Authors note: This is a repost from an older blog of mine.
The debate surrounding Manmade Climate Change is said to be over; I would beg to differ. In all the science that has been purported as proving manmade climate change there seems to be a plethora of counter science and counter arguments. Although there appears to be a great consensus in the mass media and in governments, it is just that: an apparent consensus.
Over the last few years there have been many scientific reports and some not so scientific conclusions drawn from those reports. Along with non-scientific alarmist documentaries, which stem from the policy driven political conclusions, there are also very scientific reports and documentaries proving the opposite of the so-called consensus.
In order to understand what this debate is really about, I believe it is important to first define what climate change and global warming are.
Climate change “Refers to any significant change in measures of climate (such as temperature, precipitation or wind) lasting for an extended period (decades or longer). Climate change may result from natural factors, natural processes or human activities.”
Where as global warming is “An average increase in the temperature of the atmosphere near the Earth's surface and in the troposphere. According to the EPA, ‘in common usage, global warming often refers to the warming that can occur as a result of increase emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities.’" (Crapo)
Using these definitions, it is easy to look at the science and arguments from both sides and determine whether or not Climate change is happening and whether or not it is manmade. Unfortunately, only one side of the debate has been given a fair shake in the media and in scientific circles: the pro-manmade climate change theory.
Science is supposed to be a fair and open forum for the exchange of ideas and theories. That is until research and evidence shows one side to be correct, and even then there is supposed to still be room for alternative theories and dissent without the risk of professional consequences. In the global warming debate (the one that is over), there has been a decided effort to silence those who oppose the “consensus” by intimidation and ad hominem attacks.
“Heidi Cullen, climatologist at the Weather Channel, suggested disagreement should mean a loss of meteorological certification: ‘if a meteorologist can’t speak to the fundamental science of climate change, then maybe the AMS shouldn’t give them a Seal of Approval.’”
“Ellen Goodman, from the Boston Globe, wrote: ‘Let’s just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and the other denies the present and future.’” (Beck p.2)
This, of course, comes from those same people that can’t even predict the weather a day in advance 50% of the time. Another area that one must be wary of when considering the science of manmade global warming is the underlying social and political motives for a climate crisis.
“Climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world. No matter if the science is all phony, there are still collateral environmental benefits [to global warming policies].” – Christine Stewart, Canada’s former environmental minister.
“Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on earth, social and environmental.” – Dave Forman, Founder of Earth First!
These few quotes—and there are many more—show that there is more than just science behind the conclusions drawn by scientists—scientists that usually work for and are paid by the government in one way or another. If one were to look into the policies that surround climate change, it would become painfully obvious that the Kyoto protocol and carbon offset/ trading policies do more to redistribute wealth than they do to regulate the climate. By regulating the carbon emissions, multi-national governments seek to control not only the economy of nations but the sovereignty of them as well. Just pay attention to what world leaders are saying “[Kyoto is] the first component of an authentic global governance.” – Jacques Chirac (2000)
It seems that most environmentalists see CO2 as a bad thing, even though the link between CO2 levels and global temperatures has not been proven. In fact, the evidence that had once been used to suggest the link has been thoroughly refuted.
“A team led by professor Michael Mann of the University of Virginia published a chart in Nature magazine in 1998 purporting to reconstruct global temperatures showing a stable climate for six hundred years. In 1999 Mann extended the reconstruction to cover 1,000 years, showing temperature as having been stable throughout. This miraculously did away with well-established climatic phenomena known as the Medieval Warm Period, followed by a Little Ice Age. These phenomena, it turned out, actually did appear in his data, but didn’t find their way into his representation. The result was the “hockey Stick” graph. This confirmed what the climate alarmists hoped for. It was touted as the ‘smoking gun’ for manmade global warming by establishing that, until human influence, climate was largely stable.” (Horner p.120)
Of course, this Hockey Stick graph has since been proven false based on the poor science that was behind it, science undoubtedly driven by politics more than the scientific method.
This misunderstood belief about the effect of CO2 on climate gained wide spread attention when the graph appeared in Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” along with the IPCC’s Third Assessment Report. From these misrepresentations of the facts, many laypersons were led astray in the what was then called the Global Warming debate.
This brings up another interesting point in the history of the long-standing climate crises that have been reported in the media for over a century. Within the last year, the crisis has changed—much like it did from the 70’s when scientists were calling for detrimental global cooling. A year ago the problem was Global Warming; now the crisis is Climate change. Why the change in terms? Well, as you can see from the definitions mentioned above, Climate change is something that goes both ways. Any weather anomaly can be easily associated with it, unlike Global Warming, which scientists seemed to have had a hard time with when explaining away how the world could “have a fever” and be having record cold spells and snow storms. The change in terms allows for the extremes of nature on both ends of the thermometer which means that no matter what the weather or the natural disaster, politicians could some how use it to their advantage in the political debate.
The other issue that is brought up by the “Hockey Stick” fallacy is that CO2 is seen as a pollutant.
“Now the global warming advocates point to the increase in Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere. Its up, way up; no argument about that. Our modern civilization, powered by fossil fuels, sends tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere as we generate electricity to power our lights, furnaces and air conditioners, computers, television sets, cell phone and ipods and as we drive gasoline powered cars and fly in airplanes. Our modern standard of living is absolutely linked to CO2. And it has increased in our atmosphere from around 218 parts per million in 1900 to about 375 ppm today. You need to understand immediately that CO2 is a naturally occurring trace element in our atmosphere. For one thing, we humans produce it every time we breathe. Plants and trees must have it grow. So CO2 was already in our atmosphere before we discovered oil. CO2 is not a pollutant.” (Coleman)
The misconception that CO2 is a pollutant aids the carbon trading lobby—of which Al Gore is a large player in and considerable benefactor—and in doing so compels law makers to put forth policies that discourage the use of conventional fuels and the conventional way of producing energy as well as wealth.
“Now the really good news: The increase in our atmospheric carbon dioxide during the 20th and early 21st centuries has produced no deleterious effects upon Earth’s weather and climate. There is absolutely no correlation between the increase in CO2 and average worldwide or US temperatures. And, predictions of harmful climatic effects due to future increases in hydrocarbon use and resulting increases in minor greenhouse gases such as CO2 do not conform to current experimental knowledge or have any scientific basis. On the other hand, increased carbon dioxide has markedly increased plant growth. Forest growth and farm crop output per acre have grown proportionally with increased atmospheric CO2 that is a key to photosynthesis in plants.” (Coleman)
Of course, what does this mean about policies that discourage the use of carbon emitting energy sources? These policies are against the environment! And not only the natural environment but also the human environment. Not only will there be less CO2 (plant food) but the policies also encourage the use of bio-fuels—policies that are supposed to stop the famines that are said to be in the future if the climate increases on its current trend—which have adverse effects on the prices of food for not only Americans, but the world. Third world countries are especially in danger of the rise in food costs, especially foods such as corn, rice, grain, sugar, and soy.
“As a result of the subsidies, farmers are shifting production of wheat, soy and other crops to corn instead. Last year alone, an additional 78 million acres of corn ere planted. There will be more than 90 million planted this year…Growing more corn means that other crops will be in short supply and their prices will rise.” (Topol)
In a twist of irony man made climate change policies are causing that which they were designed to prevent. Even more ironic is that the policies that look to stopping problems in the future have really just expedited the process of famine and death. Keep in mind The Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman once said, "One of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs by their intentions rather than their results."
According to Ted Turner by the year 2040 the world’s crops will be dead. “Civilization will have broken down. The few people left will be living in a failed state like Somalia or the Sudan…most of the people will have died and the rest of us will be cannibals.” (WorldNetDaily 2008) This is of course more alarmism about climate change and the future, but who is raising the alarm for the atrocities that are already taking place due to the policies that our leaders have implemented.
As the science community becomes more scrutinized by other media and free thinking organizations that don’t care about the bad PR in the press new information has been coming to light that seems to put the final nail in the coffin of man made climate change.
“A twelve-month long drop in world temperatures erases global warming. Over the past year, anecdotal evidence for a cooling planet has exploded. China has its coldest winter in 100 years. Baghdad sees its first snow in all recorded history. North America has the most snow cover in 50 years…All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA’s GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously…The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C—a value large enough to erase nearly all the global warming recorded over the past 100 years.” (Global Cooling)
Although this and other evidence seem to point directly in opposition to a warming planet, Climate Alarmists still want to have their cake and eat it too. “Global temperatures for 2008 will be slightly cooler than last year as a result of the cold La Nina current in the Pacific, UN meteorologists have said…when you look at climate change you should not look at any particular year, you should look at trends over a pretty long period and the trend of temperature globally is still very much indicative of warming.” (Harrabin 2008) Even in the face of evidence to suggest the contrary, those who are invested—literally, with carbon trading companies and green initiatives—in climate change are willing to contradict their own philosophies. That is why people like Al Gore have to use incorrect data and lies to sell their product.
“Gore misrepresents the way CO2 actually contributes to the ‘greenhouse effect.’ In mathematical terms, the CO2-green-house effect relation is logarithmic, not linear. That is, each molecule has less of a greenhouse impact than the molecule before it. A doubling of the amount of CO2 in the air has the same effect as the previous doubling. In short, even global warming theory holds that Man’s emissions are insufficient to have caused the one-degree warming since the Little Ice Age ended.” (Horner p. 217)
Gore has even admitted that it is perfectly fine for him to lie to the public about climate change and its effects. “I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on ho dangerous [global warming] is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are.” (Horner p. 209)
But what happens if you take the advice to look at long trends? What does the evidence show? The evidence shows an undeniable link between sun activity—namely sunspots—and global climate. The evidence shows that climate is cyclical—medieval warm period, little ice age. The evidence shows that we still don’t know that much about our own climate to predict a week ahead of time, much less 30+ years into the future like Teddy Turner wants to do. The evidence shows that “combustion emissions contribute about 2% of greenhouse gases currently keeping out atmosphere habitable…manmade greenhouse gases are a tiny fraction of one factor…Most greenhouse gases are produced by ‘natural’ processes.” (Horner p. 69)
Water vapor constitutes Earth's most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect (4). Interestingly, many "facts and figures' regarding global warming completely ignore the powerful effects of water vapor in the greenhouse system, carelessly (perhaps, deliberately) overstating human impacts as much as 20-fold. Water vapor is 99.999% of natural origin. Other atmospheric greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and miscellaneous other gases (CFC's, etc.), are also mostly of natural origin (except for the latter, which is mostly anthropogenic). Human activities contribute slightly to greenhouse gas concentrations through farming, manufacturing, power generation, and transportation. However, these emissions are so dwarfed in comparison to emissions from natural sources we can do nothing about, that even the most costly efforts to limit human emissions would have a very small-- perhaps undetectable-- effect on global climate. (Hieb 2003)
But when the logical arguments fail and science is no longer the crutch holding up your meager theory the opponents turn to ad hominem arguments. The symbol of this is the Polar Bear.
By using pitting fuzzy animals—Polar Bears—against real killers—Oil Executives—it is hard for the side with all the evidence to win. The media paints a picture of humans as a menace to the environment and to society—the society of animals that is. The narrative the media chooses to use appeals to the emotions of every boy, girl and parent who has ever had a stuffed animal or has seen a coca-cola Christmas commercial. The media show ice falling into the ocean while discussing global warming and then talk about isolated cases where polar bears have died. In reality, polar bear populations are growing, not falling! “Of the twenty subpopulations of polar bears, more than half are stable, one or possibly two are decreasing and two are actually increasing.” (Burguiere 2008) This is the same argument used against those oil companies that want to drill in ANWR or off the coasts of America. “Stories about a 17% decline among polar bears in Canada’s Hudson Bay have been everywhere…In reality, the decline they talk about is only accurate if you specifically measure it from 1987. If you measure it from 1981 to today, the population has increased by 90%.” (Burguiere 2008) Not only do those alarmist stories give a false view of polar bears—people must think they are horrible swimmers!!—but it also destroys any chance of becoming energy independent without starving third world countries. “Dr. Daniel Fine of MIT reported that 750 billion barrels worth of oil shale have been discovered in Colorado alone.” (Loris 2008) This oil is, of course, discouraged from being tapped by the oil companies for it would endanger wildlife and only promote climate change. Thus, we are still not energy independent and there are no real solutions available for us within the near future.
Since we have no other fuel that is as dependent or as easy to use as gas, we can't really get rid of gas yet. “Corn based ethanol is a net energy loser. As Tom Mast has explained, approximately 131,000 BTUs are needed to produce a gallon of ethanol, which then has an energy value of 77,000 BTU…growing corn and distilling the ethanol takes about 1.7 times as much energy as the finished ethanol will produce.” (Topol) The transition to alternative fuels is going to have to be a long one. An economy can't just uproot everything. Let the market decide what is best. Government intervention in the market is dangerous and to think that it could mandate such a thing as getting rid of gas is dangerous. The world needs to use alternative fuels, yes. The funny thing is, the same people who want us to use alternative fuels do not want the ones that are proven and available. So many are against nuclear power and for reasons that don't stand up to scrutiny—3-mile island, it’s dangerous, nuclear waste. If anything, the nuclear plants that are old pose way more of a problem than any new ones would for obvious reasons—They are old!
If the green movement wants to really have an impact on climate—which is debatable that that’s a good thing, I mean change is bad right? So wouldn’t they be changing the climate too? Of course, our climate is the best it could possibly be right now, right? We don’t have crops lost to spring frosts or an inability to grow crops in the majority of Canada right?—they should stop with the word games and the empty promises and start moving toward real solutions and in a realistic time frame. Use nuclear energy and clean coal; use the resources we have now, while looking for new means.
All in all, I believe, after looking at the evidence, that Manmade climate change is real and they let onto their own trickery in the name…Manmade—the whole thing is a sham, and it is manmade, man-dreamt, man-created. The theory is made up out of politics to further an agenda with science made up to support it.
Is the Earth warming? I’d say it has been. “Approximately 0.74 degree Celsius (+/-0.18 degree) in the last 100 years—0.74 +/- 0.18, that’s a 26% margin of error!” (Beck p. 4) but it also has been cooling. By looking to the evidence one can see that it does both. To make a crisis about a natural event and call it climate change is utterly ridiculous. Of course the climate changes! What’s so bad about that? Why should we try to stop something that has been happening for thousands of years? “The medieval warm period was warmer than today…we have just emerged from the Little Ice Age…” (Horner p.111)
To look at the science is reason enough to question the supposed consensus on climate change, but to look at the policies and to see how little they would accomplish to solve a climate crisis makes even a firm believer in manmade climate change stay off the policy bandwagon. “An entire continent [Australia] being forced to use fluorescent light bulbs will reduce world emissions by 0.003%.” (Beck p.7) Other policies are just like this one; having little to no effect on the global climate, they severely change the economic climate. I guess from that point of view you could say that it is manmade climate change…manmade [economic] climate change.
Beck, G. (2007). An Inconvenient Book (1st ed.). New York: Threshold Editions.
Burguiere, S. (2008, May). Polar Bears (heart) Global Warming. Fusion, 3, 10., p. 14.
Coleman, J. Comments on Global Warming 2008. 7. 37 p.
dailytech. Temperature Monitors Report Worldwide Global Cooling. Retrieved February 26, 2008, fromwww.dailytech.com/temperature+monitors+report+worldwide+global+ cooling/article10866.htm
Harrabin, R. Global Temperatures 'to decrease' BBC News, April 8, 2008. 1-2. 2 p. Retrieved April 10, 2008, fromhttp://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/mpapps/pagetools/print/news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7329799.stm
Hieb, M. Water Vapor Rules The Greenhouse System.Global Warming: A closer look at the numbers.Retrieved April 28, 2008, fromhttp://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
Horner, C. C. (2007). The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism(1st ed.). Washington DC: Regnery Publishing, Inc.
Loris, N. Omnibus Prohibits Oil Shale Development.The Heritage Foundation. Retrieved February 12, 2008, fromwww.heritage.org/research/energyandenvironment/wm1754.cfm
Mike Crapo United States Senator Idaho. Climate Change. Retrieved April 27, 2008, fromhttp://crapo.senate.gov/issues/energy/ClimateChange.cfm
Topol, A. (2007, November). The Myth of Ethanol.Fusion, 3, 5., pp. 8-9.
WorldNetDaily. Ted Turner Predicts chaos, 'mass cannibalism' in U.S. Retrieved April 8, 2008, from www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.printable&pageld=60581