Global Warming or Hot Air?
by Carol Loeffler
Weather forecasting has always been a difficult job. Even with modern technology to aid their efforts, forecasters sometimes call it wrong. The reason why science has yet to completely master the art of predicting the weather is there are so many complicated factors affecting the weather that even massive supercomputers cannot account for all of the variables.
If short-term weather predictions are sometimes illusive, how much more difficult is it to develop long-term projections? How many times have we been told that we are going to have a rough winter only to have a relatively mild one? Even worse than predicting weather a day at a time or a season at a time are the attempts to forecast climate trends over the course of decades, which is what climatologists try to do. Equipped with mountains of data, charts of long-term trends, and computer models, these scientists are still handicapped in their ability to accurately foretell the future.
How is it possible then for predictions of global warming to be considered so certain as to spawn the Kyoto Treaty, which if implemented will harshly affect the economies and life-styles of the western world?
Just before the Climate Change Treaty was introduced at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, projections of an 8.5C rise in global temperatures were predicted by the year 2050. More recently these projections have been revised to predict an increase of only 1 to 2.5C by the year 2100.1 These catastrophic forecasts were based on computer models that failed to take into account the influence of two of the most important moderators of warming, clouds and forests. The computer models were also based upon the assumption that increases in carbon dioxide (CO2) levels in the atmosphere would act like a greenhouse, causing a warming trend. While there has indeed been a rise in CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, there has never been a cause-effect relationship established between CO2 and temperature. According to Dr. Harry N.A. Priem of Utrecht University:
"The fluctuations in the carbon dioxide concentration appear to track those in temperature to a remarkable degree, but a closer look reveals that the fluctuations generally lag behind those in temperature. Never does a changing carbon dioxide concentration precede that of temperature."2
have global warming proponents failed to disprove this basic assumption, they have also failed to prove that warming itself is a fact. Temperatures taken by weather stations around the world do show a slight warming trend; however, some scientists dispute the accuracy of this data because most weather stations are located in or near cities, which are known to be "heat islands." The increase in pavement and cement and the reduction of vegetation within cities naturally results in higher temperatures. Satellite measurements, which monitor remote areas including oceans, indicate a slight cooling trend in mean global temperatures.3
Since 1995 over 18,000 scientists have signed the Leipzig Declaration, which says:
The policies to implement the Treaty are, as of now, based solely on unproven scientific theories, imperfect computer models"and the unsupported assumption that catastrophic global warming follows from an increase in greenhouse gases, requiring immediate action. We do not agree. We believe that the dire predictions of a future warming have not been validated by the historic climate record, which appears to be dominated by natural fluctuations, showing both warming and cooling. These predictions are based on nothing more than theoretical models and cannot be relied on to construct far-reaching policies.4
Also, scientists studying the climatic effects of the sun have warned global warming proponents that they have underestimated the suns role in climate changes. Not only does ultraviolet radiation from the sun affect the protective ozone layer, but the suns magnetic field and solar wind, mainly in the form of electrons and protons, act as a shield from cosmic rays coming from outer space. The cosmic rays affect the formation of low-level clouds. The low clouds cool the earth by reflecting more heat back out into space. Therefore long-term cycles of solar activity affect the earths own warming and cooling cycles.5 This is evident in history where we have recorded periods of cold like the Little Ice Age (1350-1850 A.D.) and of warmth like the Medieval Climatic Optimum (900-1350 A.D.).
In spite of the dissenting scientific views, the politicians and the media continue the drumbeat that the world is experiencing catastrophic changes due to human intervention and that we must take drastic action to save the planet.
A news article
in the New York Times this past fall proclaimed that for the first time in 50 million years the Arctic ice was melting, allowing a Russian ice breaker, the Yamal, to travel through its icy waters. The article was later retracted when experts on the far north said that, in fact, open stretches of water are common in the Arctic Ocean. A photograph of an American submarine, which surfaced in the Arctic Ocean on March 17, 1959, has been produced as proof,6 but the earlier story is still quoted by talk show hosts who apparently didnt see the retraction.
Upon closer examination it becomes obvious that there is more to the issue of global warming than science. In fact, every little change in the weather has been blamed on greenhouse emissions. It no longer matters whether we have an unusually warm year or an unusually cool year; it is all the result of global warming. The rhetoric has changed slightly to call the phenomenon global climate change in order to allow for just about any weather event.
In Europe, the media have told the people that so-called "luxury emissions" in the United States were the cause of flooding in England and Australia. At the convention on climate change held at The Hague in November, the U.S. delegate received a literal pie in the face from a protester who viewed the United States as the global villain. As the founder of Greenpeace said in a Forbes magazine article, "It doesnt matter what is true; what matters is what people think is true."7 The issue has left the realm of science and entered the realm of propaganda.
Just what do the environmentalists hope to gain? They want the first-world nations to cut back energy consumption to pre-industrial levels. What do the world socialists want? They want to redistribute the wealth of the first-world nations to the developing nations, to force industry to move to those countries where no harsh environmental limitations exist. What do the politicians want? Politicians want to create a global government. As French President Jacques Chirac said about the Kyoto Protocol, it is "the first component of an authentic global governance."8
If these people succeed in imposing the Kyoto Protocol on the world, we can expect certain adverse results. For example, personal transportation will be severely restricted, fuel-efficient apartment-style housing will become more common, the economy will suffer, and unemployment will rise. The Kyoto Protocol will have severe personal costs, all because of political exploitation of the scientifically unproven hypothesis called global warming. Truth is always the first casualty in any war.
* * *
- http://sovereignty.net/p/clim/cctutorial.htm, December 7, 2000.
- Priem, Harry N.A. "Climate Change: the Human Influence Analysed." http://www.ozemail.com.au/~hughesw7/hpriem.htm, September 15, 2000.
- "Leipzig Declaration." International Symposium on the Greenhouse Controversy, http://www.sepp.org/leipzig.html, Leipzig, Germany, Nov. 9-10, 1995, and Bonn, Germany, Nov. 10-11, 1997.
- Brekke, Dr. Paal. "Viewpoint: The Sun and Climate Change," BBC News, November 16, 2000.
- Daly, John L. "Still Waiting for Greenhouse: A Lukewarm View of Global Warming," http://www.vision.net.au/~daly/, December 5, 2000.
- Lamb, Henry. "U.S. Gets a Pie in the Face," www.sovereignty.net/p/clim/hague1100/henry-5.html, November 23, 2000.
RELATED ARTICLES FROM KOINONIA HOUSE