entirely disappeared. Again, unfortunate for global warming
scaremongers, decades later those glaciers were back to full size! They ignored
that one.
One must realize that this is not just another
environmental fad, like the Alar apple scare or the global cooling fears
of the 1970s. It is plausible that humans could be responsible for
warming the climate. After all, burning of fossil fuels to generate energy
releases large quantities of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. That level is
now 35% higher than it was 200 years ago. Carbon dioxide is a “green-house gas”
which strongly absorbs infrared (heat) radiation. But…we must recognize all
factors that have warmed climates prior to human presence on the earth, at least
to any large degree. After all, the geological record shows a persistent 1,500
year cycle of warming and cooling extending back at least a million years,
according to S. Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the
U. of Virginia, and president of the Science and Environmental Policy Project.
He was also vice chairman of the U.S. National Advisory Committee on Oceans and
Atmosphere, so we are not speaking of a novice on this topic when I quote him.
Dr. Singer said the following recently before a college crowd, “Many
politicians and environmental activists simply appeal to a so-called ‘scientific
consensus.’
There are two things wrong with this. First,
there is no such consensus. An increasing number of climate scientists are
raising serious questions about the political rush to judgment on this issue.
The widely touted ‘consensus’ of 2,500 scientists on the U.N. Governmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is an illusion. Most of the panelists have no
scientific qualifications and many of the others object to some part of the IPCC’s
report. The AP reported recently that only 52 climate scientists contributed to
the report’s ‘Summary for Policymakers.’ Only about a dozen members of the
governing board voted on the ‘consensus statement’ on climate change by the
American Meteorological Society (AMS). Rank and file AMS scientists never had a
say, which is why so many of them are now openly rebelling. Estimates of
skepticism within the AMS regarding man-made global warming are well over 50%.”
Dr. Singer went on to state that his second reason for not relying on a “scientifi
c consensus” is that this is not how real science works.
Science proceeds by the scientific method and
draws conclusions based on evidence, not on a show of hands! Any kind
of warming, for example, will melt ice. It need not be man-caused for it to
happen. Saying human causation brought about the melting of ice caps is bad
logic.
Amazing Observations!
Because temperatures are rising at the same time
as carbon dioxide levels is an interesting correlation, but correlation is not
causation. During much of the past century, the climate was cooling while
carbon dioxide levels were rising. The climate has not warmed in the past eight
years, even though greenhouse gas levels have increased rapidly! Consider that
theoretically, greenhouse warming in the tropics should register at increasingly
higher rates as one moves from the surface of the earth up into the atmosphere,
peaking at about 6 miles above the earth’s surface. At that point, the level
should be greater than at the surface by about a factor of three and quite
pronounced, according to all compute models. However, in reality there is no
increase at all! In fact, the data from balloonborne radiosondes show the very
opposite: a slight decrease in warming over the equator. It all indicates
that the manmade greenhouse contribution to current temperature change is
insignificant. In addition to carbon dioxide, the real atmosphere contains water
vapor, the most powerful greenhouse gas. It is quite possible that water vapor
feedback is negative rather than positive and thereby reduces the effect of
increased CO2. When increased CO2 produces a warming of the ocean, a higher rate
of evaporation might lead to more humidity and cloudiness. These low clouds
reflect incoming solar radiation back into space and thereby cool the
earth.
Natural Causes of Warming
Here are some causes that scientists accept which
you may have never read about: continental drift and mountain-building, changes
in the Earth’s orbit, volcanic eruptions, and solar variability. Is it not odd
that we never hear about these in our liberal press? Of these, solar variability
is the most important. Without boring our readers with the scientific details,
scientists looked into Oxygen-18 data and Carbon-14 data on stalagmites in caves
and found that the sun affects climate change more than almost anything. Things
such as solar irradiance, variability of the ultra-violet portion of the solar
spectrum that affects ozone in the stratosphere, and variations in the solar
wind that modulates the intensity of cosmic rays—these are ways solar
influence manifests itself.
Natural causes of climate change cannot be
controlled by man. They are unstoppable. Consider what policy changes might
occur if these facts were accepted. Regulation of CO2 emissions is pointless and
even counterproductive, not counting the enormous expense. The development
of non-fossil fuel energy sources, like ethanol and hydrogen, might be
counter-productive, given that they must be manufactured (through great amounts
of energy themselves) and they don’t offer much reduction in oil imports.
Third, wind and solar power are truly uneconomic and require huge subsidies.
Finally, substituting natural gas for coal in electricity generation makes less
sense for the same reasons.
Science vs. Hysteria
Why do we have mayors calling for mandatory CO2
controls, governors calling for CO2 emissions limits on automobiles, and a
Supreme Court declaring CO2 as a pollutant that may have to be regulated? What
is going on? Well, tens of thousands of interested persons benefit directly form
the global warming scare, at our expense. Environmental organizations have raked
in billions of dollars! Multi-billion dollar government subsidies for useless
mitigation schemes are large and growing. Emission trading programs will soon
read the $100 billion a year level. These have formed quite an entrenched
interest. And then there is Kyoto where we now have international demands for
even more stringent controls, controls that oddly do not include China in the
picture! If you have visited Beijing recently, as I have, you would notice that
you couldn’t see skyscrapers a quarter mile in front of you due to its
pollution. I had a good laugh when I read in the newspaper the following day how
the Chinese government was meeting its highest standards for air pollution on
days like that. One day in Beijing will convince any American as to why the
Kyoto Protocol is a joke.
The irony is that a slightly warmer climate can
in many ways be beneficial rather than damaging. Increased CO2 levels will
increase GNP and raise standards of living, primarily by improving agriculture
and forestry. Northern homes will save on heating fuel, Canadian farmers could
harvest bumper crops and Greenland could be awash in cod and oil riches.
Shippers are right now looking into a northern shortcut between the Atlantic and
Pacific—it is a very real possibility this fall. Forests can expand. Even
Mongolia could become an economic giant. These gains will be greater than any
predicted losses.
It is a real shame that so many of our resources
are being diverted from real problems to this non-problem. Will reason
eventually prevail? That is the big question. If every American could know a few
simple facts that make Al Gore’s move look like the fairy tale it really is,
maybe so. It would mean that politicians would have to accept solid science and
good sense in the wake of their own irrational fabricated story that seeks to
impose greater controls over humankind and reduce their freedoms even more. That
is the real goal of those at the top of this spectrum. As always, we need to
make our wishes known to our local, state and federal representatives and speak
the truth to as many people as we can. We have no choice—our lives and
occupations are at stake.
|
