One of the smoking guns they use is a 1996 report from the UNs Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The IPCCs website explains that it does not carry out research nor does it monitor climate related data or other relevant parameters. It bases its assessment mainly on peer reviewed and published scientific/technical literature. The panel is composed of representatives appointed by governments and organizations. Participation of delegates with appropriate expertise is encouraged.
In 96 these experts concluded that, The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate, and set the basis for Kyoto.
However, Dr. Dick Morgan, a climatology researcher at Englands Exeter University, notes that the globe is anything but uniform. Along with the warming parts, he says, there are massive areas that are cooling, including the NW Atlantic, North and South Pacific Ocean, the Amazon valley, north coast of South America and the Caribbean, the eastern Mediterranean, Black Sea, Caucasus and Red Sea, New Zealand, and the Ganges Valley in India.
Furthermore, Morgan questions the IPCCs methodology. Had the IPCC used the standard parameter for climate change (the 30-year average) and used an equal area projection, instead of the Mercator (which doubled the area of warming in Alaska, Siberia and the Antarctic Ocean), warming and cooling would have been almost in balance.
And while were on the subject of methodology, one further note. The alarmists dire scenarios are based on computer models of the planets future, and models are always iffy, to say the least. They depend on what data is put in and how that data is massaged. With regard to weather and climate, theyre often way wrong. Remember the ultra-violent hurricane season computers warned about for the summer of 2006? Didnt happen. But no doubt, after the savage storms of 2005, big hurricane seasons will continue to be predicted. Any of us can do that, with or without a super-computer and, eventually, the laws of probability will make sages of us.
Are the alarmists right about anything, then? Yes. For example, sea levels are rising. But then, they have been since the peak of the last Ice Age, 18,000 years ago. Theyve risen some 400 feet in the interim. In recent millennia, writes S. Fred Singer, an atmospheric physicist and professor emeritus of environmental science at the University of Virginia, the rate has been 18 cm (7 inches) per centuryand there is good argument for this rate to continue until the next ice age. Tidal gauges show no acceleration during the 20th century but only a steady rise [...] Evidently, the rise expected from melting glaciers and a warmer, expanding ocean is largely offset by loss of water from increased ocean evaporation and more ice accumulation on the Antarctic continent.
It is also true that atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are increasing, from about 280 parts per million in the 19th century to some 387 ppm today, and that humans are primarily responsible for this. Thats about a 38% jump in 100+ years, something the alarmists find, well, alarming.
Its not, Professor Lindzen maintains, writing that, carbon dioxide is an infrared absorber (i.e. a greenhouse gasalbeit a minor one), and its increase should theoretically contribute to warming. Indeed, if all else were kept equal, the increase in carbon dioxide should have led to somewhat more warming than has been observed, assuming that the small observed increase was in fact due to increasing carbon dioxide rather than a natural fluctuation in the climate system.
Not to mention that the relationship between CO2 levels and temperature is far from clear. There is an intricate interplay between release of the gas by humans and natural sources, and uptake by the ocean, plants and soil. Given the dynamism of the process, it is a bit surprising that atmospheric carbon dioxide has remained as stable as it has for the past millennium, before spiking up, in hockey stick fashion, only recently.
Will the upward curve continue indefinitely, as alarmists fear? Or will some other element of the system change, bringing CO2 levels down again? No one knows. What is known is that there have been more significant surface temperature changes during the past thousand years than we are experiencing today, and that CO2 levels were not a factor.
What was the deciding factor, then? Again, no one can say, except that it was probably a combination of ingredients.
The most important of these is the amount of solar radiation that is received on the Earths surface. Everyone agrees that greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide (and, much more importantly, water vapor) can serve to trap the suns heat and raise surface temperatures. But its a feedback system, depending not only on greenhouse gas levels, but on how much heat there is to trap, and that varies for a number of reasons.
For one, the sun itself goes through periods of greater and lesser radiation, with the presence or absence of sunspots being a good indicator. Sunspots are cyclical. So is the variation in the shape of the Earths orbit; when its at its most elliptical, it receives about 20% less radiation than when its at its least elliptical, a state its now approaching. Also of influence are the regular changes in the tilt of the Earths axis and the effects of planetary wobbling on that axis.
Finally, theres one other question thats seldom posed: what are the benefits of global warming? Now, were not talking about it becoming so hot that the Earth becomes a skillet and we the bacon. But no model foresees that.
Some will be negatively impacted, but thats true of any change, man-made or natural. On the other hand, warmer temperatures mean later frosts and longer growing seasons. Crops could be raised where they cannot today. Ocean evaporation would rise, increasing the global supply of fresh water. Farmers could repopulate Greenland.
To us, that doesnt sound bad. What sounds much worse is that we may have the enormous good fortune to inhabit one of the most benign climatic eras ever, and that ice ages will continue to alternate with interglacials like the present. The giant glaciers tend to grow and recede on a 12,000-year cycle, which means theyre about due to return again. When and if they do, theyll override our land, flatten our proud skyscrapers, and relentlessly drive humanity into ever more densely populated southern latitudes. Those already living there are not likely to open welcoming arms.
It isnt a pretty picture. Trapping a bit more of the suns heat looks like a very viable alternative.
To sum up, in the spirit of full disclosure we cheerfully confess that we are not physicists, or climatologists, or any other kind of authority on the subject of global warming. We dont have a clue whats up for 2007, much less the coming centurybest guess based on the evidence weve reviewed: continued moderate warming, due in some part to human activityand we rather suspect no one else does, either. All we did was look into the debate, and we hope that weve brought to our readers attention the fact that there is a debate, that the absolute consensus you hear about is a myth.
The consensus tale has been placed in the hands of some very potent myth makers, including prominent scientists, politicians, and most members of the media. We dont believe that all of them have been deliberately lying to us, although some have.
We do believe that the debate should be taking place out in the open, with both sides presenting evidence, rather than engaging in name calling. We also believe the mass media should do a better job of framing the debate, but we doubt that they will. Fear sells, and the absence of fear is a non-starter. Its just that simple. The media has glommed onto the alarmists point of view, because it is apocalyptic and generates better headlines. The skeptics get short shrift.
Alarmist and skeptic alike, though, agree on one thing: The sun will eventually burn itself out, leaving Earth as a cold, lifeless rock. Now thats global climate change.
**********************************************
End Quote
We have entered a period of global warming on steroids. It is a period in which every possible effort will be made to impose this Big Lie on all of us
--Alan Caruba, author of Right Answers: Separating Fact from