The objective of this paper ill be to look rationally at the debate over “global warming” (now euphemistically switched to climate change because the Earth has actually been in a cooling trend since 1998 (Spencer) and global warming no longer fits its proponents’ talking points) and shed the ever present light of truth on the arguments on behalf of Anthropogenic global warming. It is the intention of this paper to dispute the claims that Anthropogenic global warming is occurring.
This paper will examine the specific arguments regarding global warming or climate change, dispel the myths surrounding this volatile topic, ND illustrate that global warming is a natural cyclic event that humans have no significant control over. The first argument this paper will discuss regarding global warming is the alleged consensus of scientists that Anthropogenic global warming is indeed occurring. Second, to explore the methods of the scientific data collected thus far and illustrate the flaws in the collected data and prediction models based on that data.
Third, to review the arguments of greed put forth by AY Gore; et. Al. And understand the motives behind these individuals who strongly advocate Anthropogenic global arming. In the words of “Deep Throat” in the Movie All the Presidents Men regarding the Watergate scandal, “Follow the Money! ” In other words, who stands to gain by advancing the global warming agenda? (It should be noted that the argument of greed is launched by proponents of both sides toward each other. The profit motives of corporations are obvious and they do not purport to be above reproach.
However, those who claim to have no ulterior motive other than the salvation of the human race and the planet deserve to have the same scrutiny placed on them. ) Fourth, this paper will review the reposed remedies to avert global warming and illustrate how these remedies would cripple the global and United States economy. Finally, to bring all of these together to show that there is simply not enough data to make any knowledgeable conclusion regarding the true cause of global warming.
However, the data seems to begin to suggest that as life is cyclical, all things are cyclical, including the warming and cooling of the Earth. As such, while conservation is a positive and honorable endeavor, to take drastic measures to remedy a problem not fully understood is irresponsible and premature. By the end of this paper, the facts will be clear. An interesting side note, mentioned earlier, is the sudden change in language that occurred in late 2008, where the proponents of the global warming movement suddenly switched to using “climate change” as the preferred term for their cause.
To illustrate this subterfuge used by the proponents of global warming and the convenient change in nomenclature, Todd Wynn, Climate Change and Energy policy Analyst at the Cascade policy Institute writes: Global warming used to be the defining term to represent the increase in the average temperature of the earth during the past 100 years. Recently, the more politically popular term, climate change, has replaced global warming. Why? One main reason is because the earth IS currently cooling.
Global warming obviously entails global average temperature increase, whereas “climate change” is about much more than just temperature. “climate change” can represent just about anything which is handy when the earth doesn’t happen to cooperate with climate models predicting future climate catastrophe. Fifth earth gets too cold, if it gets too hot, if there happens to be a slight increase or decrease in storm/drought/precipitation frequency or intensity, all of these events Can be blamed on “climate change. (Wynn) A few stipulations must be made at the outset in order to have a rational and intelligent debate regarding the topic of “global warming. ” First, stipulation is made that the conservation of resources and responsible living, as it pertains to our environment, are good things. This author does not advocate dumping toxic chemicals in lakes, rivers, and streams. Nor does the author advocate wasting water, clubbing baby seals, starving polar bears, overfeeding the oceans, strip mining burning rain forests or repeating the Exxon Valued and Union Carbide disasters.
With these stipulations in place, a rational analysis can now move forward. As it pertains to the first argument for Anthropogenic global warming, there have been statements made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (EPIC) and AY Gore that a consensus of scientists agree that global warming is a human caused condition. Gore, in his various speeches and in the movie An Inconvenient Truth, asserts that “… A survey of 928 random abstracts published in scientific journals that use the word “climate change” showed that 75% of them agreed with the consensus and that none of them agreed. Gore)” Mr… Gore went on to say that “not believing in global warming is as ridiculous as believing that the Earth is flat. (Gore)” However, it has been shown that the study was flawed, and that the majority of abstracts did not mention manmade effects on climate at all. To add to this, the Epic’s assessment reports are widely seen as authoritative evidence that global warming is occurring. Instead of providing logical evidence to support the idea of global warming, some may say that they believe in the theory because the EPIC or AY Gore says it is true.
This is a reasonable position with a topic as ample as global warming due to the fact that the EPIC and Mr… Gore have become self proclaimed authorities regarding the topic. As such, the majority of individuals do not have the time or interest to actually research the topic but accept the assertions based on the authority of the EPIC and Mr… Gore. However, in the context of a logical discussion, to say global warming is true simply because the EPIC or Gore says so is a fallacy known as an “appeal to authority. ” To illustrate this fallacy, the following are actual facts.
In its Second Assessment Report in 1995, the EPIC made headlines when it announced for the first time that “the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate. (EPIC)” This was a groundbreaking change from its position in its first assessment report, and it had heavy political significance. Shortly after this report, the united States announced that it would now support “the adoption of a realistic but binding target” for emissions. (Edwards, Schneider) It was also on the basis of this report that the Kyoto Protocol was entered into by most of the countries of the world two years later.
Accusations followed from Frederick Suite, a scientist with formidable credentials. Suite was a recipient of the National Medal of Science and a past president of both the National Academy of Sciences and the American Physical Society. The accusations had to do with revisions that had been made to Chapter 8 of the report, the most controversial of the sections. Here is how the chapter was written, based on an account of two scientists who were involved with the revisions. (ibid) First, a working group of six dozen climate scientists met and debated over each portion of the chapter.
Based on this discussion the chapter was written, vomited to the EPIC, and accepted. Then, government representatives from various countries had the opportunity under EPIC rules to respond to the report. Benjamin Canter, the lead author of Chapter 8, was required under EPIC rules to revise the chapter in response to these government comments. He made the revisions without consulting with the other scientists of the working group. Suite claimed that this revision amounted to deliberate fraud and “corruption of the peer-review process. (ibid) Specifically, the following statement was deleted, “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases, (EPIC)” and the following statement was added, “The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global warming. (Gray)” This was a fundamental change. With this evidence brought forth, is there truly a consensus of scientists that subscribe to the belief that the current warming trend is caused by human influence on the planet as the EPIC and AY Gore assert?
The answer may be surprising, especially since the proponents and media have stated a consensus exists for o long. Initially, when the scientific community began to study the problem, the theory was posited that the warming trend was a direct effect of human population and carbon emissions on the environment. At the outset, it was clearly only a hypothesis and studies were still being conducted. Unfortunately, the theory seemed to gain traction in the political and environmental protection circles and began to take on a life of its own.
Assertions were made on behalf of scientists, when the majority of the scientists were still figuring out how to even study the temperature anomaly, et alone begin to extrapolate well supported explanations of the data. Thus, a new political / scientific movement was born where the ends justified the means. What is meant by this is that huge amounts of money suddenly became available to scientists to study the cause of the current warming trend. As any research scientist worth his or her degree knows, to keep the money flowing from the benefactors, the data and findings had better support the popular hypothesis or the money dries up.
This is in no way meant to disparage scientists or claim that they falsify data to fit specific objectives. Unfortunately, this has happened as evidenced by the EPIC revisions. As it pertains to the consensus of scientists, it has become increasingly evident that a consensus does not now, nor did it ever, exist. To the contrary, it appears that a growing number of scientists are in complete disagreement with the assertion that the current temperature conditions are human caused.
To illustrate the lack Of consensus, here are several specifics examples that refute the claims made by the EPIC and Mr… Gore. First is the petition, signed by over 17,000 scientists worldwide, that was regulated by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine stating in part, “there is no convincing scientific evidence that the human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. ISM)” Second, there exists another petition of 31 ,478 United States scientists who have signed a mail-in petition rejecting global warming as part of the Global Warming Petition Project. (GAWP) This petition includes 9,029 scientists with Pads. Additionally, a minority report room the Elicited States Senate Environment and Public Works Committee has released a list of over 700 scientists rejecting global warming. (ICECAPS)This list is perhaps more significant because it includes biographies from the scientists as well as specific quotes.
The list includes many current and former EPIC members as well as several Nobel Prize winners. The final example is just one of many defections by scientists in the global warming camp. Claude Allegro, renowned French Geophysicist and at one point a staunch proponent of anthropogenic global warming, in his paper on “The Snows of Met. Kilimanjaro” writes that the “cause of climate change remains unknown. (Allegro, 1)” Allegro also pointed out that studies show that Antarctic snowfall rate has been stable over the past 30 years and the continent is actually gaining ice (Allegro, 1).
Clearly the assertions that the EPIC and Mr… Gore advance regarding a scientific consensus are grossly overstated, if not outright lies, meant to further their own political and financial agendas. Next, in the effort to fully understand the assertions and claims being made in support of anthropogenic global warming, the methods of study and data election need to be examined. Multiple studies have been submitted claiming to show that the earth is indeed in an unprecedented warming trend.
This paper does not refute that those studies exist nor does it dispute that the specific studies show a warming trend. However, is this really an accurate representation of the current global climate conditions? Satellite readings of the lower troposphere (an area most scientists predict would immediately reflect any global warming) show no sustained global temperature increase since the readings began 23 years ago. These readings re accurate to within 0. 01 degrees Celsius and are consistent with readings from weather balloons.
Furthermore the readings, based on thirty years worth of data from eight NASA weather satellites that have gathered more than 300,000 daily global temperature measurements, show clearly that in the past four years, a period of reduced solar activity, all of the rise in global temperatures since 1 979 have disappeared (Spencer). This is supported by John Christy of the Department of Atmospheric Science and Earth System Science Center, University of Alabama in Huntsville and David Douglass of the
Department of Physics and Astronomy at the University of Rochester, in their paper that was accepted by the Energy & Environment scientifically , where they conclude: The global atmospheric temperature anomalies of Earth reached a maximum in 1 998 which has not been exceeded during the subsequent 10 years. The global anomalies are calculated from the average of climate effects occurring in the tropical and the extraterritorial latitude bands.
El Onion/La Nina effects in the tropical band are shown to explain the 1998 maximum while variations in the background of the global anomalies largely come from limited effects in the northern catastrophic. These effects do not have the signature associated with CA climate forcing. (Christy, Douglass 3) The readings that due indeed show a temperature increase in support of global warming are primarily land-based stations.
The fault with these stations (and the associated data from them) is that they do not cover the entire globe, can be contaminated by heat generated by nearby urban development, and are subject to human error. (American Policy Roundtable) In addition, all predictions of global warming are based on computer models, not historical data. The flaw with the approach with this method of modeling is again the ends justifying the means. In other words, the modeled must make initial assumptions regarding current and future conditions to produce the climate model.
How confident are meteorologists that weather forecast for a week from now is accurate? Forecasting the more than about two weeks ahead is fairly unreliable. If this is the can one expect computer models to predict the climate in 2050? Core local weather and global climate is not an equal comparison; they AR two different things. They are similar, however, from the perspective ACH have an incredible number of variables involved. A computer CLC model is only as good as the person who programs it, and there is SST we don’t know about climate.
A computer model is also subject to the preconceived ideas of the person who programs it, like the idea that warming the Earth. James Hansen, head of the NASA Institute for Sp. Studies, gatekeeper of the satellite temperature data used by the outspoken supporter of global warming and friend of AY Gore, once the US Senate, “The forcing that drive long-term climate change are known with an accuracy sufficient to define future climate change. ( 20) The 2007 EPIC Fourth Assessment Report states that of the variables that affect climate change, they have a “low” to “med” level scientific understanding for seven, and only a “high” level for two. (IF is with this data that they program their 16 computer models. The current stated level of confidence in their conclusions would not be warrant scientific publication on other subjects. Mueller) However, s historical data exists to illustrate the hypothesized CA levels and its effects on the climate, the meddlers start with the assumed end rest work backwards. (Linden) Climate meddlers frequently use “flux adjustments” to get the models to produce the predictions close to t designer’s expectations. These “flux adjustments” can be 25 times II doubling the concentration of carbon dioxide currently in the atoms (Emmanuel, 1) This equates to an increase of 2500 times the amour carbon dioxide at present levels.
No scientist on the planet, living or believes this could occur, especially as a result of human related Carl emissions. Richard Kerr, writer for Science magazine writes, “climate meddlers have been “cheating” for so long, it’s almost become Reese (Kerry’ While all scientific research is based on hypothesis, observation( beatable results, it is fair to say that the collected data is far from convincing trend toward human caused global warming.