loPEZ Dispenser

How did I become interested in this topic?

Honestly, it started with fiction. Sometime last year I read Michael Crichton’s State of Fear. Its a fascinating book that I highly recommend reading. I wont give away any plots of the book here but I will say that it involves murder, money (well, funding), politics and other elements tied to the issue of global warming. It is a well thought out conspiracy story which uses actual scientific data on global climate to cast doubt over whether things are as they seem.

Shortly after I finished reading this I started hearing more widespread coverage of the topic on mainstream media. Never being one to trust the media I started casually researching the topic. Then Al Gore released his An Inconvenient Truth with much fanfare. After that the widespread coverage turned into a circus of media attention promoting impending doom. It was here where I really started to pay attention. It was here where my inner skeptic sounded the warning bells.

So what exactly do I believe?

It’s quite simple, really. I will summarize below.

• I believe that the earth’s temperature MAY be increasing at the current time.
• I do NOT believe that man, man-made devices, vehicles, fossil fuels or anything man has done is the cause of this warming. Additionally, I do not believe carbon dioxide gas, from any source, is the cause of the warming trends.
• I believe that this warming is normal and well within reasonable expectations of climate fluctuations we have seen in the past and will continue to see in the future (just 30 years ago there was a panic about global cooling).
• I believe that as Christians we have a responsibility to be good stewards of our environment. I believe that we should do everything REASONABLY possible (this rules out Kyoto) to be good to the earth.

How did I become a skeptic?

I suppose we are all skeptics at heart. For me, this is especially the case when the mass media hypes issues. I have an inherent distrust of anything I am told by the big news agencies. Recent reporting scandals such as RatherGate and Reuters photo manipulations have rocked that industry and sent people in droves to find new and more reliable news sources (many, of course, end up at The Drudge Report). I couldn’t help but suspect that global warming was another “hot issue” for the media to get behind to try and gain back some of their viewers.

I’m no fan of Al Gore or pretty much any causes that the Hollywood elite get behind (anyone remember H.O.O.P.?). So when An Inconvenient Truth came out and Hollywood hypocrites got involved another flag went up.

Immediately I started researching the topic. I would casually discuss the topic with friends and coworkers to get a feel for what they believed about it. The more people I talked to, the more shocked I was to discover that they were eating it up!! They were falling for it like sheep.

When asked if they had actually done any personal research on the matter I got a few responses. “Well, I went and saw An Inconvenient Truth” or “Well, I’ve been reading all the articles about it on the internet.” Very few actually admitted to going out and looking at the science.

Behold, a skeptic was born.

Where’s your proof?

Well if you already have your mind made up, reading this article is hardly going to sway you. No amount of evidence that I present will convince you. I am not a climatologist. I have not personally gone out in the field and studied this information. You may wonder, then, why I think my sources of information are correct while others are incorrect.

Well to be thorough, I researched sources from both sides of the issue. Let me tell you, in the mass media, it is hard to find information supporting my claims. However, this is the internet age. There is a whole world of solid information out there. You just have to know where to look.

I weighed the information from these various sources. I compared it the the science I have learned all my life. I compared their methods of research to the scientific method (thoroughly discussed here) and my conclusions were overwhelmingly in support of the global warming skeptics.

I will not go into the detailed science here as this has already been done. I will, however, provide you with access to my sources:

Internet Sources:
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/ (science heavy, get ready to think)
News Article 1
News Article 2
News Article 3
News Article 4 (this is good, it says cow farts contribute more to CO2 than all human emissions.
NY Times Article (It was encouraging to see this on the NYT)
MIT Professor of Meteorology: ‘Alarm over climate change is based on ignorance of what is normal for weather and climate’…
The Faithful Heretic…This guy has some credentials

Video Sources:
The Great Global Warming Swindle (1 hr, 16 minutes) – This is a documentary made by some British folks. I’ll talk about why this is more credible than An Inconvenient Truth in the section “What about Gore’s movie?” down below. Please let me know if the link stops working.

Junk Science: Global Warming Myth Busted (~ 2 hrs) – A video presentation created by The Internet Skeptic. There is a corresponding powerpoint presentation that you can download from his website. Please let me know if the link stops working. I prefer the prior video as production quality is greater.

Why do I not hear more about this?

Money. This is also touched on in Crichton’s book. Many scientists, especially those not in the private sector, rely on outside sources for their funding. These are usually in the form of research grants from universities, government agencies and lobbyists. Those three sources listed are all governed not by scientific integrity, but by politics.

It’s quite simple, really. If a scientists refuses to “conclude” in favor of the desired results his funding may mysteriously dry up. This isn’t always the case, however.

I want you to think back in history. What happened to Socrates when he preached a new philosophy. He was tried and convicted of “corrupting the youth of Athens” and sentenced to death.

Galileo was one of the first to propose that the earth rotates around the sun. The powers that be at the time didn’t like the idea the the earth wasn’t the center of the universe so Galileo was shunned. Only it was years later where his theories were proved correct and now he is credited as the “father of modern astronomy,” as the “father of modern physics”, and as the “father of science”.

I can think of many more times through history where similar events occurred. People were discredited, laughed at, called heretics ,and even burnt at the stake for their advances in science that we only later proved accurate. The same is occurring now, only to a slightly more civil degree.

Global warming skeptics have been effectively silenced. The media gets off on panic and hysteria. It is what garners them viewers. Since they can control content they can choose not to cover those scientists who “doubt”. It gets worse than this though. Journalist Ellen Goodman recently said “I would like to say we’re at a point where global warming is impossible to deny. 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.” Is she serious? Holocaust deniers? One is known history, the other is speculative science. How can you even compare the two?

Another example is Heidi Cullen, the host of a weekly global warming program called “The Climate Code” on The Weather Channel. She said “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. Clearly, the AMS doesn’t agree that global warming can be blamed on cyclical weather patterns.” So now, because a weatherman is skeptical of bad science he should be stripped of his certification?

In congress there is but one dissenting voice in the multitude. Senator James Inhofe, a Republican from Oklahoma, has stood his ground on this issue. He is a ranking member on the Standing Committee on Environment and Public Works and part of the subcommittee on Clean Air, Climate Change, and Nuclear Safety. I’ve mentioned Inhofe in several of my blog postings regarding global warming. This one in particular, entitled “Climate Porn”, was Inhofe’s attack on the media and their unending thirst for hysteria. Anyways, he has a lot of good things to say on this topic and I encourage you to go to his website and read some of his material.

What about Gore’s movie, An Inconvenient Truth?

Ahh, I knew you would ask. I did watch this. I also did my best to put aside my personal prejudices for Al Gore and base my thoughts on the content. I made observations and took notes while watching and here are some of my conclusions:

• The movie was basically a taping of Gore giving a presentation on global warming. Interspersed throughout were little clips about Gore’s past. The clips had little relevance to the topic at hand and were more autobiographical than anything. I felt like it was the Al Gore show.
• He specifically calls out policies of the Reagan and Bush administrations and the current outspokenness of Senator James Inhofe as being major contributors to the coming “catastrophe.” There was, however, no mention of the 8 year Clinton/Gore administration. In other words, blame the evil republicans.
• He preached a message of gloom and doom. Not only is the ice melting but there will be tremendous floods, unprecedented storm systems (like Katrina), droughts, the coral reefs will disappear, and infectious diseases like malaria will spread as they did in the old days.
• PEOPLE WILL DIE! There were dire predictions. 100 Million deaths from the flooding alone (predicted 20 ft rise in sea level).
• Data presented about the CO2 emissions of countries seemed outdated and didn’t account for current status of developing nations (China, India, etc.).
• Perhaps the most bothersome thing about the movie was that Gore was the only one ever to appear on camera. Sure, he dropped the names of some scientists but we never see them. Why couldn’t I hear the information directly from the scientists? It just reeked of propaganda to me.

Shortly after watching this I watched The Great Global Warming Swindle (linked above). What a stark contrast. Here are some highlights:

• This movie was not at all about the people. It was about the issue. Multiple sources were used and it was the scientists (or skeptics) who presented the information to the audience. This came off as much more credible in my mind.
• These guys, like myself, believe that the climate is always changing. Using some of the same data sets as Gore they were able to trace 200 years of cyclical temperatures. They even make reference to the cooling scare of the 70s.
• These scientists offer alternative explanations for why the earth may be warming and how the CO2 is related to those changes. They also explain that CO2 is a naturally occurring substance which is produced by all living things.
• One African man was interviewed and he explained how the global warming movement is currently one of the biggest hindrances in the development of African nations.

In all fairness, if you watched Al Gore’s movie you should give this other one a whirl as well.

What about the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)?

Well, here is where the politics make this issue sticky. I’m sure that by now you have heard of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a conglomerate of scientists and government agencies from around the world who are trying to analyze the impact of man on our planet. They are currently working on their fourth assessment report (AR4) due to be released soon. According to Wikipedia, the following “conclusions” have been reached:

• Warming of the climate system is unequivocal
• Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely (greater than 90% likely) due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (human) greenhouse gas concentrations
• Hotter temperatures and rises in sea level “would continue for centuries” no matter how much humans control their pollution, although the likely amount of temperature and sea level rise varies greatly depending on the fossil intensity of human activity during the next century.
• The probability that this is caused by natural climatic processes alone is less than 5%
• World temperatures could rise by anything between 1.1 and 6.4°C (1.98 and 11.52°F) during the 21st century (table 3) and that:
  • Sea levels will probably rise by 18 to 59 cm (7.08 to 23.22 in)
  • It is more than 90% certain that there will be frequent warm spells, heat waves and heavy rainfall
  • It is more than 66% certain that there will be an increase in droughts, tropical cyclones and extreme high tides.
• Both past and future anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions will continue to contribute to warming and sea level rise for more than a millennium.
• Global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have increased markedly as a result of human activities since 1750 and now far exceed pre-industrial values over the last 650,000 years.

Sounds pretty rough, right? The IPCC claims to have the consensus of thousands of scientists, climatologists, and various other experts and they probably do. However, according to some of the scientists in The Great Global Warming Swindle this is not necessarily true. One man, who happened to disagree with the consensus, was surprised when he discovered that his name was on the list of scientists contributing to the report. Well no wonder the IPCC claims thousands of experts!! In addition to these liberties, after the scientists are done with their writings, the paper goes to the governments to be edited. It is here where all the portions of the report that cast doubt on man-made causes of global warming were removed. Pretty slick if you ask me.

Well both CO2 levels and the temperature are increasing aren’t they? That means they are related, right?

There is a saying in the sciences that applies here. “Correlation does not mean causation.” In other words, just because 2 things are related does not mean that one is caused by the other.

CO2 was first “discovered” in the mid 1700s. It was much later before we discovered how this gas interacts with the atmosphere and plays a part in the greenhouse effect. In fact, as far as greenhouse gases go, CO2 is only a small contributer. According to the JunkScience article above:

The most important players on the greenhouse stage are water vapor and clouds. Carbon dioxide has been increased to about 0.038% of the atmosphere (possibly from about 0.028% pre-Industrial Revolution) while water in its various forms ranges from 0% to 4% of the atmosphere and its properties vary by what form it is in and even at what altitude it is found in the atmosphere. In simple terms, however, the bulk of Earth’s greenhouse effect is due to water vapor by virtue of its abundance. Water accounts for about 90% of the Earth’s greenhouse effect — perhaps 70% is due to water vapor and about 20% due to clouds (mostly water droplets), some estimates put water as high as 95% of Earth’s total greenhouse effect. The remaining portion comes from carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane, ozone and miscellaneous other “minor greenhouse gases.” As an example of the relative importance of water it should be noted that changes in the relative humidity on the order of 1.3-4% are equivalent to the effect of doubling CO2.

So if you believe what this is saying, then even a massive increase in CO2 levels will only have a minimal impact on the greenhouse effect.

Now consider the source of CO2. I mentioned above that every single living organism produces CO2. Sure we humans produce CO2. Every time we exhale, we pollute. Every time we hop in our cars, flip a light switch, and yes, even fart, we pollute. But so do other organisms.

Take, for instance, livestock. Who doesn’t love a good steak (I’ll have the 12 oz. outback special cooked medium)? Did you know that by eating your steak you are polluting? What, you say!?!? Recent studies have found that “livestock are responsible for 18 percent of greenhouse-gas emissions as measured in carbon dioxide equivalent…This includes 9 percent of all CO2 emissions, 37 percent of methane, and 65 percent of nitrous oxide. Altogether, that’s more than the emissions caused by transportation.” What? But I thought our SUVs were the problem!! I bet you’ll never look at cows the same way again…

So what else then? Well, a single volcanic eruption expels more CO2 into our atmosphere than all the CO2 emissions of mankind since the industrial revolution!! And this is a naturally occurring phenomenon!! But you’ll never hear that from any of the “experts”. The following pie chart from this website shows a breakdown of human contributions to greenhouse gases (click to enlarge):

Probably the easiest way of reducing CO2 is planting trees and other foliage. Plant life breathes in CO2. Naturally, if there are more plants there will be less CO2. Thats great and all and perhaps we should try and reduce the CO2 in our atmosphere, but are we even sure that the CO2 is what is causing the warming trend?

For years scientists have assumed a direct link between rising carbon dioxide and rising temperatures. Using this assumption, they have taken ice core samples from the poles and analyzed the CO2 content. Because of annual melting and refreezing at the poles the ice cores present a fairly uniform way of dating (similar to rings on a tree to determine age). So what they do is find the sample from a certain year, analyze the CO2 levels and then extrapolate an average temperature for that year. It is this, for lack of a better term, guessed temperature data that is used to construct the temperature plots for the time periods before we started tracking temperatures.

Now consider that the first mercury thermometers were invented in the early 1700s. Consistent data recording of temperatures was not started until well after that. Now consider the past 300 years. The technology used to take temperatures has changed. The locations and numbers of the weather stations have changed. Stations located in cities will naturally read higher temperatures due to urbanization. All of these factors, and more, each introduce a bit of error to the calculation of the “average temperature” for a given year. Some reports even say that the amount of temperature increase that we have recently experienced is less than the amount of error involved in the equation. In other words, we can’t even be sure that the temperature has increased!!

Of course now we have all these complex computer models which all tell us that half of us will drown and the other half of us will burn alive. These models take into account many, many variables and the slightest change of a single variable can alter the results significantly. How can we be sure then that these models have accurate predictions?

So now back to CO2. We’ve establish how they have linked CO2 to temperature. In Gore’s movie he claims that the relationship between CO2 and temperature is “complicated”. His researchers conveniently ignored some of the ice core data that would have thrown a proverbial wrench in their theory.

I want to propose a different idea. Perhaps they have it backwards. Instead of rising CO2 causing an increase in temperature, suppose that rising CO2 is a result of rising temperature!

This theory is presented, with data and plots, in The Great Global Warming Swindle. Using the same data set as Gore’s people, these researchers found an interesting link between CO2 and temperature. It appears that, in general, CO2 levels lags temperature changes by about 800 years. In other words, an increase in temperature today will see an increase in CO2 levels in 800 years, or applied to our current scenario, our current high levels of CO2 are caused by a warming period from 800 years ago. Remember, its all cyclical!!

So if it’s not CO2, then what is causing temperature changes?

Well obviously this is not the easiest question to answer. There are some prevailing theories out there and I will present the one that I think is most probable.

As I keep mentioning, everything in nature is cyclical. This covers everything from vibrating atoms to sound waves to the female reproductive system. We see it in our tides and our seasons. Many mathematical relationships are based on the sinusoid, the foundation of cyclical patterns. The same is true of the sun.

People have been observing periodic fluctuations in solar activity as far back as 800 BC. Recently some scientists have been able to compare historical data of solar activity to temperature data. It’s amazing how perfectly the curves fit together. You can see this in more detail on the video.

This is only one theory. Based on what I know about the complexity of the systems God designs (look at the human body) we will never fully understand the cause and effect relationship of global climate.

So if what you’re saying is true, then why all the hype?

This is where I am getting confused on the issue. Maybe somebody better versed in politics than I can answer this better. I’m not sure what certain parties hope to gain by the implementation of measures to reduce carbon emissions.

Lawmakers are pressuring industry and individuals alike to reduce their “carbon footprint”. They are on automakers to create more efficient vehicles. Australia recently passed a law banning all incandescent light bulbs. These measures are all good and I believe that we should invest money in alternative fuels and try to lessen our dependence on foreign oil.

With that said we need to keep in mind that mass distribution of alternately fueled vehicles is a long way off. The infrastructure changes needed to implement these new technologies are enormous and could have a great impact on the economy. There are measures we can take to accomplish some of these goals but certain organizations get in the way.

For instance, we could drill our own oil. Naturally there are environmental consequences to that but I believe we have the technology available to us now to do this better and safer. Another thing we could do is build more nuclear power facilities. There is a stigma towards nuclear power but of all the options it is the most efficient and cleanest source of power (not including hydro, wind, and solar but these are much less efficient, much less cost effective, and don’t produce nearly enough energy). Despite usual concerns, nuclear power is safe (especially in our country). Chernobyl was due to poor designs and loose operational protocols.

Where the politics get dicey is when you start discussing the Kyoto Treaty, which the US thankfully hasn’t signed, and carbon credits. I won’t get into the details here but what this basically amounts to is a redistribution of wealth on a global scale.

From Wikipedia:

The Kyoto Protocol is an agreement made under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Countries that ratify this protocol commit to reduce their emissions of carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases, or engage in emissions trading if they maintain or increase emissions of these gases.

Emissions trading serves to penalize developed nations with big industries (read the US) by having us buy carbon credits from smaller undeveloped nations. The unfair part of this treaty is that China and India, the world’s 2 largest developing countries, are exempt from the treaty!! Those countries are just now having their industrial revolutions and when they are done their emissions will far outweigh ours!!

I’ve heard rumors of this going on even within the US. There are some “green” companies out there who, for a small fee, will broker a deal between the rich and the poor. In other words, the rich , with their private planes and fleets of cars, can reduce their impact on the environment (guilt) by buying carbon credits from poor people who don’t use their allotment of carbon. Do you see how this boils down to a distribution of wealth?

It scares me!!

ADDED 4/26/07: “Serious credibility concerns” regarding carbon trading…

In Conclusion

My intention here is not to create dissent or stir trouble. I’m not even trying to change your mind. I’m simply trying to point out that not all things are as they seem. This is a hot button issue right now and a lot is at stake. Congress has the power to enact legislature that can have dire consequences on our economy and the well being of our nation.

We cannot be controlled by fear. In the words of the great philosopher Master Yoda, “Fear leads to Anger. Anger leads to Hate. Hate leads to suffering.” It is a very short path from one end to the other. We are constantly being told by the powers that be that we should be very afraid. Jesus said in Luke 12:25, “Who of you by worrying can add a single hour to his life?” I think he would know.

As citizens of this great nation we not only have the right, but we also have the responsibility to get involved. We need to be cautious in what we believe and question the information that is given to us. Especially in light of recent scandals, it is foolish to blindly believe anything that the media tells you.

If there is anything that I want you to take away from this I want you to learn to do your own independent research. Look at multiple sources. Question inconsistencies. Be a detective. With the internet it is so easy to be thorough. Have a good day.