the opinionist

Famed author and scientist - Michael Crichton - defines global warming as “… the theory that increased levels of carbon dioxide and certain other gases are causing an increase in the average temperature of the earth’s atmosphere because of the so-called ‘greenhouse effect.’”

It is very difficult to miss the growing debate that is ‘global warming’ - otherwise known as ‘climate change’ or ‘Mummy, how far can polar bears swim?’.

The rapid ascent to near God-like popularity of Al Gore certainly might mirror his popular powerpoint slide showing the rapid growth of global carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions labled as the cause of ‘global warming’. An ‘established scientific fact.’

The acceptance of global warming as a very real and ultimately catastrophic event for humanity is now a given. The slow but relentless beat of the mainstream scientific community has been emboldened and reinforced by this month’s publication by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - a United Nations body - with lays bare a terrifying vision for the warming planet.

Now that the Bush Administration appears to have finally recognized (or accepted) that climate change is a real threat to civilization can we all breath a sigh of relief and continue construction on those beach-front properties?

Not exactly. Like that annoying background chatter you find during a particularly engrossing movie theatre presentation there is a poorly coordinated but sizeable chunk of academia - scientists (real, pretenders or wannabe’s) - that are becoming increasingly perturbed at our willingness to accept CO2 as the cause of global warming or climate change.

“Not so bloody fast”, these skeptics seem to say. “Who says carbon dioxide emissions are behind global bloody warming? Not I!”

And as skeptics go - these folks are very marginalized. Scientists - not readily known for their JerrySpringer’esque cat-fighting have actually been pretty aggressive in their combined ridicule of these few brave but misguided souls that seem willing to fight the ‘established scientific facts’ behind global warming. And that’s lovely.

So when the French President Jacques Chirac arrogantly insists the U.S. sign the Kyoto climate accord - and dramatically cut its CO2 emissions or else face a carbon tax on all U.S. exports into Europe - you know it’s time to get feisty with bloody Frenchies and their political bandwagon.

You see - the United States is the biggest emitter of CO2 - accounting for nearly 25% of the world’s CO2 emissions - but is also the world’s largest economic engine by far.

China, the fifth biggest economy (and growing rapidly) yet the second biggest producer of nasty CO2. Highly inefficient!

India is the twelfth biggest economy but the fourth biggest CO2 culprit and so on and so forth.

So President Bush suggested the U.S. economy would not be persuaded to adopt the rigors of the Kyoto restrictions - cutting jobs and economic reward - if the other flagrant abusers of the environment - China included - would not be subjected to such heinous restrictions. Australia concurred and their exports of Fosters Lager has not suffered as a result.

The debate should be - according to the skeptics - is that evidence that carbon dioxide (CO2) causes global warming is not proven sufficiently and, therefore, the Kyoto protocol is at best a moot point and at worst an economic excuse for a political hatchet job on the U.S. and an attempt to wrestle its economic leadership in the world.

Dr. Tim Ball, Chairman of the National Resources Stewardship Project in Canada, published an article in the Canada Free Press entitled ‘Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?‘ and strongly argues global warming is not due to the human contribution of CO2.

“What would happen if tomorrow we were told that, after all, the Earth is flat? It would probably be the most important piece of news in the media and would generate a lot of debate. So why is it that when scientists who have studied the Global Warming phenomenon for years say that humans are not the cause nobody listens? Why does no one acknowledge that the Emperor has no clothes on?”

The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine has a campaign [petition] called the Petition Project led by Frederick Seitz, Past President, National Academy of Sciences USA and President Emeritus, Rockefeller University, that states:

“The United States is very close to adopting an international agreement that would ration the use of energy and of technologies that depend upon coal, oil, and natural gas and some other organic compounds.
This treaty is, in our opinion, based upon flawed ideas. Research data on climate change do not show that human use of hydrocarbons is harmful. To the contrary, there is good evidence that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is environmentally helpful.
The proposed agreement would have very negative effects upon the technology of nations throughout the world, especially those that are currently attempting to lift from poverty and provide opportunities to the over 4 billion people in technologically underdeveloped countries.”

The Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change suggests (and these aren’t crackpots):

“There is little doubt the air’s CO2 concentration has risen significantly since the inception of the Industrial Revolution; and there are few who do not attribute the CO2 increase to the increase in humanity’s use of fossil fuels. There is also little doubt the earth has warmed slightly over the same period; but there is no compelling reason to believe that the rise in temperature was caused by the rise in CO2. Furthermore, it is highly unlikely that future increases in the air’s CO2 content will produce any global warming; for there are numerous problems with the popular hypothesis that links the two phenomena.”

Dr. Richard C Willson - principal investigator at the Center for Climate Systems Research at Columbia University, California, studies the Sun and the solar radiation that bathes the planet. His report, with a less than thrilled title ‘Secular total solar irradiance trend during solar cycles 21-23′ reports on dramatic increases in solar activity and it’s impact on climate change here on Earth.

“… the trend appears to be significant. If so it has profound implications for both solar physics and climatology.”

These reports were picked up in a story on the reputable SPACE.com with an article “Sun’s Output Increasing in Possible Trend Fueling Global Warming.”

The article begins:

“In what could be the simplest explanation for one component of global warming, a new study shows the Sun’s radiation has increased by .05 percent per decade since the late 1970s.
The increase would only be significant to Earth’s climate if it has been going on for a century or more, said study leader Richard Willson, a Columbia University researcher also affiliated with NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies.
The Sun’s increasing output has only been monitored with precision since satellite technology allowed necessary observations. Willson is not sure if the trend extends further back in time, but other studies suggest it does.
“This trend is important because, if sustained over many decades, it could cause significant climate change,” Willson said.”

There is a muted outcry from scientists begging for a debate - a real and wholesome investigation into the true causes of climate change. Everyone agrees the planet is warming but not everyone is willing on blame Man’s CO2 for it.

A terrific article posted in the Sudbury Star entitled “Challenge Views on Climate Change” begins:

“Global warming alarmists were given a free ride from a public relations perspective in 2006. Despite the apocalyptic visions of Al Gore, David Suzuki and the Sierra Club, doomsters were rarely challenged to back up their claims with hard science. Everything from extreme sea level rise to droughts, melting ice caps and drowning polar bears were blamed on global warming brought on by artificially created carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. Alternative viewpoints were carefully screened out of government pronouncements and few in the public seemed to even notice.”

Capitalism Magazine’s article “Global Warnings from the Ivory Tower: Debate and Die” puts it more succinctly yet:

“The Royal Society of London, England’s premier scientific society, has sent a letter to Exxon-Mobil asking that the energy giant stop funding organizations which have “misrepresented the science of climate change by outright denial of the evidence.” This unusual step seems strangely out of place for a scientific organization, and it belies a dogmatic adherence to a prevailing scientific theory that will, in the end, only make the Royal Society look a little foolish.”

The author? Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville and the U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E) on NASA’s Aqua satellite.

Michael Crichton gave testimony on September 28, 2005 to the United States Senate - Committee on Environment and Public Works.

He concluded a speech that gave example after example of scientific stonewalling by the ‘established’ scientific community of all and any attempts to refute the CO2 link to global warming as ‘established scientific fact.’

“I would remind the committee that in the end, it is the proper function of government to set standards for the integrity of information it uses to make policy. Those who argue government should refrain from mandating quality standards for scientific research-including some professional organizations-are merely self-serving. In an information society, public safety depends on the integrity of public information. And only government can perform that task.”

In a speech at the end of 2005 entitled “Fear, Complexity, Environmental Management in the 21st Century“, Crichton calls for greater willingness to debate and investigate the causes of climate change above and beyond the status quo - beyond such a ‘linear’ explanation as CO2.

Heck, should we do it just to piss off Jacques Chirac?

Posted on February 6th, 2007 under IPCC, climate change, global warming, jacques chirac •  Email This Post • RSS 2.0 feed • Leave a response, or trackback