There is one thing we can always count on. Just when one “War” ends, another begins. We have entered the marketing phase of the next Great War, the “War on Global Warming.” We are being “sold” the facts, but not all of them. We are being given just enough to be drawn to the desired conclusions and behaviors. And as George Orwell warned us, we have been threatened with the consequences of our “thought crimes.”1
The objective of this onslaught is to convince us that these desired behaviors are in our best interests and that of the environment, in order to move us toward a “global conscience.” What greater threat can there be than our very survival as a species? The fear of this end leads us toward another paradigm and “constructed” worldview, which is global cooperation. This inevitably leads to global agreement and then on to global governance.
From the “War on Communism” to the “War on Poverty” to the “War on Intolerance” and now the “War on Sovereignty” (veiled as Global Warming), we have survived many of these types of illusionary conflicts within our life times. What they have in common is that none ever presented any real and lasting threat. They were designed as easy excuses to provide motivation for social change. Each of these “Wars” has had, at its heart, the intent of dissolving smaller group affiliations in favor of larger affiliations, until there is only one.
The objective in this “phase” of the war is to flood the awareness of the population with enough half-truth and innuendo to drown out any voice that disagrees. But there are many that won’t be silenced on this subject.
Is the Globe Warming?
All good deception is based upon truth. This is an excellent example of how the truth can be used to mislead.
Of all the proponents and detractors on this subject there is one fact upon which most all agree: Our global climate is warming. That’s right. Since the early 1680s it has been apparent that the average temperature on earth has risen.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) reports their analysis:
Global surface temperatures have increased about 0.6°C (plus or minus 0.2°C) since the late-19th century, and about 0.4°F (0.2 to 0.3°C) over the past 25 years (the period with the most credible data). The warming has not been globally uniform. Some areas (including parts of the southeastern U.S.) have, in fact, cooled over the last century. The recent warmth has been greatest over North America and Eurasia between 40 and 70°N. Warming, assisted by the record El Niño of 1997-1998, has continued right up to the present, with 2001 being the second warmest year on record after 1998.2
As in all complex problems, we must pay close attention to the details. Of course, global surface temperatures are not linear over the entire surface of the Earth. This is true not only of natural differences in the Earth’s surface but of unnatural ones as well. In fact, much criticism of the basic statistics of global warming has come from an analysis of where the sampling stations are located.
If the data is examined on the localized geographic level, rather than averages, a case has been made that temperatures are predominately rising only in the urban areas. In fact, the rural areas seem to be “cooling” slightly.3
It is postulated that because the concrete and metal cities act as huge “heat sinks,” the generalized global statistics are skewed. If this weren’t enough, there has been criticism that within these urban areas, the actual sensory equipment has been located poorly. Reportedly they are often installed near industrial areas, which release more than their share of heat within an urban area.
The critic’s response is that rather than scientifically trying to measure the global environment, they are “controlling” statistics to support their “constructed” worldview of global warming.
Contrary Evidence
Even though the reporting stations show evidence of atmospheric warming, there are many that say those stations are not collecting all the necessary information. Much has been made, in support of global warming, of the Arctic ice shelf melting. Not only is the basic chemistry of this issue coming under scrutiny, but the overall melting of ice on Earth is suspect.
The most extreme warming scenarios postulate that if the Arctic cap, which contains no land mass, continues to melt in an unobstructed manner, sea levels will rise and cause catastrophic damage to a good portion of the global community situated within reach of any coastline.4
Several environmental scientists now hold the view that this unobstructed melting will not continue and, even if it did, it would have little ability to cause a rise in sea level. Not only do they point to historic evidence that Arctic ice in the past was extremely smaller than it is today, but they call into question the whole proposition that melting would cause a change in sea levels.
During the times of the Viking explorations, it is of historic record that Greenland, a frozen tundra today, was found temperate enough to farm and support a sizable community.5 While they inhabited Greenland, the climate reversed to cold and the Viking community suffered catastrophic losses.
Other chemists point to the basic science of melting. Ice that is floating in water displaces, by its weight, approximately the same volume as the water it contains. It is said that if all the ice in the world melted it would, at worst, cause only a minor elevation of sea level.6
The whole issue of melting is also being challenged by those who study glacial change around the world. Since most of the Earth’s glaciers are in remote areas away from sensing devices, satellites are used to measure their size. There is a list of over a hundred of the Earth’s largest glaciers that have continued to grow, including this last year. The scientists watching these are asking, “Where is the melting going on?”7
Atmospheric Chemistry
Al Gore, in his global warming movie, An Inconvenient Truth, states, “The problem we now face is that this thin layer of atmosphere is being thickened by huge quantities of carbon dioxide....” This is not correct. The chart he uses shows CO2 “floating” in the atmosphere, which contradicts fundamental chemistry.
Air is comprised of primarily oxygen (O) and nitrogen (N) (99.031%). Nitrogen comprises 78.084% of air. Oxygen comprises 20.947%.8 Carbon dioxide consists of one part carbon (C) and two parts oxygen (O2). The atomic weight of oxygen is 15.999 (16). The atomic weight of nitrogen is 14.0067 (14). The atomic weight of carbon is 12.0107 (12).9 The atomic weight of carbon dioxide is 12 (C) plus 32 (O2) and equals 44. This molecular weight is very important—carbon dioxide gas is much heavier than air (50% heavier). Just as common sense would lead, those elements that are heavier would reside closer to the surface. Rather than CO2 “floating” in the atmosphere, it would sink below the lighter air. The build-up of CO2 has virtually no effect on the density or “thickness” of Earth’s atmosphere.
Since carbon dioxide is to plants as oxygen is to animals, a larger percentage of CO2 would encourage greater plant growth. Plants “eat” CO2 and, as a by-product, release oxygen. As plant growth increases, CO2 would be reduced ever more quickly and oxygen would increase. This cycle between carbon dioxide and oxygen has been going on since God, in His brilliance, created it. He has created an extremely resilient system capable of overcoming imbalances, whether they are natural or not.
This CO2/O2 cycle has been going on for some time. The graphs on the next page make it easy to see the “ups and downs” of this cycle over time. Below it is the temperature variations over the same time period.10 Though we may do a little more than quibble over the time frame (these are secular numbers, of course) it is quite apparent that there have been cycles in both CO2 levels and temperature.
If you lay the CO2 graph over the temperature graph, an interesting thing happens. In the graph it appears that the temperature change actually preceded the rise in CO2 levels. This is nothing to build a case on by itself, but it certainly deserves further research on the possibility that CO2 levels are the effect of a rise in temperature and not visa versa.
Also, as you can see, the present CO2 levels, whatever they are, are not substantially higher than previous non-industrialized periods. If current levels are extremely high—as we are led to believe—then this is evidence that the environmental system was built to not only survive these imbalances but also generally teem with life through them.
From the Educated Wise
Dr. Tim Ball, Chairman of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project, is a Victoria-based environmental consultant and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. He was one of the first Canadian Ph.D.s in climatology and has an extensive background, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition. Here is what he says:11
Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn’t exist.
Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2 ). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification. For example, Environment Canada brags about spending $3.7 billion in the last five years dealing with climate change, almost all on propaganda trying to defend an indefensible scientific position while at the same time closing weather stations and failing to meet legislated pollution targets.
Let me stress I am not denying the phenomenon has occurred. The world has warmed since 1680, the nadir of a cool period called the Little Ice Age (LIA) that has generally continued to the present. These climate changes are well within natural variability and explained quite easily by changes in the sun. But there is nothing unusual going on.
Since I obtained my doctorate in climatology from the University of London, Queen Mary College, England my career has spanned two climate cycles. Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970s global cooling became the consensus.12 This proves that consensus is not a scientific fact. By the 1990s temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I’ll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling.
Consensus?
There are good, qualified, well-meaning scientists on both sides of this issue. The question isn’t whether global warming is happening, but why. What has to be cut from the rhetoric is the idea that “all agree.” That couldn’t be further from the truth.
In an atmosphere that has proven to be anything but tolerant of divergent thought, science doesn’t reward their own for creative thinking or adherence to the fundamentals of scientific investigation. On the contrary, the debate on global warming has taken on the personality of a religious argument in which no one is concerned with the truth. With the social and personal restrictions on our lives that are threatened and our tax dollars (in large quantities) at risk, there is much at stake.
If this warming effect is not man made, what are the possible causes (or combinations of causes) that are producing what we see? Does a closer examination of the available data tell us any more? Do the explanations lead to consensus?
Next month we will delve deeper into the facts behind this driving issue.
