Facts and Fiction of Global Warming

http://www.annapoliscenter.org/News/press/washtimes- globalwarming.pdf

Facts and Fiction of Global Warming By Harold M. Koenig, M.D., Chair and President, The Annapolis Center

Is global warming real? How do we know? Should we listen to Chicken-Little alarmists? Or should we believe the Almighty-Dollar worshipers? For once, couldn't we cut away the political rhetoric and get a Joe Friday 'Just the facts, Ma'am' answer?

As scientists, most of us believe the earth is warming. After all, we know global temperatures near the surface have increased about 1°F over the last century. But most of that warming trend occurred early in the 20th century before significant industrial carbon dioxide was being produced. Temperatures in the lower five miles of the atmosphere have barely nudged upward in the past several decades. That's not exactly what panic environmentalists claim.

That brings up the next question: 'Why?' Why is the earth's temperature changing? First, we simply don't know how much man contributes to the effect. Water vapor and methane are the most prevalent greenhouse gasses, but they occur naturally as does CO2. CO2 and other industrial gasses are actually a minute part of the natural greenhouse effect. But could man's contribution be having an effect? Unfortunately, current computers are laughingly impotent for seriously predicting massive scale natural phenomenon such as future climate patterns, subject to inadequacies and prejudices. The Kyoto treaty is based on such data. It's politically lopsided solutions force strict standards on selected industrial nations while exempting 'developing' nations with whom the authors curried favor. And third world nations are far worse at controlling emissions, supplying growing energy needs with such prehistoric high-pollution fuel as animal dung. The solution to lowering man-mad greenhouse gasses will come from a technologically advancing economy, which Kyoto would unwisely cripple and discourage.

Above all, we are trying to predict the future by looking at a hundred years of sketchy and unreliable data. Climate has cooled and heated naturally and dramatically with multiple ice ages and tropical ages over millions of years. Where are we on this grand scheme? Actually, we've been exiting an ice age for thousands of years. In the middle of this warming trend, Europe experienced a 'Little Ice Age' in 1400-1850. And there is actually credible evidence showing we may be headed towards cooling again, not inevitable warming.

Sound confusing? Exactly. We are debating solutions without fully understanding the facts. A smarter approach would be to simply learn more. Lamentably, we in the U.S. don't even use the most advanced computers available. Better domestic computer hardware and extensive global data collection would be a good start as well as gaining a better understanding of past climate changes. And it would be smart to coordinate private, public and international research. While we conduct more studies, a comprehensive conservation program can't hurt. Besides, it's good policy and good ethics. But an energy-hungry economy can't conserve its way out of shortages, as California recently discovered. But why waste? When current fuels eventually expire, we better have clean and efficient alternative energy sources available. Wind and solar do not have global potential for anyone, much less large developing nations.. It's time to step up research into advanced, cleaner systems for the future.

The more hysterical claims and predictions of plagues and such have been thoroughly debunked. (However, for other reasons, it's not a bad idea to keep a well-funded sharp eye out for disease outbreaks in today's mobile world) But in the typical irony of real nature, natural phenomenon often create simultaneous negative and positive effects. If global warming occurs, sea level New Orleans might face a rising tide, but a farm belt extending further into northern latitudes could help us become much more agriculturally productive. We must review and understand both potential misfortune and opportunity. After all, though the merits may be debatable, at one time Washington DC was under the polar ice cap, long before humans were around.

Answering questions about global warming takes more than a few thermometers, an agenda and a press release. Clearly, as former EPA chief William Reilly stated, 'We need to develop a new system for taking action on the environment that isn't based on responding to the evening news. What we have had in the United States is environmental agenda setting by episodic panic'. While some industrial interests minimize their contribution to global warming, there's also big bucks in fostering environmental panic. It's a good idea to wade through the political agendas and remember Jo Friday's simple request, 'Just the facts, Ma'am'.

Washington Times July 2001

LOL. It's a good thing you posted this, Troll. You can ask the good doctor about that ache you have in your back.

Well, here's what that group says:

'Fourth, the increase in fossil fuel emissions and other human activities worldwide are causing an increase in global atmospheric carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. Both theory and evidence suggest that the recent increase in global average temperature near the Earth's surface is consistent with increased greenhouse gasses, mediated by the background (natural) variability of climate.'

I wonder what the Annapolis Center is, and what special knowledge this medical doctor has concerning climate and energy policies.

One thing that's pretty implausible about this little essay that Troll cites in message 1 of this string: the author writing that

'most of that warming trend occurred early in the 20th century before significant industrial carbon dioxide was being produced.'

If the first place, the late nineteenth century did feaure 'significant industrial carbon dioxide,' because there was a huge expansion of the British coal industry during the 1800s; coal-burning railroad locomotives were invented in around 1805 and were being used extensively around the world by 1900; the global petroleum industry got underway in 1859 with 'Colonel' Edwin Drake discovering oil at Titusville, Pa. in 1859, and global oil production then expanded significantly throughout the rest of the century with John D. Rockefeller organizing the Standard Oil Trust - etc., etc.

So how can the early 20th century not have been characterized by 'significant' industrial carbon dioxide emissions? This doesn't make sense.

Another thing this article doesn't discuss at all is the likely climate impact of the huge eruption of the Krakatoa volcano in the late 1800s, which current science says should have thrown huge amounts of aerosols and dust into the upper atmosphere, blocking off some incoming sunlight and contributing - temporarily - to a global cooling effect.

I wonder how plausible this writer is, therefore. And that's without noting that this is reprinted from the Washington Times, a rightwing newspaper that I believe is owned

Gee, 'loid', I didn't see you come in.

So, do you have that menu of vaccines the CD 'came up with' yet. Yea, that one, the one you suggested I chose from.

You remember, don't you?

Do you need your original post? Because I can get that for you, 'loid', if you need it.

The terrorists are coming (as is GlobalWarming), and I really, really, really need the government and their magic elixers to protect me.

Thousands of Australian species face extinction: leaked report April 22 2003

Thousands of Australia's birds, mammals and reptile species are in danger of extinction before the end of the century, according to a leaked federal government report.

A leaked copy of the government's yet-to-be-released Biodiversity Audit, obtained by the ABC, reportedly warns up to 3,000 Australian biodiversity systems are under threat of extinction, with many beyond saving.

Dr Denis Saunders, the former chief research scientist for the CSIRO's Wildlife & Ecology division, said the 18-month assessment was a wake-up call for Australia.

'The point is that the 1996 State of the Environment report and the 2001 State of the Environment report were clear calls to arms about our environmental problems,' he told ABC radio.

'This is just putting in even starker relief the sorts of issues that we have to address and we have to address urgently.'

The report said around 1,500 biodiversity systems were beyond saving, while native bird species were under threat in 240 regions.

Already 22 species of mammals were extinct, it said.

It said 40 per cent of wetland areas were in poor condition with much of Australia's southern areas in trouble.

'For example, we're losing birds and mammals from the arid zone and through not only the pastoral zone, but through the deserts as well,' Dr Saunders said.

Nicola Beynon of the Humane Society International said widespread landclearing was one the one main culprits.

'We need the government to really move ahead on this and to move ahead on it fast,' she said.

'Because landclearing cannot continue at the pace it is.'

The World Wide Fund for Nature said the government must act on the findings.

'This is really saying to us 'you ignore the environment, you ignore biodiversity, at your peril',' WWF chief executive David Butcher said.

'Because if you don't fix this up, the natural resources that you are going to depend upon in the future will not be there in the form or the style or at the standard that is going to be required for your future.'

AAP

Printer friendly version Email to a friend