Greenpeace co-founder: Earth’s geologic history ‘fundamentally contradicts’ CO2 warming fears
Greenpeace co-founder: Earth’s geologic history ‘fundamentally contradicts’
CO2 warming fears
·
·
ilShare
·
Statement of Patrick Moore, Ph.D.
Before the Senate Environment and
Public Works Committee, Subcommittee on Oversight
February 25, 2014
“Natural Resource Adaptation: Protecting
ecosystems and economies”
Chairman Whitehouse, Ranking Member Inhofe, and members of the Committee.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify at today’s hearing.
In 1971, as a PhD student in ecology I joined an activist group in a church
basement in Vancouver Canada and sailed on a small boat across the Pacific to
protest US Hydrogen bomb testing in Alaska. We became Greenpeace.
After 15 years in the top committee I had to leave as Greenpeace took a
sharp turn to the political left, and began to adopt policies that I could not
accept from my scientific perspective. Climate change was not an issue when I
abandoned Greenpeace, but it certainly is now.
There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2)
are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the
past 100 years. If there were such a proof it would be written down for all to
see. No actual proof, as it is understood in science, exists.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) states: “It is
extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the
observed warming since the mid-20th century.” (My emphasis) “Extremely likely”
is not a scientific term but rather a judgment, as in a court of law. The IPCC
defines “extremely likely” as a “95-100% probability”. But upon further
examination it is clear that these numbers are not the result of any
mathematical calculation or statistical analysis. They have been “invented” as
a construct within the IPCC report to express “expert judgment”, as determined
by the IPCC contributors.
These judgments are based, almost entirely, on the results of sophisticated
computer models designed to predict the future of global climate. As noted by
many observers, including Dr. Freeman Dyson of the Princeton Institute for
Advanced Studies, a computer model is not a crystal ball. We may think it
sophisticated, but we cannot predict the future with a computer model any more
than we can make predictions with crystal balls, throwing bones, or by
appealing to the Gods.
Perhaps the simplest way to expose the fallacy of “extreme certainty” is to
look at the historical record. With the historical record, we do have some
degree of certainty compared to predictions of the future. When modern life
evolved over 500 million years ago, CO2 was more than 10 times higher than
today, yet life flourished at this time. Then an Ice Age occurred 450 million
years ago when CO2 was 10 times higher than today. There is some correlation,
but little evidence, to support a direct causal relationship between CO2 and
global temperature through the millennia. The fact that we had both higher
temperatures and an ice age at a time when CO2 emissions were 10 times higher
than they are today fundamentally contradicts the certainty that human-caused
CO2 emissions are the main cause of global warming.
Today we remain locked in what is essentially still the Pleistocene Ice Age,
with an average global temperature of 14.5oC. This compares with a low of about
12oC during the periods of maximum glaciation in this Ice Age to an average of
22oC during the Greenhouse Ages, which occurred over longer
t
ime
periods prior to the most recent Ice Age. During the Greenhouse Ages, there was
no ice on either pole and all the land was tropical and sub-tropical, from pole
to pole. As recently as 5 million years ago the Canadian Arctic islands were
completely forested. Today, we live in an unusually cold period in the history
of life on earth and there is no reason to believe that a warmer climate would
be anything but beneficial for humans and the majority of other species. There
is ample reason to believe that a sharp cooling of the climate would bring
disastrous results for human civilization.
Moving closer to the present day, it is instructive to study the record of
average global temperature during the past 130 years. The IPCC states that
humans are the dominant cause of warming “since the mid-20th century”, which is
1950. From 1910 to 1940 there was an increase in global average temperature of
0.5oC over that 30-year period. Then there was a 30-year “pause” until 1970.
This was followed by an increase of 0.57oC during the 30-year period from 1970
to 2000. Since then there has been no increase, perhaps a slight decrease, in
average global temperature. This in itself tends to negate the validity of the
computer models, as CO2 emissions have continued to accelerate during this
time.
The increase in temperature between 1910-1940 was virtually identical to the
increase between 1970-2000. Yet the IPCC does not attribute the increase from
1910-1940 to “human influence.” They are clear in their belief that human
emissions impact only the increase “since the mid-20th century”. Why does the
IPCC believe that a virtually identical increase in temperature after 1950 is
caused mainly by “human influence”, when it has no explanation for the nearly
identical increase from 1910-1940?
It is important to recognize, in the face of dire predictions about a 2oC
rise in global average temperature, that humans are a tropical species. We
evolved at the equator in a climate where freezing weather did not exist. The
only reasons we can survive these cold climates are fire, clothing, and
housing. It could be said that frost and ice are the enemies of life, except
for those relatively few species that have evolved to adapt to freezing
temperatures during this Pleistocene Ice Age. It is “extremely likely” that a
warmer temperature than today’s would be far better than a cooler one.
I realize that my comments are contrary to much of the speculation about our
climate that is bandied about today. However, I am confident that history will
bear me out, both in terms of the futility of relying on computer models to
predict the future, and the fact that warmer temperatures are better than
colder temperatures for most species.
If we wish to preserve natural biodiversity, wildlife, and human well being,
we should simultaneously plan for both warming and cooling, recognizing that
cooling would be the most damaging of the two trends. We do not know whether
the present pause in temperature will remain for some time, or whether it will
go up or down at some time in the near future. What we do know with “extreme
certainty” is that the climate is always changing, between pauses, and that we
are not capable, with our limited knowledge, of predicting which way it will go
next.
Thank you for the opportunity to present my views on this important subject.
Attached please find the chapter on climate change from my book,
“Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout: The Making of a Sensible
Environmentalist”. I would request it be made part of the record.
______________________
Excerpted from:
Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout: The Making of a Sensible
Environmentalist
Patrick Moore, Ph.D. Published 2013
chapter twenty-one
Climate of Fear
If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end in doubts; but if he
will be content to begin with doubts he shall end in certainties. —Sir
Francis Bacon
The global media tells us plainly and bluntly that the vast majority of the
world’s scientists believe we are headed for a climate catastrophe that will
devastate human civilization and the environment. We have no choice but to act
immediately to save ourselves from this apocalypse. The greatest threat is the
CO2 released from burning fossil fuels and cutting forests. Fossil fuel use
must be cut by 80 percent or more, and we must stop cutting trees. How should
we react to this warning?
The subject of climate change, also referred to as global warming, is
perhaps the most complex scientific issue we have ever attempted to re- solve.
Hundreds, possibly thousands of factors influence the earth’s cli- mate, many
in ways we do not fully understand. So, first, let us recognize that the
science of climate is not settled. In fact, we are only beginning to understand
how the earth’s climate works.
It is not correct to use the terms global warming and climate change as if
they were interchangeable. Global warming is a very specific term meaning
exactly what it says, that the average temperature of the earth is increasing
over time. Climate change is a much more general term that includes many
factors. For one thing the climate is always changing, whereas it is not always
getting warmer. The old maxim “the only constant is change” fits perfectly
here. And as the belief in human-caused global warming has come into doubt the
term climate change has been adopted as a substitute, even though it means
something completely different.
It is one thing to claim increases in CO2 cause global warming and quite
another to claim increases in CO2 cause:
• Higher temperatures
• Lower temperatures
• More snow and blizzards
• Drought, fire, and floods
• Rising sea levels
• Disappearing glaciers
• Loss of sea ice at the poles
• Species extinction
• More and stronger storms
• More storm damage
• More volcanic eruptions
• Dying forests
• Death of coral reefs and shellfish
• Shutting down the Gulf Stream
• Fatal heat waves
• More heat-related illness and disease
• Crop failure and food shortages
• Millions of climate change refugees
• Increased cancer, cardiovascular disease, mental illness, and respiratory disease290
• And, a devastating effect on the quality of French wines 291
The science of climatology is only a few decades old. It is not a single
science but rather an interdisciplinary cluster of sciences. These include
meteorology (the study of weather), atmospheric chemistry, astrophysics and
cosmic rays, geology and other earth sciences, oceanography, carbon cycling
through all living species, soil science, geology, climate history through the
millennia, ice ages and greenhouse ages, study of the sun, knowledge of earth
wobbles, magnetic fields and orbital variations, etc. All of these disciplines
are interrelated in complex, dynamic patterns that cannot be reduced to a
simple equation. That is why climatologists have built very complicated
computer models in the hope of predicting future climatic conditions. A
“climate change con- sisting of widely divergent groups with sharply differing
opinions. The most prominent and formally structured group is the United
Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the scientists,
290. “A Human Health Perspective on Climate Change,” National Institute of
Environmental Health Sciences, April 2010,
http://www.niehs.nih.gov/health/docs/climatereport2010.pdf
291. “Impact of Climate Change on Wine in France,” Greenpeace International,
September 2009,
http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/international/press/reports/impacts-of-climate-change-on-w.pdf
climate of fear 343
scholars, activists, and politicians who associate themselves with this
organization. The IPCC was created in 1988 as a partnership between the World
Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Program, put
simply, meteorologists and environmentalists. Members of this group generally
believe humans are causing global warming, that we are changing the climate,
and this will generally be negative for civilization and the environment. They
claim to represent an “overwhelming consensus among climate scientists.”292
The IPCC is rather insular, believing its members are the only true climate
scientists and that those who disagree with them are either some other kind of
scientists, or not really scientists at all. Thus there is a self- defined
overwhelming, even unanimous, consensus because they don’t recognize the
legitimacy of those who disagree with them. In 2007 the IPCC published its
Fourth Assessment Report, which stated, “Most of the observed increase in
global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to
the observed increase in anthropogenic (human- caused) greenhouse gas
concentrations.”293
At the other end of this spectrum there is a considerable contingent of
scientists and scholars, largely schooled in the earth and astronomical
sciences, who believe climate is largely influenced by natural forces and
cycles. They were not organized into an official body until 2007 when the
Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) was formed in
Vienna. Led by atmospheric scientist Dr. Fred Singer, the NIPCC published
“Climate Change Reconsidered,” a comprehensive scientific critique of the
IPCC’s findings, in 2009.294 This report was signed by more than 31,000
American scientists and concluded, “there is no convincing scientific evidence
that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is
causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the
Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.”295 Clearly there is
no overwhelming consensus among scientists on the subject of climate.296 In my
opinion the believers and the skeptics of human-caused, catastrophic climate
change can be roughly divided between those who see history in very recent
terms (years to thousands of years) and those who see history in the long term
(thousands to hundreds of millions of years). Both meteorologists and
environmentalists tend to think about weather and climate in
292. “Statistical Analysis of Consensus,” realclimate.org, December 16, 2004,
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/a-statistical-analysis-of-the-consensus/
293. “Summary for Policymakers,” Fourth Assessment Report, Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change, 2007, p. 3,
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf
294. Craig Idso and S. Fred Singer, “Climate Change Reconsidered,”
Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, 2009.
http://www.heartland.org/publications/NIPCC%20report/PDFs/NIPCC%20Final.pdf
295. “Climate Change Reconsidered,” Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and
Global Change,” 2009, www.nipccreport.org/
296. “More Than 700 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global
Warming Claims: Scientists Continue to Debunk ‘Consensus’ in 2008 & 2009,”
U.S. Senate Minority Report, March 16, 2009,
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=83947f5d-d84a-4a84-ad5d-6e2d71db52d9
344 confessions of a greenpeace dropout
terms of recent human history. Geologists, evolutionary biologists, and
astrophysicists tend to think of climate in the context of the 3.5 billion-year
history of life and the 4.6 billion-year history of the Earth.
The various camps have invented some names for each other and for themselves.
Pretty much everyone involved thinks they are “climate scientists.” But people
who are convinced we are the main cause of climate change have been dubbed
“true believers” and “warmists,” highlighting what are seen to be religious and
ideological orientations, respectively. People who are undecided, critical, or
questioning are called “skeptics.” The skeptics are happy with this description
as it indicates they have an open mind and as scientists they believe they have
a duty to challenge un- proven hypotheses. The true believers use the word
skeptic as a slur, as in “unbelievers,” as if it is unacceptable to question
their beliefs. Then there are the “climate deniers,” or “denialists,” terms
invented by the true believers, and characterized by skeptics as associating
them with Holocaust deniers. Much of this is just name-calling, but it is
useful in the sense that it defines the battleground.
Over the years the media have largely ignored the scientists and organizations
that remain skeptical of human-caused global warming and climate change. The
public has been inundated with alarmist headlines about catastrophic climate
change and many governments have bought into the belief there is a global
emergency that must be addressed quickly and decisively. As with fear of
chemicals, fear of climate change results in a convergence of interests among
activists seeking funding, scientists applying for grants, the media selling
advertising, businesses promoting themselves as green, and politicians looking
for votes. It may not be a conspiracy, but it is a very powerful alignment that
is mutually reinforcing.
In 2007 the IPCC and one of its main champions, Al Gore, were awarded the Nobel
Peace Prize for alerting the world to the dire threat of human-caused climate
change. One would imagine the public would strongly support this alarmist
position, having been exposed to such one- sided media coverage and the news of
prestigious awards. Amazingly this is not the case, even in countries such as
the United States and England, where the official government positions are
sharply accepting of catas- trophic human-caused warming.
A Pew Foundation poll conducted in October 2009 found only 36 per- cent of the
general public in the United States believes humans are the cause of global
warming, whereas 33 percent does not believe the earth is warming and 16
percent believe the earth is warming but that it is due to natural causes.
Public opinion was sharply divided along partisan lines: 50 percent of
Democrats believe global warming is caused by humans, while 33 percent of
independents, and only 18 percent of Republicans agree with this. The trend
since 2007 is decidedly
climate of fear 345
downwards with about 10 percent fewer people believing in human-caused global
warming in all categories.
Another Pew Foundation poll taken in May 2010 asked Americans to rank
priorities for Congress. It found only 32 percent think it is very important
for Congress to address climate change in the coming months, including 47
percent of Democrats, 29 percent of independents, and 17 percent of
Republicans.297
The partisan spread mirrors the poll on belief in human-caused cli- mate change
almost perfectly. This is a strong indication that the reason a majority is not
concerned about climate change legislation is because it doesn’t believe in
human-caused climate change in the first place.
A poll taken by Ipsos Mori in June 2008 found 60 percent of Britons believed,
“many scientific experts still question if humans are contributing to climate
change.”298 Clearly a majority of the British public does not believe there is
a scientific certainty on the subject.
A more recent British poll in February 2010, again taken by Ipsos Mori, showed
that only 17 percent of Britons put climate change in their top three most
important issues facing them and their families.299
In one of the most surprising surveys taken, 121 U.S. television weather
presenters, all members of the American Meteorological Society, were asked
their opinions on climate change in April 2010. Ninety-four percent of those
surveyed were accredited meteorologists. When asked about the UN’s
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s statement, “Most of the warming
since 1950 is very likely human-induced,” a full 50 percent either disagreed or
strongly disagreed. Twenty-five percent were neutral and only 24 percent said
they agreed or strongly agreed.300
In April 2013 a US Department of Agriculture-funded survey of US Midwest corn
farmer’s beliefs in climate change was published. 18,800 farmers with an income
of US$100,000 or more were polled, of whom 26 percent responded (4,778). Only 8
percent of these farmers, who spend their lives in the weather and the climate,
agreed with the statement, “Climate change is occurring and it is caused mostly
by human activities.” In other words, 92 percent of corn farmers do not believe
humans are the main cause of climate change. I say give them all honorary
doctorates of science.
297. “Public’s Priorities, Financial Regs: Congress’s Job Rating—13%,” Pew
Research Center for People and the Press, May 18, 2010,
http://people-press.org/report/615/
298. “Scientists Exaggerate Climate-Change Fears, Majority of Britons Believe,”
Mail Online, June 22, 2008,
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1028425/Scientists-exaggerate-climate-change-fears-majority-Britons-believe.html
299. “Climate Change Omnibus: Great Britain,” Ipsos Mori, February 24, 2010,
http://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/poll.aspx?oItemId=2552
300. Edward Maibach et al., “A National Survey of Television Meteorologists
About Climate Change: Preliminary Findings,” George Mason University Center for
Climate Change Communication, March 29, 2010,
http://www.climatechangecommunication.org/images/files/TV_Meteorologists_Survey_Findings_(March_2010).pdf
346 confessions of a greenpeace dropout
Why is there such a high degree of skepticism among professionals and the
public when the mainstream media is so biased toward the IPCC view? It would
appear they are reading about skeptical opinions on the Internet, blogs in
particular, and talking to one another about the subject in an open-minded
manner. Obviously most weather presenters are acutely interested in and aware
of the fine points of the debate. The fact they disagree with the IPCC
“consensus” by two-to-one speaks volumes about where these weather
professionals find credibility on the subject of global warming.
Climate science is a classic case of the necessity to distinguish between
historical and present facts on the one hand, and predictions of the future on
the other. There are a number of things we can say with relative certainty:
• During the past 500 million years, since modern life forms emerged, the
earth’s climate has been warmer than it is today most of the time. During these
“Greenhouse Ages” the earth’s temperature averaged around 22 to 25 degrees
Celsius (72 to 77 Fahrenheit).301 All the land was either tropical or
subtropical and the world was generally wetter. The sea level was much higher
than today and life flourished on land and in the oceans. These warm periods
were punctuated by three Ice Ages during which large ice sheets formed at the
poles and in mountainous areas, effectively eliminating most plants and animals
in those regions.
• The two Ice Ages that preceded the current one occurred between 460 and 430
million years ago and between 360 and 260 million year ago. From 260 million
years ago until quite recently, a Greenhouse Age existed for about 250 million
years. Ice started to accumulate in Antarctica beginning 20 million years ago
and eventually the cur- rent Ice Age, known as the Pleistocene, began in
earnest about 2.5 million years ago.302 The Pleistocene, which we are still in
today and during which our species evolved to its current state, accounts for
only 0.07 percent of the history of life on earth.
• During the coldest periods of the Pleistocene Ice Age the average temperature
of the earth was around 12 degrees Celsius (54 degrees Fahrenheit) and there
were large ice sheets on both poles. Before the recent retreat of the glaciers,
beginning 18,000 years ago, the ice extended below the U.S./Canada border, over
all of Scandinavia, much of northern Europe, and well into northern Russia. The
sea was about 122 meters (400 feet) lower than it is today, having risen
steadily since then and continuing to do so today.303 In recent times the sea
has risen about 20 centimeters (8 inches) per century. The
301. Christopher R. Scotese, “Climate History,” Paleomar Project, April 20,
2002, http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm 302. “Ice Age” Wikipedia,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age 303. “Sea Level,” Wikipedia,
http://en.wikipe
climate of fear
347
cause of sea level rise is a combination of melting glaciers (ice on land) and
rising ocean temperature, as water expands when it gets warmer.
• The earth’s climate underwent a general warming trend beginning with the end
of the last major glaciation, about 18,000 years ago. This has not been an even
warming, as there have been many fluctuations along the way. For example,
during the Holocene Thermal Maximum between 9000 and 4000 years ago it was
warmer than it is today by as much as 3 degrees Celsius (5.4 degrees
Fahrenheit).304 During this time the present-day Sahara Desert was covered with
lakes and vegetation, clearly indicating there was much more rain- fall there
than today.305 We know for a fact this was not caused by humans. Many
scientists believe it was caused by variations in the earth’s orbit around the
sun.
• This historical record highlights the importance of analyzing the starting
point and end point of temperature measurements when explaining trends, both up
and down. It is warmer today than it was 18,000 years ago. But it is cooler
today than it was 5,000 years ago during the Holocene Thermal Optimum. So it
could be said we have been in a cooling trend for the past 5000 years even
though it is warmer now than it was when the glaciation ended. I will try not
to “trick” the reader by cherry-picking timelines that support a particular
bias.
• Today the average temperature of the earth is about 14.5 degrees Celsius (58
degrees Fahrenheit), decidedly closer to the Ice Age level than the Greenhouse
Age level and only 2.5 degrees above the temperature at the height of the last
major glaciation. The fact is we are still in the Pleistocene Ice Age and it is
possible another major glaciation may occur sometime in the next 10,000 years,
but that is a prediction, not a fact.
• Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is a greenhouse gas in that it tends to heat the
atmosphere and thus raise the temperature of the earth. But water vapor is by
far the most important greenhouse gas, contributing at least two thirds of the
“greenhouse effect.” CO2 and other minor gases, such as methane and nitrous
oxide, make up the other third of the greenhouse effect.306 It is not possible
to prove the exact ratios among the various greenhouse gases as they interact
in complex ways.
304. Chris Caseldine et al., “Holocene Thermal Maximum up to 3oC Warmer Than
Today, Quaternary Science Reviews 25, no. 17–18 (September 2006): 2025–2446.
305. “Earth’s Climatic History: The Last 10,000 Years,” CO2 Science,
http://www.co2science.org/subject/other/clim_hist_tenthousand.php
306. J. T. Kiehl and Kevin E. Trenberth, “Earth’s Annual Global Mean Energy
Budget,” Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 78, no. 2 (February
1997): 197-208,
www.atmo.arizona.edu/students/courselinks/spring04/atmo451b/pdf/RadiationBudget.pdf
348 confessions of a greenpeace dropout
In particular, the balance between water vapor and clouds (made up of condensed
water vapor) is impossible to predict accurately.307
• We know global levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have risen steadily from 315
parts per million (ppm) to nearly 390 ppm since scientists began taking regular
measurements at Mauna Loa on the big island of Hawaii in 1958.308 This is a
very short time compared to the 3.5 billion years of life on earth. Many
scientists assume that human emissions of CO2 from burning fossil fuels are the
main cause of this increase. Some scientists question this assumption. It is a
fact that CO2 levels were much higher than they are today during previ ous
eras. This will be discussed in detail later.
• The average temperature of the earth has fluctuated during the past 100
years, sometimes cooling, sometimes warming, and in balance has increased
somewhat, especially during the periods from 1910 to 1940 and from 1980 to
1998. Since 1998 there has been no further warming and apparently a slight
cooling. There is a lot of controversy around the accuracy of these trends. In
particular there is a concern that many of the weather stations used to
determine the global aver- age were originally in the countryside but over the
years have been swallowed up by expanding urban development. The “urban heat
island effect” refers to the fact that concrete and heat from buildings results
in an increase in temperature in urban areas compared to the surrounding countryside,309
thus the possibility exists that the results have been skewed. In November 20
or hacked, from the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in
the U.K. shocked the climate change community. It was quite clear from a number
of email exchanges that the scientists with this most important source of
information had been manipulating data, withholding data, and conspiring to
discredit other scientists who did not share their certainty that humans were
the main cause of climate change. These revelations were quickly dubbed
“Climategate” and have since been hotly debated in climate change circles.310
311 312 It is very difficult to find
307. “Forecast: Water and Global Warming,” ESPERE,
http://www.espere.net/Unitedkingdom/water/uk_forecast.html
308. R. F. Keeling et al., “Atmospheric CO2 Values (ppmv) Derived from In Situ
Air Samples Collected at Mauna Loa, Hawaii, USA,” Scripps Institute of
Oceanography, September 2009, http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/trends/co2/maunaloa.co2
309. “Surfacestations Project Reaches 82% of the Network Surveyed,”
surfacestations.org, July 16, 2009, http://www.surfacestations.org/
310. “The Tip of the Climate Change Iceberg,” Wall Street Journal, December 8,
2009, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704342404574576683216723794.html
311. James Delingpole, “Climategate: The Final Nail in the Coffin of
‘Anthropogenic Global Warming’?” Telegraph, November 20, 2009,
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-
global-warming/
312. Andrew C. Revkin, “Hacked E-Mail Is New Fodder for Climate Dispute,” New
York Times, November 20, 2009,
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.html
climate of fear 349
a balanced account of this scandal. Commentary is divided sharply, with
believers claiming that while the scientists involved behaved badly, this does
not change the fact that the science is clear that humans are causing warming,
while skeptics claim the revelations demonstrate the books have been cooked,
placing the entire hypothesis of global warming in doubt.
In December 2009, after months of promotion and hype, the Copenhagen conference
on climate change ended in disaster for the true believers. The delegates at
the largest international meeting in history failed to reach a single binding
decision to control CO2 emissions. There does not seem to be any conceivable
strategy to achieve international agreement on this subject. The United States
will not sign a deal that does not include China, India, Brazil, and the other
developing countries. The developing countries will not agree to reduce or
restrict their CO2 emissions so long as the U.S. and other industrialized
countries have far higher emissions on a per capita basis. Whereas the U.S.
emits nearly 20 tonnes (22 tons) of CO2 per person, China emits 4.6 tonnes (5.1
tons) and India emits 1.2 tonnes (1.3 tons). There is no possibility this
impasse will be resolved in the near future. The U.S. will not agree to reduce
its emissions to a lower level while the developing countries increase theirs.
The developing countries will not agree to a system in which the U.S. and other
industrialized countries are allowed even higher per capita emissions. Despite
this obvious impasse, the delegates continue to meet regularly, thousands of
people jetting to desirable locations like Bali, Montreal, and Rio de Janeiro
at public expense, with no possibility of ever reaching agreement.
We can be fairly certain of the facts listed above, with the qualifications
given. While this is very interesting, it is not the known facts but rather the
unanswered questions that are most intriguing. Climate change cannot be defined
by a single question. It is much like peeling back the layers of an onion,
beginning with the science, leading to possible environmental impacts, followed
by potential economic and social impacts, and concluding with policy options.
Among these questions are:
• Is CO2, the main cause of global warming, either natural or human-caused?
• Are human-caused CO2 emissions the principal cause of recent global warming?
• Is the recent warming trend fundamentally different from previous warming and
cooling trends?
• If warming continues at the rate experienced in the 20th century into the
21st century will this be positive or negative for human civilization and the
environment?
• Is the melting of glaciers and polar ice really a threat to the future of
human civilization?
• 350 confessions of a greenpeace dropout
• Will increased CO2 result in “acidification” of the oceans and kill all the
coral reefs and shellfish?
• Is it possible for humans to halt global warming and to control the earth’s
climate?
• Which would cost more to the economy, an 80 percent reduction in fossil fuel
use or adaptation to a warmer world?
• Could the United States and China ever agree to a common policy on reducing
CO2 emissions?
• Is the effort to conclude a binding agreement to control CO2 emissions among
all nations futile?
These are just some of the many questions we must answer if we are to make
intelligent choices about the direction public policy should take on the
subject of climate change. Before going into the fact that both CO2 and
temperature are increasing at the same time does not prove one is causing the
other. It may be that increased CO2 is causing some or most of the increased
temperature. It may also be that increased temperature causes an increase in
atmospheric CO2. Or it may be they are both caused by some other common factor,
or it may be just coincidental they are both rising together and they have
nothing to do with one an- other. Correlation does not prove causation. In
order to demonstrate one thing causes another, we need among other things, to
be able to replicate the same cause-effect sequence over and over again. This
is not possible with the earth’s climate as we are not in control of all (or
any of) the factors that might influence climate. Now, if we had a record of
CO2 and temperature going back many millions of years and it showed that
increased temperature always followed increased CO2, we would be a long way
toward proving the point. As we shall see later, the historical record is not
so clear on the relationship between CO2 and temperature. Second, it is often
ass interests of the environment are one and the same. This may be the case for
some factors, such as rainfall, but for others it simply does not apply. Take
sea level rise, for example. If the sea level rises relatively rapidly, it will
damage a great deal of human infrastructure and a great deal of work and
expense will be required either to protect or to replace farms, buildings,
wharfs, roadways, etc. But fish and other marine creatures will be perfectly
happy with the rising sea level and most land animals will not find it
difficult to move a few feet higher. A 1.5 meter (5-foot rise) in sea level may
inundate Bangladesh, turning much of it into a salt marsh and displacing
millions of people. This would be devastating for humans, but from an
environmental perspective there is nothing wrong with a salt marsh. From an
ecological point of view, a natural salt marsh represents an improvement over
intensive agriculture with monocultures of nonnative food crops.
climate of fear 351
Fortunately, no credible scientist believes the sea level will rise anywhere
near 1.5 meters in the next century.
A Longer View
Our lifetimes are so short compared to the billions of years of life’s history
on earth that we tend to dwell on the very recent past when considering
historical information. Nearly all the discussion of climate change is in the
context of the past 100 years, or occasionally the past 1000 years, even though
the earth’s climate has changed constantly for billions of years. Let’s take a
look at the history of climate change in this larger context, in particular the
past 500 million years since modern life forms evolved.
Temperature
The earth’s average temperature has fluctuated widely over the past one bil-
lion years (see Figure 1). It is interesting to note that during the Cambrian
Period, when most of the modern life forms emerged, the climate was much warmer
than it is today, averaging 25 degrees Celsius (77 degrees Fahrenheit). Only at
three other times during the past billion years has the temperature been as
cold as or colder than it is today. The age of the dinosaurs, the Jurassic and
Cretaceous Periods, experienced a warm climate with a moderate cooling spell in
the late Jurassic. Following the dinosaur extinction the climate remained warm
for 10 million years, spiking to 27 degrees Celsius (80 degrees Fahrenheit),
followed by a gradual decline that eventually led to the Pleistocene Ice Age.
As the graph below indicates, it is colder today than it has been throughout
most of the past billion years.
Humans generally prefer warmer climates to colder ones. When I mention that the
global climate was much warmer before this present Ice Age, people often say
something like, “But humans were not even around five million years ago,
certainly not 50 or 500 million years ago. We have not evolved in a warmer
world and will not be able to cope with global warming.” The fact is we did
evolve in a “warmer world.” The human species originated in the tropical
regions of Africa, where it was warm even during past glaciations nearer the
poles. Humans are a tropical species that has adapted to colder climates as a
result of harnessing fire, making clothing, and building shelters. Before these
advances occurred, humans could not live outside the tropics. It may come as a
surprise to most that a naked human in the outdoors with no fire will die of
hypothermia if the temperature goes below 21 degrees Celsius (70 degrees
Fahrenheit). Yet as long as we have food, water, and shade we can survive in
the hottest climates on earth without fire, clothing, or shelter.313 The
Australian Aborigines survived in
313. Claude A. Piantadosi, The Biology of Human Survival: Life and Death in
Extreme Environments (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003)
352 confessions of a greenpeace dropout
Figure 1. Graph showing global average temperature during the past billion
years.314
temperatures of over 45 degrees Celsius (113 degrees Fahrenheit) without air
conditioning for 50,000 years.
The fact that humans are essentially a tropical species explains why even today
there are no permanent residents of Antarctica and only four million people
living in the Arctic (0.06 percent of the global population). Most of the
Arctic population is engaged in resource extraction and would not choose to
live there otherwise. Historically, the very small populations of indigenous
people in the Arctic managed to eke out a living by inhabiting ice-shelters,
getting food from marine mammals and oil from marine mammals for heating and
light. They used sled dogs for transport and protection from polar bears. There
is a good reason why there are more than 18 million people in Sao Paulo,
Brazil, only 4,429 residents in Barrow, Alaska,315 and 3,451 inhabitants of
Inuvik, Northwest Territory.316
Why are there 300 million people in the United States and only 30 million in
Canada, which is larger geographically? One word answers this question: cold.
About 80 percent of Canadians live within 100 miles of the U.S. border, as it
is warmer there (although not by much in many regions) than it is in 90 percent
of Canada, which is frozen solid for six or more months of the year.
So clearly, on the basis of temperature alone, it would be fine for humans if
the entire earth were tropical and subtropical as it was for millions of years
during the Greenhouse Ages. It would also be fine for the vast majority of
species in the world today, most of which live in tropical and subtropical
regions. But this would not be the case for some other species that have
evolved specifically to be able to survive in cold climates.
The polar bear did not exist until the Pleistocene Ice Age froze the Arctic and
created the conditions for adaptation to a world of ice. Polar bears are not
really
314. Global Temperature Curve by C.R. Scotese, PALEOMAP Project,
http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm
315. “City of Barrow – Farthest North American City,”
http://www.cityofbarrow.org/ 316. “Inuvik,”
http://www.inuvik.ca/tourism/faq.html
climate of fear 353
a distinct species; they are a variety of the European brown bear, known as the
grizzly bear in North America. They are so closely related genetically that
brown bears and polar bears can mate success- fully and produce fertile
offspring.317 The white variety of the brown bear evolved as the ice advanced,
the white color providing a good camouflage in the snow. Once bears could walk
out to sea on the ice floes, it became feasible to hunt seals. It is possible
that if the world warmed substantially over the next hundreds of years that the
white variety of the brown bear would become reduced in numbers or even die out.
This would simply be the reverse of what happened when the world became colder.
Some varieties of life that exist today are only here because the world turned
colder a few million years ago, following a warmer period that lasted for over
200 million years. If the climate were to return to a Greenhouse Age those
varieties might not survive. Many more species would benefit from a warmer
world, the human species among them.
The polar bear did not evolve as a separate variety of brown bear until about
150,000 years ago, during the glaciation previous to the most recent one.318
319 This is a very recent adaptation to an extreme climatic condition that
caused much of the Arctic Ocean to freeze over for most of the past 2.5 million
years. The polar bear did manage to survive through the inter- glacial period
that preceded the one we are in now even though the earth’s average temperature
was higher during that interglacial than it is today.320 So as long as the
temperature does not rise more than about 5 degrees Celsius (9 degrees
Fahrenheit) above the present level, polar bears will likely survive. But that
is a prediction, not a fact.
To listen to climate activists and the media, you would think the polar bear
population is already in a steep decline. A little investigation reveals there
are actually more polar bears today than there were just 30 years ago. Most
subpopulations are either stable or growing. And the main cause of polar bear
deaths today is legally sanctioned trophy hunting, not climate change. Of an estimated
population of 20,000 to 25,000 bears, more than 700 are shot every year by
trophy hunters and native Inuit. One hundred and nine are killed in the Baffin
Bay region of Canada alone. And yet activist groups like the World Wildlife
Fund use the polar bear as a poster child for global warming, incorrectly
alleging that they are being wiped out by climate change.
The population of polar bears was estimated at 6000 in 1960. In 1973 an
International Agreement between Canada, the United States, Norway,
317. Katherine Hamon, “Climate Change Likely Caused Polar Bear to Evolve
Quickly,” Scientific American, March 1, 2010,
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=polar-bear-genome-climate
318. “Polar Bear” Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_bear
319. Katherine Hamon, “Climate Change Likely Caused Polar Bear to Evolve
Quickly,” Scientific American, March 1, 2010,
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=polar-bear-genome-climate
320. “Interglacial,”Wikipedia,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interglacial
354 confessions of a greenpeace dropout
Russia, and Greenland ended unrestricted hunting and introduced quotas. Since
then only native people have been allowed to hunt polar bears, although in
Canada the native Inuit often act as guides for non- native hunters. As a
result of this restriction on hunting, the population has rebounded to its
present level of 20,000 to 25,000. The International Union for the Conservation
of Natural Resources Polar Bear Specialist Group reports that of 18 subpopulations
of bears, two are increasing, five are stable, five are declining, while for
six subpopulations, mainly those in Russia, there is insufficient data.321
There is no reliable evidence that any bear populations are declining due to
climate change and all such claims rely on speculation; they are predictions
based on conjecture rather than actual scientific studies.
At the other end of the world in Antarctica, numerous species of pen- guins
have evolved over the past 20 million years so that they can live in ice-bound
environments. There are also many species of penguins that live in places where
there is no ice, such as in Australia, South Africa, Tierra del Fuego, and the
Galapagos Islands. It took 20 million years for the Antarctic ice sheet to grow
to the extent it has been for the past 2.5 million years, during the
Pleistocene Age. Antarctica differs significantly from the Arctic in that most
of the ice is on land and at higher elevation. It is very unlikely Antarctica
will become ice-free in the near future. It took millions of years for the
present ice sheet to develop. In all likelihood the penguins will be able to
breathe easily for thousands, possibly millions of years.
Coming closer to the present day, there is good historical evidence that it was
warmer than it is today during the days of the Roman Empire 2000 years ago and
during the Medieval Warming Period 1,000 years ago.322 323 We know that during
the Medieval Warming Period, the Norse (Vikings) colonized Iceland, Greenland,
and Newfoundland. The settlements in Newfoundland and Greenland were then
abandoned during the Little Ice Age that lasted from about 1500 to the early
1800s.324 The Thames River in England froze over regularly during the cold
winters of the Little Ice Age. The Thames last froze over in 1814.325 Since
then the climate has been in a gradual warming trend. Given that there were
very low levels of CO2 emissions from human activity in those times, it is not
possible that humans caused the Medieval Warming Period or the Little Ice Age.
Natural factors had to be instrumental in those changes in climate.
321. “Summary of Polar Pear Population status per 2010,” IUCN Polar Bear
Specialist Group, http://pbsg.npolar.no/en/status/status-table.html
322. “Roman Warm Period (Europe – Mediterranean) – Summary,” CO2 Science,
http://www.co2science.org/subject/r/summaries/rwpeuropemed.php
323. “Medieval Warm Period Project,” CO2 Science,
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php
324. “20th Century Climate Not So Hot,” Harvard Smithsonian Center for
Astrophysics, March 31, 2003,
http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/news/archive/pr0310.html
325. “The Frozen Thames in London: An Introduction,” History and Traditions of
England, January 10, 2010, http://www.webhistoryofengland.com/?p=613
climate of fear 355
Speaking of natural factors, it is clear the climate changes over the past
billions of years were not caused by our activities. So how credible is it to
claim we have just recently become the main cause of climate change? It’s not
as if the natural factors that have been causing the climate to change over the
millennia have suddenly disappeared and now we are the only significant agent
of change. Clearly the natural factors are still at work, even if our
population explosion and increasing CO2 emissions now play a role in climate
change. So the real question is, are human impacts over- whelming the natural
factors or are they only a minor player in the big picture? We do not know the
definitive answer to that question.
Let’s go back to the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report in 2007, which stated:
“Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the
mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic
(human-caused) greenhouse gas concentrations”[my emphasis]. The first word,
most, in common usage means more than 50 percent and less than 100 percent,
i.e., more than half but not all. That’s a pretty big spread, so clearly IPCC
members don’t have a very precise estimate of how much of the warming they
think we are causing. If they are that uncertain, how do they know it’s not 25
percent, or 5 percent? They restrict the hu- man influence to “since the
mid-20th century,” implying humans were not responsible for climate change
until about 60 years ago. So the logical question is, What was responsible for
the significant climate changes be- fore 60 years ago, the warming between 1910
and 1940, for example? The most problematic term in their statement is “very
likely,” which certainly provides no indication of scientific proof. The IPCC
claims that “very likely” means “greater than 90 percent probability.”326 But
the figure 90 is not the result of any calculation or statistical analysis. The
footnote entry for the term “very likely” explains, “in this Summary for
Policymakers, the following terms have been used to indicate the assessed
likelihood, using expert judgement, [my emphasis] of an outcome or a result:
Virtually certain > 99% probability of occurrence, Extremely likely >
95%, Very likely > 90%, Likely > 66%, More likely than not > 50%,
Unlikely < 33%, Very unlikely < 10%, Extremely unlikely < 5%.”327 One
expects “judgments” from judges and opinionated journalists. Scientists are
expected to provide calculations and observable evidence. I’m not convinced by
this loose use of words and numbers.
According to the official records of surface temperatures, 1998 was the warmest
year in the past 150 years. Since then the average global temperature remained
relatively flat down, completely contrary to the predictions of the IPCC,
326. “Summary for Policymakers,” Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,
2007, p. 3 http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf
327. Ibid.
356 confessions of a greenpeace dropout
and in spite of steadily growing CO2 emissions from countries around the world.
This drop in temperature is now attributed to natural factors, something that
was downplayed in previous predictions. Mojib Latif, a prominent German
meteorologist and oceanographer, explains it this way, “So I really believe in Global
Warming. Okay. However, you know, we have to accept that there are these
natural fluctua- tions, and therefore, the temperature may not show additional
warming temporarily.”328 The question is, How long is temporarily? At this
writing the global temperature has not increased during the past 16 years. The
assertion that it will resume warming at some time in the future is a
prediction, not a fact. And even if warming does resume, it is possible that
this may be due to natural factors. It is not logical to believe that natural
factors are only responsible for cooling and not for warming.
The situation is complicated further by the revelations of “Climategate” in
November 2009, which clearly showed that many of the most influential climate
scientists associated with the IPCC have been manipulating data, withholding
data, and conspiring to discredit other scientists who do not share their
certainty that we are the main cause of global warming.329 It has also been
well documented that the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Science, which is
responsible for one of the primary temperature records, has dropped a large
number of weather stations, mainly in colder regions, thus likely making it
seem warming is occurring even though this may not be the case.330 The situation
is in such a state of flux that it may be several years before an objective
process is in place to sort out what is believable and what is not.
Leading up to the 15th Conference of the Parties in the Framework Convention on
Climate Change in Copenhagen in December 2009, the IPCC, the European Union,
and many other participants warned we must keep global temperatures from rising
more than 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) or we will face climate
catastrophe.331 Yet the global temperature has been 6 to 8 degrees Celsius (11
to 14 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than it is today through most of the past 500
million years. It seems clear that the real “climate catastrophes” are the
major glaciations that occurred during the Ice Ages, not the warm Greenhouse
Ages when life flourished from pole to pole.
328. “Scientist Explains Earth’s Warming Plateau,” National Public Radio,
November 22, 2009
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120668812&ft=1&f=1007
329. James Delingpole, “Climategate: The Final Nail in the Coffin of
‘Anthropogenic Global Warming’?” Telegraph, November 20, 2009,
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-
… … anthropogenic-global-warming/
330. Joseph D’Aleo and Anthony Watts, “Surface Temperature Records:
Policy-Driven Deception?” Science & Public Policy Institute, June 2, 2010,
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/surface_temp.pdf
331. James Murray, “IPCC Chief Warns Even Two Degree Rise Spells ‘Bad News’,”
businessgreen.com, March 10, 2009,
http://www.businessgreen.com/business-green/news/2238184/ipcc-chief-warns-two-degree
climate of fear 357
Figure 2. Global temperature trends 1860–2008 according to Phil Jones of the
Climatic Research Unit in the U.K.
The graph on this page, Figure 2, is a record of global temperatures from 1850
to 2008, as prepared by the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East
Anglia in the U.K.332 It was authored by Phil Jones, who was at the centre of
the “Climategate” scandal. As previously mentioned, the emails he and his
colleagues exchanged indicated they withheld data, manipulated data, and
attempted to discredit other scientists who held contrary views. Jones was
suspended from his post in November 2009, pending an inquiry into the scandal.
Therefore the data this graph is based on are not necessarily credible; they
need to be rigorously re-examined.333 But the graph does provide a useful tool
for examining a couple of points about recent temperature trends.
The graph indicates global temperature has risen by about 0.8 degrees Celsius
(1.4 degrees Fahrenheit) over the past 150 years. But about half of this
warming occurred from 1910 to 1940, before the huge increase in CO2 emissions
from fossil fuel that began after the Second World War. What caused this
increase? We simply don’t know. Then there was a period of cooling from 1940 to
1980, just as CO2 emissions started to increase dramatically. In the mid-1970s,
mainstream magazines and newspapers, including Time, Newsweek, and the New York
Times, published articles on the possibility of a coming cold period, perhaps
another Ice Age.334 335 These articles were based on interviews with scientists
at the National Academy of Sciences and NASA, among others. Prominent
supporters of the global cooling
332. Phil Jones, “Global Temperature Record,” Climatic Research Unit, March
2010, http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/
333. Joseph D’Aleo and Anthony Watts, “Surface Temperature Records:
Policy-Driven Deception?” Science & Public Policy Institute, June 2, 2010,
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/surface_temp.pdf
334. Mauritzio Marabito, “Same Fears: Different Name?” Spiked, December 10,
2009, http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/7817/
335. Robert Bradley Jr, “The Global Cooling Scare Revisited (‘Ice Age’ Holdren
Had Plenty of Company),” Master Resource, Septem- ber 26, 2009,
http://www.masterresource.org/2009/09/the-global-cooling-scare-revisited/
358 confessions of a greenpeace dropout
theory included present-day global warming supporters such as John Holdren, the
Obama administration’s science czar337 and the late Stephen Schneider, a former
leading member of the IPCC.338
In 1980, global temperatures began a 20-year rise, according to the now
questionable records used by the IPCC for its predictions of climate disaster.
This is the only period in the 3.5 billion years of life on earth in which the
IPCC attributes climate change to human activity. Since 1998 there has been no
further increase in global temperature, even according to the IPCC sources. How
does one 20-year period of rising temperatures out of the past 150 years prove
we are the main cause of global warming?
The alarmists declare that the present warming trend is “unprecedented” because
it is happening on a scale of centuries whereas past warming trends have been
much slower, giving species time to adapt. This is shown to be false even
during the past century. The IPCC does not contend that humans caused the
warming from 1910 to 1940; therefore it must have been a natural warming trend.
But the warming from 1910 to 1940 was just as large (0.4 degrees Celsius or 0.7
degrees Fahrenheit) and just as rapid over time as the supposed human-caused
warming from 1975 to 2000. How can scientists who claim to be on the cutting
edge of human knowledge miss this point?
It is a testament to the fickleness of trends in science, public policy, and
media communications that such certainty about human-caused climate change came
about. That era finally seems to have ended now that more attention is being
paid to the proposition that we really don’t have all the answers. One hopes
this will usher in a more sensible conversation about climate change and a more
balanced approach to climate change policy.
Figure 3. The HadCRUT 3 record of global temperature since 1980. There is no
statistically significant increase in temperature since 1997.336
336.
http://www.thegwpf.org/temperature-standstill-continues-2012-scrapes-top-ten/hadcrut3-2/
337. “John Holdren in 1771: ‘New Ice Age Likely’,” Zomblog, September 16, 2009,
http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/?p=873
338. John L. Daly, “Stephen Schneider: Greenhouse Superstar,” August 2008,
http://www.john-daly.com/schneidr.htm
climate of fear 359
In early 2013 there were three independent announcements by leading believers
in human-caused catastrophic climate change that confirmed the standstill in
global temperature. James Hansen, Director of the NASA Goddard Institute for
Space Studies and senior science advisor to Al Gore, stated “The 5-year running
mean of global temperature has been flat for the past decade.” In January 2013
The UK Met Office and the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East
Anglia released the data for December in their Hadcrut3 and Hadcrut4 global
temperature datasets. The data clearly shows that there has been no increase in
global temperature for 16 years, since 1997. In an interview with The
Australian in February 2013, Rajenda Pachauri, the chair of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change, acknowledged the reality of the post-1997 standstill
in global average temperatures.
Carbon Dioxide
The trains carrying coal to power plants are death trains. Coal-fired power
plants are factories of death. —James Hansen, director, NASA Goddard Institute
for Space Studies, science advisor to former vice president Al Gore
The entire global warming hypothesis rests on one belief—human emissions of CO2
are causing rapid global warming that will result in a “catastrophe” if we
don’t cut emissions drastically, beginning now. Let’s look at the history,
chemistry, and biology of this much-maligned molecule.
Carbon dioxide (CO2) and carbon are probably the most talked about substances
in the world today. We hear the term “carbon footprint” every day and fossil
fuels are now routinely described as “carbon-based energy.” True believers
speak of CO2 as if it is the greatest threat we have ever faced. Perhaps our
CO2 emissions will have some negative effects. But in my view CO2 is one of the
most positive chemicals in our world. How can I justify this statement given
that the US Environmental Protection Agency has declared CO2 and other
greenhouse gases are “pollutants” that are dangerous to human health and the
environment?339
What about the undisputed fact that CO2 is the most important food for all life
on earth? Every green plant needs CO2 in order to produce sugars that are the
primary energy source for every plant and animal. To be fair, water is also
essential to living things, as are nitrogen, potassium, phosphorus, and many
other minor elements. But CO2 is the most important food, as all life on earth
is carbon-based, and the carbon comes from CO2 in the atmosphere. Without CO2
life on this planet would not exist. How important is that?
339. “Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under
Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act,” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
December 7, 2009, http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment.html
360 confessions of a greenpeace dropout
Figure 4. This graph shows global levels of CO2 and the global temperature for
the past 600 million years. The correlation between the two parameters is mixed
at best, with an Ice Age during a period of high CO2 levels and Greenhouse Ages
during a period of relatively low CO2 levels.340
When President Obama appointed Lisa Jackson as head of the EPA, she promised to
“ensure EPA’s efforts to address the environmental crises of today are rooted
in three fundamental values: science-based policies and programs, adherence to
the rule of law, and overwhelming transparency.” During the EPA’s deliberations
on the “endangerment” ruling for CO2, one of its top economic policy experts,
Alan Carlin, a 35-year veteran of the agency, presented a 98-page analysis
concluding that the science behind man-made global warming is inconclusive at
best and that the agency should re-examine its findings. His analysis noted
that global temperatures were on a downward trend. It pointed out problems with
climate models. It highlighted new research about climate change that
contradicts apocalyptic scenarios. “We believe our concerns and reservations
are sufficiently important to warrant a serious review of the science by EPA,”
the report read.
In response to the report Carlin’s boss, Al McGartland, emailed him, forbidding
him from engaging in “any direct communication” with any- one outside his
office about his analysis. In a follow-up email, McGartland wrote, “With the
endangerment finding nearly final, you need to move on to other issues and
subjects. I don’t want you to spend any additional EPA time on climate change.
340. Monte Hieb, “Climate and the Carboniferous Period,” Plant Fossils of West
Virginia, March 21, 2009, http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html
climate of fear 361
No papers, no research, etc., at least until we see what EPA is going to do
with Climate.”341 These emails were leaked. So much for transparency, and so
much for science.
There is an interesting parallel here with the issue of chlorine, a chemical
described by Greenpeace as the “devil’s element.” There are some chlorine-based
chemicals that are very toxic and should be tightly con- trolled and even
banned in certain contexts. But as discussed earlier, chlorine is the most important
element for public health and medicine, just as carbon is the most important
element for life. And yet Greenpeace and its allies give the impression these
two building blocks of nature are essentially evil. It is time to bring some
balance into this discussion.
Al Gore is fond of reminding us that there is more CO2 in the atmosphere today
than there has been for the past 400,000 years.342 He may be correct, although
some scientists dispute this.343 But 400,000 years is a blink of an eye in
geological history. It is also true to state that CO2 levels in the atmosphere
have rarely been as low as they are today over the entire 3.5 billion years of
life on earth, and particularly during the past 500 million years since modern
life forms evolved. Figure 4 (previous page) shows the historic levels of CO2
as well as the global temperature, going back 600 million years
Note the graph shows CO2 was at least 3000 ppm, and likely around 7000 ppm, at
the time of the Cambrian Period, a Greenhouse Age when modern life forms first
evolved. This is nearly 20 times the CO2 concentration today. The Ice Age that
peaked 450 million years ago occurred when CO2 was about 4000 ppm, more than 10
times its present level. If both warm and cold climates can develop when there
is far more CO2 in the atmosphere than today, how can we be certain that CO2 is
determining the climate now?
The graph does show a limited correlation between temperature and CO2 during
the late Carboniferous, and a very weak correlation from then until today. It
is true that the most recent Ice Age corresponds with a relatively low CO2
level in the atmosphere. None of this is intended to make the argument that CO2
does not influence climate. I am no denier. We know that CO2 is a greenhouse
gas and that it plays a role in warming the earth. The real questions are: How
much of a role? and If warming is caused by our CO2 emissions, does this really
harm people and the planet?
Coming closer to the present, one of the best sets of data comes from ice cores
at the Russian Vostok station in Antarctica. These cores give
341. Kimberley A. Strassel, “The EPA Silences a Climate Skeptic,” Wall Street
Journal, July 3, 2009, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124657655235589119.html
342. Dave McArthur, “The Inconvenient Truth About An Inconvenient Truth,”
Scoop, July 26, 2006, http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0607/S00400.htm
343. Ernst-Georg Beck, “180 Years of Atmospheric CO2 Gas Analysis by Chemical
Methods,” Energy and Environment,18, no. 2 (2007), http://icecap.us/images/uploads/EE_18-2_Beck.pdf
362 confessions of a greenpeace dropout
Figure 5. Graph showing temperature and CO2 levels from 150,000 to 100,000
years ago. Note that temperature rises ahead of a rise in CO2.
us a picture of both temperature and atmospheric CO2 levels going back 420,000
years. Al Gore uses this information in his film An Inconvenient Truth to
assert that it provides evidence that increased CO2 causes an in- crease in
temperature. Closer examination of the data shows that it is the other way around.344
Through most of this period it is temperature that leads CO2 as shown for the
period 150,000 to 100,000 years ago in Figure 5. When temperature goes up, CO2
follows and when temperature goes down, CO2 follows it down.
This does not prove that increases in temperature cause increases in CO2, it
may be that some other common factor is behind both trends. But it most
certainly does not indicate rising CO2 levels cause increases in temperature.
It may be that CO2 causes a tendency for higher temperatures but that this is
masked by other, more influential factors such as water vapor, the earth’s
orbit and wobbles, etc.
The April 2008 edition of Discover magazine contains a full-page article about
plants, written by Jocelyn Rice, titled, “Leaves at Work.” The article begins
with this passage, “In the era of global warming, leaves may display an
unexpected dark side. As CO2 concentrations rise, plants can become full. As a
result, their stomata—the tiny holes that collect the CO2…will squeeze shut.
When the stomata close, plants not only take less CO2 from the air but also
draw less water from the ground, resulting in a run of water into rivers. The
stomata effect [my emphasis] has been responsible for the 3 percent increase in
river runoff seen over the past century.”345 At this point my BS meter came on.
There is no possibility anyone has a data set that could determine a 3 percent
increase in global
344. Joanne Nova, “Carbon Follows Temperature in the Vostok Ice Cores,” JoNova,
2008–2010, http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming/ice-core-graph/
345. Jocelyn Rice, “Leaves at Work,” Discover magazine, April 2008, p. 17
http://www.beattystreetpublishing.com/confessions/references/stomata-effect
climate of fear 363
river runoff in the past 100 years. The U.K.’s Hadley Centre for Climate
Prediction and Research was given as the source of this information. A thorough
review of the Hadley Centre website turned up nothing on the subject.346
The story goes on to predict that, given present trends in CO2 emissions,
“runoff within the next 100 years could increase by as much as 24 percent above
pre-industrial levels… in regions already hit hard by flooding, the stomata
effect could make matters much worse.” The Great Flood will return and inundate
the earth due to trillions of tiny stomata shutting their doors in the face of
too much CO2!
I also knew immediately that the entire article was bogus because I am familiar
with the fact that greenhouse growers purposely divert the CO2 -rich exhaust
gases from their wood or gas heaters into their greenhouses in order to greatly
increase the CO2 level for the plants they are growing. I searched the Internet
using the phrase “optimum CO2 level for plant growth.” All I needed were the
first few results to see plants grow best at a CO2 concentration of around 1500
ppm, which boosts plant yield by 25 to 65 percent.347 The present CO level in
the global atmosphere is about
390 ppm. In other words, the trees and other plants that grow around the
world would benefit from a level of CO2 about four times higher than it is
today. There is solid evidence that trees are already showing increased growth
rates due to rising CO levels.348
Greenhouse growers are able to obtain growth rates that are 40 to 50
percent higher than the rates plants grow under in today’s atmospheric
conditions. This makes sense when you consider that CO2 levels were generally
much higher during the time when plant life was evolving than they are today.
The fact is, at today’s historically low CO2 concentrations, all the plants on
earth are CO2-deprived. Those plants are starving out there!
Yet believers in catastrophic climate change will not abide by this clear
evidence. In May 2010 Science magazine published an article titled, “Carbon
Dioxide Enrichment Inhibits Nitrate Assimilation in Wheat and Arabidopsis.”349
The article implied that increased CO levels in the atmos phere might inhibit
the uptake of nitrogen. The popular press interpreted
this as evidence that increased CO2 might not result in increased growth rates,
as has been conclusively demonstrated in hundreds of lab and field
experiments.350 This is why greenhouse growers purposely inject CO into
their greenhouses. Typically, the Vancouver Sun ran with the headline,
346. “Met Office Hadley Centre,” Met Office, http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/science/hadleycentre/
347. “Indoor Growing: Using CO2,” Planet Natural,
http://www.planetnatural.com/site/xdpy/kb/implementing-co2.html
348. “Forest are Growing Faster, Climate Change Appears to be Driving
Accelerated Growth,” Smithsonian Environmental Research Center, February 1,
2010, http://sercblog.si.edu/?p=466
349. Arnold J. Bloom, “Carbon Dioxide Enrichment Inhibits Nitrate Assimilation
in Wheat and Arabidopsis,” Science 328, no. 5980 (May 14, 2010): 899–903, http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/328/5980/899
350. “Plant Growth Database,” CO2 Science,
http://www.co2science.org/data/plant_growth/plantgrowth.php
364 confessions of a greenpeace dropout
“Rising Carbon Dioxide Levels May Hinder Crop Growth: Greenhouse Gas Is Not
Beneficial to Plants, As Once Thought.”351 The Science article was clever
enough not to suggest that CO2 would “hinder” plant growth, or even to question
the proven fact that CO2 increases plant growth. But by raising a side issue of
nitrogen uptake it encouraged the media to make sensationalist claims,
apparently debunking the fact that doubling, tripling, or even quadrupling CO2
results in increased growth, regardless of some point about nitrogen.
It may turn out to be a very good thing that humans discovered fossil fuels and
started burning them for energy. By the beginning of the Industrial Revolution
CO2 levels had gradually diminished to about 280 ppm. If this trend, which had
been in effect for many millions of years, had continued at the same rate it
would have eventually threatened plant life at a global level. At a level of
150 ppm, plants stop growing altogether. If humans had not appeared on the
scene, it is possible that the declining trend in CO2 levels that began 150
million years ago would have continued. If it had continued at the same rate,
about 115 ppm per million years, it would have been a little over one million
years until plants stopped growing and died. And that would be the end of that!
This is perhaps my most heretical thought: that our CO2 emissions may be
largely beneficial, possibly making the coldest places on earth more habitable
and definitely increasing yields of food crops, energy crops, and forests
around the entire world. Earlier I referred to my meeting with James Lovelock,
the father of the Gaia Hypothesis and one of the world’s leading atmospheric
scientists. I found it strange he was so pessimistic about the future, and cast
our species as a kind of rogue ele- ment in the scheme of life.
Whereas the Gaia Hypothesis proposes that all life on earth acts in concert to
control the chemistry of the atmosphere in order to make it more suitable for
life, Lovelock believes human-caused CO2 emissions are the enemy of Gaia. But
surely humans are as much a part of Gaia as any other species, past or present?
How could we know we are the enemy of Gaia rather than an agent of Gaia, as one
would expect if “all life is acting in concert”? In other words, is it not
plausible that Gaia is using us to pump some of the trillions of tons of
carbon, which have been locked in the earth’s crust over the past billions of
years, back into the atmosphere? Perhaps Gaia would like to avoid another major
glaciation, and more importantly avoid the end of nearly all life on earth due
to a lack of CO2. One thing I know for sure is we should be a lot more worried
the climate will cool by 2 or 3 degrees Celsius than we should be about it
warming by 2
351. Amina Khan, “Rising Greenhouse Gas Levels May Hinder Crop Growth,”
Vancouver Sun, May 15, 2010,
http://www.vancouversun.com/health/Rising+carbon+dioxide+levels+hinder+crop+growth/3031640/story.html#ixzz0oFzR7jth
climate of fear 365
or 3 degrees Celsius. Cooling would definitely threaten our food supply;
warming would almost certainly enhance it.
I’m not saying I buy into the entire Gaia Hypothesis hook, line, and sinker. I
find some aspects of it very compelling, but it might be a bit of a stretch to
believe all life is acting in harmony, like on the planet Pandora in the movie
Avatar. But that’s not my point. What bothers me is the tendency to see all
human behavior as negative. Lovelock and his followers seem to need a narrative
that supports the idea of original sin, that we have been thrown out of the
Garden of Eden, or is it the Garden of Gaia?
The Hockey Stick
No discussion of climate change would be complete without mention of the
infamous hockey stick graph of global temperature. The graph, said to depict
Northern Hemisphere temperatures over the past 1,000 years, was created by
Michael Mann of Pennsylvania State University and his colleagues. It shows a
very even temperature until the modern age when there is a steep rise.352 The
surprise for many scientists was that the graph implied the Medieval Warm
Period and the Little Ice Age did not exist and that the only significant
change in temperature during the past 1000 years was a precipitous rise during
the past century. The graph was very controversial in climate science circles.
Despite the sharp debate, it was showcased in the 2001 and 2004 reports of the
IPCC. 353
Two Canadians, Steve McIntyre, a retired mining engineer, and Ross McKitrick,
an economist, became concerned that the data used to create the hockey stick
graph were not objective and the statistical analysis used was not legitimate.
They asked Mann and others to provide them with the original data and the
statistical methods used to arrive at the hockey stick graph. Mann and his
colleagues at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia
refused repeated requests to supply the data. The effort to obtain the data
went on for 10 years as the researchers even refused requests under Freedom of
Information Act rules. It was not until the release of thousands of emails from
the CRU that it became clear information was being withheld illegally and there
was a conspiracy of sorts to manipulate the data and discredit opposing
opinions.
In 2003 McIntyre and McKitrick published a critique of the hockey stick graph
in Energy & Environment in which they contended that Mann’s paper
contained, “collation errors, unjustifiable truncation or
352. Michael E. Mann et al., “Global-Scale Temperature Patterns and Climate
Forcing Over the Past Six Centuries,” Nature 392 (April 23, 1998).
http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/PDF/mann1998.pdf
353. Suzanne Goldenberg, “‘Hockey Stick’ Graph Creator Michael Mann Cleared of
Academic Misconduct,” Guardian, February 3, 2010,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/03/climate-scientist-michael-mann
366 confessions of a greenpeace dropout
extrapolation of source data, obsolete data, geographical location errors,
incorrect calculation of principal components and other quality control
defects.”354 As a result of this and other critiques the IPCC did not use the
hockey stick graph again in its 2007 report. The continuing debate over this
graph highlights the absence of a consensus on the temperature record, never
mind whether or not humans are responsible for climate change.
What’s So Good About Glaciers, Anyway?
Much has been made of the fact that many glaciers around the world have been
retreating in recent years. By many accounts we should be viewing this with
alarm. The potential loss of glaciers is portrayed as an ecological
catastrophe, as if it were equivalent to a species becoming extinct. In its
June 2007 issue the National Geographic magazine reported that a certain
Peruvian glacier was in a “death spiral,” as if it were a living thing.355 What
should we make of this hysterical reaction to melting ice?
It is important to recognize that glaciers have been retreating for about
18,000 years, since the height of the last glaciation. It has not been a steady
retreat as there have been times, such as during the Little Ice Age, when the
glaciers advanced. But there is no doubt that in balance there has been a major
retreat and it appears to be continuing today.
The retreat of the glaciers is largely a result of the climate becoming warmer.
It brings us back to the question of whether humans are responsible for the
warming or if it is just a continuation of the trend that began 18,000 years
ago. Either way, we then must ask whether, in balance, this is a good thing or
a bad thing. We know the climate was warmer than it is today during most of the
past 500 million years, and that life flourished during these times. We also
know there is very little life on, in, or under a glacier. Glaciers are
essentially dead zones, proof that ice is the enemy of life.
When a glacier retreats up the valley it carved, the bedrock and gravels are
exposed to light and air. Seeds find their way there, on the wind and in bird
droppings, and can germinate and grow. Before long the lifeless barrens become
a newly developing ecosystem full of lichens, mosses, ferns, flowering plants,
and eventually, trees. Isn’t it fairly obvious that this is a better
environmental condition than a huge blob of frozen water that kills everything
beneath it? Glaciers certainly are photogenic, but as we dis-
354. Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, “Corrections to the Mann et al.
(1998) Proxy Data Base and Northern Hemispheric Average Temperature Series,”
Energy & Environment 14, no. 6 (2003): 751–771,
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/MM03.pdf 355. Tim Appenzeller, “The
Big Thaw,” National Geographic, June 2007, http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2007/06/big-thaw/big-thaw-text
climate of fear 367
cussed in the chapter on forests, you can’t judge the health of an ecosystem by
the fact that it looks pretty. Sand dunes make for nice scenery too, but they
aren’t very welcome when they bury a town and kill all the crops.
Much attention has been focused on the Greenland ice cap, virtually one big
glacier with many arms to the sea. During the warming that occurred in the
1980s and 1990s it was reported that the Greenland ice cap was melting rapidly.
Al Gore predicted the sea might rise by 20 feet in the next century, apparently
assuming the entire ice cap might melt in 100 years.356 This is a physical
impossibility. The high elevation and extreme low temperatures dictate that it
would take at least thousands of years for the glaciers of Greenland to
disappear.
More recently the focus has been on the Himalayan glaciers, the largest ice cap
outside the Polar Regions. The story of what has become “Glaciergate” helps to
illustrate the present very confused state of climate science and of how
important glaciers are, or are not. The 2007 report of the IPCC, its fourth
report, stated Himalayan glaciers may be completely gone by 2035, less than 25
years from now.357 358 The report warned, “if the present rate continues, the
likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very
high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate.” It was not until the
lead-up to the 2009 Kyoto Protocol meeting in Copenhagen that scientists began to
question this assertion. The Ministry of the Environment in India published a
paper rejecting the 2035 prediction, stating that it would be hundreds of years
before the glaciers melted, even if the present warming trend continued.359
This caused the chairman of the IPCC, Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, who happens to be
Indian, to denounce the Environment Ministry’s report as “voodoo science.”360
It was not until after the Copenhagen conference that the IPCC published an
admission of error. They stated, “In drafting the paragraph in question, the
clear and well-established standards of evidence, required by the IPCC
procedures, were not applied properly.”361 Yet Dr. Pachauri refused to
apologize for calling the Environment Ministry’s report “voodoo science.”362 It
was revealed that the 2035 date was based
356. Jeffrey Masters, “Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth,” Weather Underground,
http://www.wunderground.com/education/gore.asp
357. “The Himalayan Glaciers,” Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007,
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch10s10-6-2.html
358. “IPCC Slips on the Ice with Statement About Himalayan Glaciers,”
climatesciencewatch.org, January 19, 2010,
http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/index.php/csw/details/ipcc_slips_on_the_ice/
359. V. K. Raina, “Himalayan Glaciers,” Science & Public Policy Institute,
November 12, 2009,
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/reprint/himalayan_review_of_glacial_studies.html
360. “Pachauri Calls Indian Govt. Report on Melting Himalayan Glaciers as
‘Voodoo Science,’” Thaindian News, January 9, 2010,
http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/health/pachauri-calls-indian-govt-report-on-melting-himalayan-glaciers-as-voodoo-
science_100301232.html
361. “Worldwide Glacier Melt a Real Concern; Himalaya Controversy Leaves
Questions About IPCC Leadership, climatescience- watch.org, January 21, 2010,
http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/index.php/csw/details/glacier-melt-ipcc-controversy/
362. “Pachauri Won’t Apologies [sic.], Admits IPCC’s Credibility Damaged,”
India Post, February 3, 2010,
http://www.indiapost.com/international-news/6964-Pachauri-wont-apologies-admits-IPCCs-credibility-damaged.html
368 confessions of a greenpeace dropout
Figure 6. The Michael Mann Hockey Stick Graph as it appeared in the 2001
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 363
on an interview by New Scientist magazine of a single Indian scientist, who
subsequently admitted his statement was “speculative.”364 The New Scientist
article was then referred to in a 2005 WWF report on glaciers, which was cited
as the only reference in support of the 2035 date.365
This has caused something of a crisis of credibility for the IPCC, which had
insisted all its predictions were based on peer-reviewed science. As it turns
out, the most credible scientists who specialize in the subject of Himalayan
glaciers believe it would take at least 300 years for them to melt completely,
even if it continues to get warmer. Other indefensible statements in the IPCC
report then emerged regarding the disappearance of the Amazon rain forest366
and the collapse of agricultural production in Africa.367
363. “Working Group I: The Scientific Basis,” Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change, 2001, http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/005.htm
364. Fred Pearce, Debate Heats Up Over IPCC Melting Glaciers Claim, New
Scientist, January 11, 2010,
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18363-debate-heats-up-over-ipcc-melting-glaciers-claim.html
365. Jonathan Leake and Chris Hastings, “World Misled Over Himalayan Glacier
Meltdown,” Sunday Times, January 17, 2010,
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6991177.ece
366. Christopher Booker, “Amazongate: New Evidence of the IPCC’s Failures,”
Telegraph, January 30, 2010, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/7113582/Amazongate-new-evidence-of-the-IPCCs-failures.
html
367. Lawrence Solomon, “Climategate Is One of Many Known IPCC Failings,”
Financial Post, February 26, 2010,
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2010/02/06/392245.aspx
climate of fear
369
Perhaps the most bizarre case of logical disconnect in the climate change
hysteria involves the predictions of disaster if the Himalayan glaciers
continue to melt. Lester Brown, president of the Earth Policy Institute,
predicts that if this happens there will be mass starvation in Asia.368 The
theory goes like this: the meltwater from the glaciers is essential for
irrigation of food crops throughout much of Asia. The Ganges, Indus, Mekong,
Yellow, Yangtze, and many other rivers flow from the Himalayas, providing water
for over one-third of the human population. If these glaciers were to melt
completely, there would be no more meltwater for irrigation, and so food
production would plummet, resulting in mass starvation. This seems plausible to
many people and has been repeated countless times in the media as another
“catastrophic” aspect of climate change.
After hearing Lester Brown speak at length about this doomsday scenario, it
dawned on me that his thesis was illogical. On the one hand he is saying the
meltwater (from the melting glaciers) is essential for food production, and on
the other hand he insists that we must try to stop the glaciers from melting so
they will not disappear. Obviously if the glaciers stop melting, there will be
no more meltwater from them. So my questions for Lester Brown, and the IPCC,
are, Are you saying you want the glaciers to stop melting? Then where would the
irrigation water come from? I might add, How about if the glaciers started growing
again, reducing water flows even further, perhaps advancing on the towns where
the food is grown?
It has since been revealed that only 3 to 4 percent of the water flowing into
the Ganges River is glacial meltwater. Ninety-six percent of the river flow is
from snow that fell in the previous winter and melted in the summer, and from
rainfall during monsoons.369 Therefore the people will not likely starve if the
glaciers melt completely. A warmer world with higher CO2concentrations, and
likely more precipitation, will allow expansion of agricultural land and will
result in faster-growing, more productive crops. Forests and crops will grow
where now there is only a sheet of ice. I say let the glaciers melt.
Arctic and Antarctic Sea Ice
The Arctic and Antarctic regions are polar opposites in more ways than one.
Whereas the Arctic is mainly an ocean surrounded by continents, the Antarctic
is a large continent, almost centered on the South Pole, surrounded by seas.
The Antarctic is colder than the Arctic largely due
368. Lester R. Brown, “Melting Mountain Glaciers Will Shrink Grain Harvests in
China and India,” Earth Policy Institute, March 20, 2008,
http://www.earthpolicy.org/index.php?/plan_b_updates/2008/update71
369. Palava Bagla, “No Sign of Himalayan Meltdown, Indian Report Finds,”
Observatory, November 15, 2009,
http://www.thegwpf.org/the-observatory/91-no-sign-of-himalayan-meltdown-indian-report-finds.html
370
confessions of a greenpeace dropout
to its high elevation.370 The Antarctic ice sheet began to form 20 million
years ago and has been a permanent fixture since then, advancing and retreating
with the pulses of glaciation over the past 2.5 million years during the
Pleistocene Ice Age. The Arctic was largely ice-free until the onset of the
Pleistocene and since then has had varying degrees of ice cover as glacial
periods have waxed and waned.
Much has been made recently of the fact that the extent of summer sea ice in
the Arctic has shrunk substantially. In September of 2007, typically the low
month after summer melting, there was about three million square kilometers of
ice cover, about two million less than the average since records were first
made. Many pundits immediately predicted that the Arctic would be ice-free in
the summer within 20 to 30 years, and that this would be our fault entirely.
The fact that the area of ice recovered by about one million square kilometers
in 2008 and again in 2009 didn’t dampen the shrillness of their predictions. In
September of 2012 the extent if ice cover again reached a record low, but
winter ice cover continued to remain rela- tively steady, close to the average
since measurements began.
Our knowledge of the extent of sea ice in the Arctic and Antarctic began in
1979, the first year satellites were used to photograph the Polar Regions on a
continual basis. Before 1979 it is not possible to reconstruct the comings and
goings of sea ice, as unlike glaciers, sea ice leaves no trace when it melts.
There is an implicit assumption among the true believers that the reduction in
sea ice observed in 2007 and 2012 is unique in the historical record and that
we are now on a one-way trip to an ice-free Arctic Sea (see Figure 7 on next
page). Putting aside the fact that mariners consider an ice-free sea a good
thing, it is not possible to conclude a long-term trend in the extent of Arctic
sea ice from 30 years of satellite observation.
Between 1903 and 1905 the Norwegian Raold Amundsen became the first person to
navigate the Northwest Passage in a 47-ton sailing ship equipped with a small
gasoline motor.371 We do not know the extent of ice over the entire Arctic at
that time but the fact that a small boat could sail through the passage
indicates the present era was not the only time the area of ice was reduced.
Between 1940 and 1944, years before we had any idea of the extent of sea ice
during the summers and winters, a small Canadian trawler name the St. Roch
navigated the Northwest Passage twice, from west to east and from east to
west.372 373 It was not an icebreaker and it had only a 150-horsepower diesel
engine and sails. From 1910 to 1940 there was a well-documented rise in the
average global temperature of nearly half
370. “Antarctic Climate,” Wikipedia,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctica#Climate
371. “Roald Amundsen,” Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roald_Amundsen
372. Noel Sheppard, “Reports of Record Arctic Ice Melt Disgracefully Ignore
History,” NewsBusters, September 9, 2007,
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/09/09/reports-record-arctic-ice-melt-disgracefully-ignore-history
373. “Second Through the Passage, First West to East,” Athropolis,
http://www.athropolis.com/arctic-facts/fact-st-roch.htm
climate of fear 371
Figure 7. Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Anomaly (1979–2008 mean).The extent of
sea ice in the Arctic showed a clear downward trend from 1995 to 2007. Since
2007 it has recovered by about one-third over the lowest area. Only time will
tell what the trend will be in the coming decades.
Figure 8. Southern Hemisphere Sea Ice Anomaly (1979–2008 mean). Graph showing
the deviance from the 1979 to 2008 average extent of sea ice in the Antarctic.
The winter of 2007 saw the greatest extent of Antarctic sea ice since
measurements were first taken, coincident with the least extent in the Arctic.
Whereas the extent of Arctic sea ice has shown a recent downward trend, the
extent of Antarctic sea ice has shown an upward trend.
372
confessions of a greenpeace dropout
Figure 9. Global sea ice area, 1979 to present. The top line shows the total
sea ice cover for the Arctic and the Antarctic. The bottom line shows the
divergence from the mean of Arctic and Antarctic sea ice cover. As you can see,
there is no significant trend when Arctic and Antarctic sea ice areas are added
together.
a degree Celsius. There is every possibility that Arctic ice was as reduced
when the St. Roch sailed through the passage as it has been in recent years. We
will never know.
While all the media’s and activist’s attention has been on Arctic sea ice, the
Antarctic has been playing out its own history in a very different way. The
winter sea ice around Antarctica has grown above the average from 1979 to 2008
(See Figure 8). This has proven problematic for believers as it indicates
Antarctica is cooling, contrary to what they have been led to believe by
predictions based on computer models. In December 2008 Nature published an
article claiming the Antarctic was warming.374 Many climate activists,
including Al Gore, seized on this article to bolster their belief in
human-caused warming.375 It turned out that the Nature article had been largely
based on a computer model rather than real measurements of temperature. This
represented another turning point in the questioning of the science used to
claim humans were definitely causing the earth to warm up.376
In 2009 the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) published a paper in which it
reported sea ice had retreated in one part of the Antarctic Peninsula.377 The
paper made it clear that ice was growing in other parts of Antarctica and it
was not clear whether the total amount of ice on and around the continent was
shrinking or growing. In Greenpeace-like fashion the USGS then issued a media
release claiming the sea ice was “disappearing” in Antarctica and that sea
level rise was imminent.378 News services
374. Eric J. Steig et al., “Warming of the Antarctic Ice-Sheet Surface Since
the 1957 International Geophysical Year,” Nature 457 (22 January 2009):
459–462, http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v457/n7228/abs/nature07669.html
375. Al Gore, “The Antarctic I Warming,” February 5, 2009,
http://blog.algore.com/2009/02/the_antarctic_is_warming.html 376. Christopher
Booker, “Despite the Hot Air the Antarctic Is Not Warming Up,” Telegraph,
January 24, 2009, …
… http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/4332784/Despite-the-hot-air-the-Antarctic-is-not-
warming-up.html 377. Ferrigno, J.G, Coastal-Change and Glaciological Map of the
Palmer Land Area, Antarctica: 1947–2009,” U.S. Geological Survey, 2009,
http://pubs.usgs.gov/imap/i-2600-c/
378. “Ice Shelves Disappearing on Antarctic Peninsula: Glacier Retreat and Sea
Level Rise Are Possible Consequences,” U.S. Geological Survey Newsroom,
February 22, 2010,
http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=2409&from=rss_home
climate of fear 373
picked up this story, which gave the impression Antarctica was melting away.
Perhaps the USGS scientists feel the need to sensationalize their otherwise
good research in order to get more funding. I don’t know, but it certainly
misleads the public about what is really happening down there.
The University of Illinois’ website, The Cryosphere Today, contains the entire
record of sea ice since 1979.379 (The Cryosphere is the area of the earth
covered with ice.) Figure 9 (on previous page) shows the global sea ice cover,
adding together the Arctic and the Antarctic, from 1979 until the present.380
This is our total knowledge of the history of sea ice cover on planet Earth.
There is no obvious trend up or down because increased ice cover in the
Antarctic offsets most of the reduced ice cover in the Arctic. So even the very
short record we do have for global sea ice cover provides no evidence of rapid
global warming.
Coral Reefs, Shellfish, and “Ocean Acidification”
It has been widely reported in the media, based on a few scientific papers,
that the increasing levels of CO2in the atmosphere will result in “ocean
acidification,” threatening coral reefs and all marine shellfish with
extinction within 20 years.381 The story goes like this: The oceans absorb
about 25 percent of the CO2we emit into the atmosphere each year. The higher
the CO2content of the atmosphere, the more CO2will be absorbed by the oceans.
When CO2is dissolved in water, some of it is converted into carbonic acid that
has a weak acidic effect. If the sea becomes more acidic, it will dissolve the
calcium carbonate that is the main constituent of coral and the shells of
clams, shrimp, crabs, etc. It is one more doomsday scenario, predicting the
seas will “degrade into a useless tidal desert,”382
In his latest book, Eaarth: Making a Life on a Tough New Planet, Bill McKibben
claims, “Already the ocean is more acid than anytime in the last 800,000 years,
and at current rates by 2050 it will be more corrosive than anytime in the past
20 million years.” In typical hyperbolic fashion, McKibben, the author of the
well-know essay, “The End of Nature,” uses the words acid and corrosive as if
the ocean will burn off your skin and flesh to the bone if you dare swim in it
in 2050. This is just plain fear-mongering.
Results of research published in the journal Science by M.R. Palmer et al.,
indicate that over the past 15 million years, “All five samples record surface
seawater pH values that are within the range observed in the oceans today, and
they all show a decrease in the calculated pH with depth that is similar to
that observed
379. “The Cryosphere Today,” Polar Research Group, University of Illinois,
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/
380. “Global Sea Ice Area: 1979 to Present,” Polar Research Group, University
of Illinois,
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg
381. Frank Pope, “Great Barrier Reef Will Be Gone in 20 Years, Says Charlie
Veron,” Sunday Times, July 7, 2009,
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6652866.ece
382. Richard Girling, “The Toxic Sea,” Sunday Times, March 8, 2009,
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article5853261.ece#cid=OTC-RSS&attr=3392178
374 confessions of a greenpeace dropout
in the present-day equatorial Pacific.” The five samples recorded pH values for
85,000 years ago and for 2.5, 6.4, 12.1, and 15.7 million years ago.383
First, one should point out that the ocean is not acidic, it has a pH of 8.1,
which is alkaline, the opposite of acidic. A pH of 7 is neutral, below 7 is
acidic, above 7 is alkaline. Researchers have reported in scientific journals
that the pH of the seas has gone down by 0.075 over the past 250 years,
“Between 1751 and 1994 surface ocean pH is estimated to have decreased from
approximately 8.179 to 8.104 (a change of −0.075).”384 One has to wonder how
the pH of the ocean was measured to an accuracy of three decimal places in 1751
when the concept of pH was not introduced until 1909.385
It turns out that just as with climate science in general, these predictions
are based on computer models. But oceans are not simple systems whose
components can just be plugged into a computer. First, there is the complex mix
of elements and salts dissolved in the sea. Every element on Earth is present
in seawater and these elements interact in complex ways. Then there is the
biological factor, tens of thousands of species that are consuming and
excreting every day. The salt content of seawater gives the oceans a very large
buffering capacity against change in pH. Small additions of acidic and alkaline
substances can easily alter the pH of freshwater, whereas seawater can
neutralize large additions of acidic and alkaline substances.
One of the most important biological phenomena in the sea is the combining of
calcium, carbon, and oxygen to form calcium carbonate, CaCO3, the primary
constituent of corals and shells, including the skeletons of microscopic
plankton. The formation of calcium carbonate is called calcification. All of
the vast chalk, limestone, and marble deposits in the earth’s crust are
composed of calcium carbonate, which was created and deposited by marine
organisms over millions of years. The carbon in calcium carbonate is derived
from CO2 dissolved in seawater. One might therefore imagine that an increase in
CO2 in seawater would enhance cal- cification rather than destroy it. It turns
out this is precisely the case.
As is the case with terrestrial plants, it has been thoroughly demonstrated
that increased CO2 concentration in the sea results in higher rates of
photosynthesis and faster growth. Photosynthesis has the effect of in- creasing
the pH of the water, making it more alkaline, counteracting any minor acidic
effect of the CO itself.386 The owners of saltwater aquariums
383. M. R. Palmer et al., “Reconstructing Past Ocean pH-Depth Profiles,”
Science 282, no. 5393 (November 20, 1998): 1468– 1471,
http://www.scienceonline.org/cgi/content/short/282/5393/1468 (Register with
Science to see full article free-of-charge)
384. James C. Orr et al., “Anthropogenic Ocean Acidification Over the
Twenty-First Century and Its Impact on Calcifying Organisms,” Nature 437
(September 29, 2005): 681–686,
http://www.ipsl.jussieu.fr/~jomce/acidification/paper/Orr_OnlineNature04095.pdf
385. “pH,”Wikipedia,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PH 386. “Acid Test: The Global
Challenge of Ocean Acidification—A New Propaganda Film by The National
Resources Defense Council
climate of fear 375
often add CO2 to the water in order to increase photosynthesis and
calcification, a practice that is similar to greenhouse growers adding CO2 to
the air in their greenhouses to promote the faster growth of plants. The vast
bulk of scientific literature indicates increased CO2 in the ocean will
actually result in increased growth and calcification, as opposed to the
catastrophe scenario pushed by the NRDC, Greenpeace, and many other activist
organizations.387 388
A long list of scientific publications that support the view that increased
CO2 in seawater results in increased calcification can be found on the CO2
Science website.389 A paper by Atkinson et al., published in the journal
Coral Reefs, states that their finding “seems to contradict conclusions …
that high CO may inhibit calcification.”390
“Ocean acidification” is a perfect example of a contrived catastrophe scenario.
The average person does not have a grasp of the complexities of marine
chemistry and biology. The activists simply coin a new, scary term like
“acidification” and then effectively extort money from people who are concerned
for the future. And all this emphasis on the dangers of CO2tends to divert
people from thinking about the real dangers to coral reefs like destructive
fishing methods and pollution from sewage.
Our little house by the Sea of Cortez in Cabo Pulmo in southern Baja, Mexico,
looks out over a National Marine Park that contains the only large coral reef
on the west coast of the Americas. Pulmo Reef is a popular dive site, known for
its rich abundance of reef fish, many of which school in the thousands. It was
after a dive on the reef during our first visit to Cabo Pulmo in 1999 that
Eileen and I decided to make a base there. Since then we have dived and
snorkeled on the reef many times each year.
In September of 2002 a tropical storm brought torrential rains that dumped over
20 inches of rainfall in a 24-hour period. It must have been a once in a
100-year event as the flooding was the worst the locals could remember. A lens
of freshwater about 20 feet deep spread out over the reef as a result of the
runoff from the mountains. This killed all the coral, as coral cannot live in
freshwater. Only the corals below the 20-foot depth of the freshwater layer
survived.
Fails the Acid Test,” Science & Public Policy Institute, January 5, 2010,
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/acid_test.pdf
387. “Ocean Acidification: The Other CO2 Problem,” Natural Resources Defense
Council, September 17, 2009,
http://www.nrdc.org/oceans/acidification/default.asp 388. “Putting a Stop to
the Arctic Meltdown,” Greenpeace International, January 26, 2010,
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/hands-off-the-arctic-260110 389.
“CO2, Global Warming and Coral Reefs: Prospects for the Future,” CO2 Science,
http://www.co2science.org/education/reports/corals/part2ref.php 390. Atkinson,
M.J., Carlson, B.A l Growth in High-Nutrient, Low-pH Seawater: A Case Study of
Corals Cultured at the Waikiki Aquarium, Honolulu, Hawaii,” Coral Reefs 14, no.
4, pp. 215–223, http://www.springerlink.com/content/g2554037454q13wp/
376
Figure 10. Global and Northern Hemisphere tropical cyclone energy 1979 to 2010.
Since the peak during the 1990s, the frequency and intensity of tropical
cyclones has diminished considerably.391
For a few years after the event virtually no living coral could be seen in the
shallower waters. The reef turned white and became covered in green algae,
which in turn resulted in an explosion of sea urchins where there had been very
few before. By 2006 the reef began to recover noticeably with nodules of new
coral becoming established. Coral polyps from the deeper regions of the reef
were recolonizing the shallow waters. The sea urchins died out and fish
returned in greater abundance. Today the reef is in full recovery as the coral
is now growing substantially each year. It may take another 20 years or more to
recover completely, and will only do so if there is not another torrential
rainstorm.
I imagine some people who believe we are causing catastrophic cli- mate change
would suggest we were responsible for the torrential rains that killed part of
the reef. I don’t believe we can be so certain, especially as such events have
been occurring since long before humans began emitting billions of tons of
CO2each year. And regardless of the storm’s cause, it is comforting to know that
the reef can recover de- spite the dire predictions of the early death of coral
reefs worldwide.
Storms, Hurricanes, and Severe Weather Events
Everyone likes to talk about the weather and climate activists are no
exception. In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in 2005, which caused so much
devastation to New Orleans and the surrounding regions, Al Gore gave a rousing
speech
391. Ryan Maue, “Ryan N. Maue’s 2010 Global Tropical Cyclone Activity Update,”
Florida State University, http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/
377
in which he predicted hurricanes would continue to become more frequent and
more
severe as global warming intensified.392 Since that speech the intensity of
global hurricanes has diminished by about half from the peak years of 1993 and
1998. Still, on the cover of his 2009 book, Our Choice: A Plan to Solve the
Climate Crisis, Al Gore had four fake hurricanes airbrushed onto a photo of the
earth from space.393 394 He continues to push the fear of hurricanes when it
has become clear there is no longer any basis for such concern. In fact,
scientists at the U.S. National Hurricane Center predict that global warming
will result in not more but fewer hurricanes.395 Al Gore must be aware of this.
Sea Level Rise
There is conclusive proof that increased CO2levels will be good for plants both
on the land and in the sea. If increased CO2does make the world warmer, it will
almost certainly make it wetter, which will also be good for plants and most
animals, including us. Then what is so bad about global warming anyway, whether
it is natural or caused by humans? The prospect that sea levels will rise in a
warmer world is the main draw- back as this would threaten the infrastructure
we have built in low-lying coastal areas.
The seal level has fluctuated a great deal during the Pleistocene, as ice
sheets have advanced and retreated and as temperatures have risen and fallen.
At the height of the last glaciation, which ended 18,000 years ago, the sea was
about 120 meters (nearly 400 feet) lower than it is today (See Figure 11).
There was relatively rapid glacial melting and subsequent sea level rise
between 15,000 and 6000 years ago as large, lower elevation ice sheets melted
and disappeared. During the past 6000 years, the rise has been slower but
steady. In recent times the sea level has risen by about 20 centimeters (8
inches) per century.396
Clearly human activity was not responsible for the end of the last glaciation,
subsequent warming, and the retreat of the world’s glaciers during the past
18,000 years. To date we have no indication that the rate of sea level rise is
increasing, whether by natural causes or by our impact on climate. Many
predictions of future sea level rise have been based on computer models. In its
2007 report the IPCC predicted sea level would rise between 18 and 59
centimeters (7 to 23 inches) during the
392. Al Gore, “On Katrina, Global Warming,” Common Dreams, December 12, 2005,
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0912-32.htm
393. Al Gore, Our Choice: A Plan to Solve the Climate Crisis, (Rodale Press,
November 2009). http://ourchoicethebook.com/
394. Noel Sheppard, “Al Gore Photoshops Hurricanes Into New Book’s Cover,”
Newsbusters, November 19, 2009,
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/11/19/al-gore-photoshops-hurricanes-new-books-cover?page=1
395. Jonathan Leake, “UN’s Climate Link to Hurricanes in Doubt,” Sunday Times,
February 28, 2010,
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7044158.ece
396. “Current Sea Level Rise,” Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise
378
Figure 11. Graph showing that sea level was 120 meters (nearly 400 feet) lower
at the height of the last glaciation.397
next century. The low end is entirely reasonable as this is about equal to the
present rate. The high end is three times the present rate and would require a
considerable amount of warming during this century. As yet there has been no
warming in this century and sea level rise has not been increasing.
If the sea were to rise nearly two feet as the IPCC suggests in its extreme
case, there would be disruptions to infrastructure and related activities.
While natural ecosystems would adapt with little difficulty, coastal
infrastructure would definitely be impacted negatively, especially our wharfs,
buildings, farms, and industries. It wouldn’t matter whether or not the sea
level rise was due to natural or human causes.
The 120-meter (400-foot) sea level rise during the past 18,000 years did not
damage the environment and was not a significant factor in human survival. We
have managed to cope with the 20-centimeter (8-inch) rise over the past
century. But we have built vastly more coastal infrastructure over the past
century than we have in all of human history, and we will continue to do so
during the next century.
What should we do about this? Is it wise to assume we are the cause of sea
level rise and then to end the activities we think are responsible? Or would it
make more sense
397. “Post-Glacial Sea Level,” Wikipedia,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Post-Glacial_Sea_Level.png”
379
to plan for a sea level rise of, say, 30 centimeters (12 inches) over the next
century. If we are not the cause of sea level rise, which I believe is likely,
then there is not much we can do to stop it any- way. If we plan for continued
sea level rise at 50 percent above the present rate, we could avoid all or most
damage by thinking ahead. We could build the dykes a little higher, not develop
suburbs in areas that are susceptible to sea level rise, and generally plan our
infrastructure to withstand sea level rise. How could that cause more negative
impacts than an 80 percent or larger reduction in fossil fuel use worldwide in
the next decade?
I repeat my assertion that we should make an effort to reduce our reliance on
fossil fuels and switch to alternatives where this is technologically feasible
and reasonably cost-effective. But anything approaching an 80 percent reduction
in fossil fuel use over the next decade or two would do more to destroy our
civilization than any plausible impact of climate change, even if we were
responsible for it. Yet that is what many climate activists, including
Greenpeace and Al Gore, are calling for. I believe there are more practical and
logical steps that can be taken to find a balance between our environmental,
social, and economic priorities. I believe it would be possible to reduce
fossil fuel use by 80 percent over the next 50 to 75 years, but we must
consider the economic and social cost of doing so.
Pacific Islands and Sea Level Rise
Climate change activists have made great fanfare about the possibility that
many island states, such as the Marshall Islands, Kiribati, Tuvalu, and the
Maldives, will be inundated and disappear due to rising sea levels caused by
human-induced climate change.398 The government of the Maldives has made the
case that rich, carbon-emitting industrial nations should provide financial
compensation for the loss of their countries. None of the projections of
sinking island states has taken into account the fact that most of them are
built on coral reefs and atolls and that coral reefs are alive. A recent survey
of 27 Pacific Islands, comparing aerial photographs from up to 61 years ago
with current photographs, demonstrated that 23 islands maintained the same land
area or increased in size, while only four islands suffered a net loss in size.
399 400 During this period there was a rise in sea level of 2 mm per
398. “Sea Level Rise Will Claim Island States.” Seaweb, Vol. 15, no. 7 (April
6, 2010), http://www.seaweb.org/news/ou15_7.php#sealevel
399. “Tuvalu and Many Other South Pacific Islands are Not Sinking, claims they
are Due to Global Warming Driven Sea Level Rise are Opportunistic,” Watts Up
With That, Anthony Watts, June 2, 2010,
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/02/tuvalu-and-many-other-south-pacific-islands-are-not-sinking-claims-they-are-due-to-
global-warming-driven-sea-level-rise-are-opportunistic/
400. “Pacific Islands ‘Growing not Shrinking’ Due to Climate Change,” Paul
Chapman, the Telegraph, June 3, 2010, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/tuvalu/7799503/Pacific-islands-growing-not-shrinking-due-
to-climate-change.html
380
year. This indicates that the coral is able to grow as fast or faster than the
rising sea, and that coral islands grow as a result of coral breaking off and
forming reefs that in turn catch more coral and grow in size. Many of the coral
islands in the tropics have existed for thousands of years, while during that
time the sea has risen by hundreds of feet. It is therefore likely that yet
another doomsday scenario regarding the impact of climate change is wildly
overblown and may actually have no impact even if the sea does continue to
rise.
The “Trick” to “Hide the Decline”
The most quoted email among the thousands released from the Climatic Research
Unit, which led to the “Climategate” crisis, was one from the CRU’s head, Phil
Jones, referring to “Mike’s Nature trick…to hide the decline.”401 402 Mike is
Michael Mann, the creator of the infamous and, to many, discredited hockey
stick graph. Nature is the science journal that shows a marked bias in support
of human-caused climate change. The “trick” was to discard tree-ring data that
did not fit the true believer’s bias, data that showed a drop in temperature in
recent decades. These climate scientists clearly colluded to hide the data that
showed the decline and to substitute data that indicated unprecedented warming
over the past 50 years.
In response to the “Climategate” emails the U.K. House of Commons Science and
Technology Committee held hearings to determine if Phil Jones and his staff at
the Climatic Research Unit had done anything un- toward. They concluded that
“trick” and “hide the decline” were “colloquial terms used in private emails
and the balance of evidence is that they were not part of a systematic attempt
to mislead.”403 404 This is an obvious white- wash, because whether or not they
are colloquial terms, “trick” means “trick” and “hide the decline” means “hide
the decline.” The committee did not provide an explanation of what it thought
the terms meant in a “colloquial” context. It is amazing what deceptions can be
perpetrated in broad daylight by people in responsible positions.
Another “independent inquiry” conducted by the University of East Anglia, where
the Climatic Research Unit is housed, and supported by the Royal Society,
concluded with the statement, “We saw no evidence of
401. Steve McIntyre, “IPCC and the ‘Trick’,” climateaudit.org, December 10,
2009, http://climateaudit.org/2009/12/10/ipcc-and-the-trick/
402. Terry Hurlbut, “Context for ‘Hide the Decline’ Discovered,” examiner.com,
December 10, 2009,
http://www.examiner.com/x-28973-Essex-County-Conservative-Examiner~y2009m12d10-Context-for-hide-the-decline-discovered
403. “The Disclosure of Climate Data From the Climatic Research Unit at the
University of East Anglia,” Science and Technology Committee, U.K. Government,
March 31, 2010,
http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/science_technology/s_t_
cru_inquiry.cfm
404. “British Parliamentary Inquiry Clears ‘Climategate’ Scientists,”
Environmental News Service, March 31, 2010,
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/mar2010/2010-03-31-02.html
381
any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic
Research Unit.”405 The inquiry was headed by Lord Oxburgh, who has deep
personal and financial interests in climate policy. He is the chair of a
multinational wind energy company and the chair of the Carbon Capture and
Storage Association.406 Missing from the inquiry’s report is the fact that the
inquiry did not examine the “Climategate” emails or consider evidence from
anyone other than the CRU staff. In this report the “trick” “to hide the
decline” was not even mentioned; never mind the many other indications of
impropriety that were contained in the emails.407 Phil Jones himself clearly
requested that his colleagues delete previous emails con- taining damaging
information.408
The Enigmatic Dr. Lovelock
James Lovelock is one of the most insightful and at the same time most
enigmatic of scientists. He is certainly one of the leading experts on
atmospheric chemistry. Earlier passages in this book have shown Lovelock to be
profoundly pessimistic about the future of civilization and the earth’s
environment. In an interview in 2006, he stated, “We have given Gaia a fever
and soon her condition will worsen to a state like a coma…Before this century
is over, billions of us will die, and the few breeding pairs of people that
survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable… a broken rabble
led by brutal war lords”.409 410 Nice visuals! Cue James Cameron! I feel a
Hollywood blockbuster coming on. Yet recently, in the wake of the “Climategate”
scandal and the failure of the Copenhagen climate summit, Lovelock has had some
change of heart.
Speaking at the London Science Museum in March 2010 Lovelock said, “It is worth
thinking that what we are doing in creating all these car- bon emissions, far
from being something frightful, is stopping the onset of a new ice age…. If we
hadn’t appeared on the earth, it would be due to go through another ice age and
we can look at our part as holding that up. I hate all this business about
feeling guilty about what we’re doing.” This sounds surprisingly like the line
of thinking I challenged him with
405. “Report of the International Panel Set Up by the University of East Anglia
to Examine the Research of the Climatic Research Unit,” University of East
Anglia, April 12, 2010,
http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/CRUstatements/SAP
406. Lawrence Solomon, “Climate-Change Partisans Find Mere Sins of Omission,”
National Post, April 16, 2010, http://network.
nationalpost.com/NP/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2010/04/15/lawrence-solomon-climategate-scientists-we-re-not-guilty.aspx
407. James Delingpole, “Climategate: the Final Nail in the Coffin of
‘Anthropogenic Global Warming’?” Telegraph, November 20, 2009,
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-
global-warming/
408. Bishop Hill, “Climate Cuttings 33,” November 20, 2009,
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/11/20/climate-cuttings-33.html
409. Michael McCarthy, “Environment in Crisis: ‘We Are Past the Point of No
Return’,” Independent, January 16, 2006, http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/environment-in-crisis-we-are-past-the-point-of-no-return-523192.html
410. James Lovelock, “The Earth Is About to Catch a Morbid Fever That May Last
as Long as 100,000 Years,” Independent, January 16, 2006,
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/james-lovelock-the-earth-is-about-to-catch-a-morbid-fever-that-
may-last-as-long-as-100000-years-523161.html
382
during my visit to his home in 2002. His other colleagues have undoubtedly
raised similar points, that there is a possibility we are a positive force
rather than an entirely negative one.
It is clear Lovelock was rattled by the revelations in the thousands of leaked
emails from the Climatic Research Unit. During his first interview after the
“Climategate” scandal he stated, “Fudging the data in any way whatsoever is
quite literally a sin against the holy ghost of science. I’m not religious, but
I put it that way because I feel so strongly. It’s the one thing you do not
ever do.” And he was surprisingly warm toward skeptics, allowing, “What I like
about skeptics is that in good science you need critics that make you think:
‘Crumbs, have I made a mistake here?’ If you don’t have that continuously, you
really are up the creek…If you make a [computer] model, after a while you get
suckered into it. You begin to for- get that it’s a model and think of it as
the real world.”411
Some of his recent statements are chilling. Lovelock contends that, “We need a
more authoritative world…even the best democracies agree that when a major war
approaches, democracy must be put on hold for the time being. I have a feeling
that climate change may be an issue as severe as a war. It may be necessary to
put democracy on hold for a while.”412 If we are indeed preventing a new ice
age, then why is it like a war, and why must we suspend democracy? Perhaps
Lovelock just can’t make up his mind which it is, catastrophe or salvation. In
any case he provides good reason why brilliant scientists who have been
cloistered in labs and research institutes most of their lives should not be
running the government.
Conclusion
Beginning in the 1980s a widespread alarmist view has developed regard- ing
future climate change. The United Nations, most national academies of science,
the majority of political parties, the mainstream media, many scientists, and
virtually all environmental activist groups have come to believe that if human
emissions of CO2 continue at present levels the global temperature will soar,
resulting in untold destruction to civilization and the environment. This has
caused many countries to consider, and even to adopt, policies to reduce fossil
use to levels that could cripple their economies.413
As of 2013 it has become clear that the global temperature stopped rising 16
years ago, after a 20-year period of increasing temperature. This is despite
the fact that CO2 emissions have continued to rise at an increasing
411. Leo Hickman, “James Lovelock: ‘Fudging Data Is a Sin Against Science’,”
Guardian, March 29, 2010, http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/mar/29/james-lovelock
412. Ibid. 413. “New Energy for America
383
rate. No scientist professes to know why global warming has stopped, but many
continue to believe humans are driving a “climate catastrophe.” Experts and
opinion leaders who have publicly bought into the climate crisis hypothesis are
obviously reluctant to change their views. They can’t do so without losing
face, having invested their reputations in such a high- profile issue. There is
a sense that the true believers have become the real deniers.414
Considering that the increase in temperature has stopped for the time being,
and noting the three issues of the “Climategate” scandal, the col- lapse of the
Copenhagen conference, and the errors in the 2007 IPCC report, it seems clear
that the foundation of climate change alarmism has been shaken. Many top
scientists have made public statements to distance themselves from the supposed
prevailing view.415 416 417 One of the most influential skeptical voices is
that of physicist Freeman Dyson, considered one the world’s most brilliant
thinkers by many of his peers.418 A feature article that made his views on
climate clear appeared in the New York Times Magazine in March 2009 and turned
a lot of heads.419 He said, “The cli- mate-studies people who work with models
always tend to overestimate their models,” and “They come to believe models are
real and forget they are only models.” He explained, “Most of the evolution of
life occurred on a planet substantially warmer than it is now, and
substantially richer in car- bon dioxide.” Dyson referred to Al Gore as climate
change’s “chief propagandist,” and as someone who preaches “lousy science,
distracting public attention from more serious and more immediate dangers to
the planet.”
While the author of this article politely derided Dyson’s point of view, there
was no doubt about where one of the great thinkers of our time stands on the
subject. I think one Freeman Dyson is worth 10,000 true believers who mimic one
another, falsely claiming that there is an “over- whelming consensus” and
extolling, “the vast body of evidence showing the world is warming because of
man-made greenhouse gas emissions” without providing any details of the “vast
body of evidence.”
In recent months a number of mainstream media outlets, including many British
and American newspapers, have abandoned their strong biases and are now
publishing articles that are balanced and even skeptical of human-caused
warming. The collapse of the “overwhelming
414. “In Denial: The Meltdown of the Climate Campaign,” Steven F. Hayward, The
Weekly Standard, March 15, 2010, http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/denial
415. “The Deniers,” Wikipedia,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Deniers:_The_world-renowned_scientists_who_stood_up_
against_global_warming_hysteria,_political_persecution,_and_fraud
416. Marc Morano, “Scientists Write Open Letter to Congress,” ClimateDepot,
July 1, 2009, http://climatedepot.com/a/1745/
Scientists-Write-Open-Letter-to-Congress-You-Are-Being-Deceived-About-Global-Warming–Earth-has-been-cooling-for-ten-years
417. Neil Reynolds, “Please Remain Calm: The Earth Will Heal Itself,” Globe and
Mail, July 19, 2010,
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/please-remain-calm-the-earth-will-heal-itself/article1642767/
418. “Freeman Dyson,” Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeman_Dyson
419. Nicholas Dawidoff, “The Civ New York Times, March 25, 2009,
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/29/magazine/29Dyson-t.html
384
consensus” is good news for everyone who believes this topic should be discussed
openly and objectively. There is a breath of fresh air in the climate change
debate.
There is much work to do in trying to validate or reject the assertions of the
major players in climate science. They include the Climatic Research Unit of
the University of East Anglia, the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, the Goddard Institute of Space Science of the U.S. National
Aeronautics and Space Agency (NASA), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change. All these top agencies are implicated in the “Climategate” scandal and
are being investigated by various authorities. The U.K. Institute of Physics’
submission to the Parliamentary Committee investigating the leaked emails from
the Climatic Research Unit made these observations:420
1.The Institute is concerned that, unless the disclosed e-mails are proved to
be forgeries or adaptations, worrying implications arise for the integrity of
scientific research in this field and for the credibility of the scientific
method as practised in this context.
2.The CRU e-mails as published on the Internet provide prima facie [at first
sight] evidence of determined and coordinated refusals to comply with
honourable scientific traditions and freedom of information law. The principle
that scientists should be willing to expose their ideas and results to
independent testing and replication by others, which requires the open exchange
of data, procedures and materials, is vital. The lack of compliance has been
confirmed by the findings of the Information Commissioner. This extends well
beyond the CRU itself – most of the e-mails were exchanged with researchers in
a number of other international institutions who are also involved in the
formulation of the IPCC’s conclusions on climate change.
3.It is important to recognize that there are two completely different
categories of data set that are involved in the CRU e-mail exchanges:
• those compiled from direct instrumental measurements of land and ocean
surface temperatures such as the CRU, GISS and NOAA data sets; and
• historic temperature reconstructions from measurements of ‘proxies’, for
example, tree-rings.
4.The second category relating to proxy reconstructions are the basis for the
conclusion that 20th century warming is unprecedented.
420. Steve McIntyre, “Institute of Physics Submission,” Climate Audit, February
26, 2010, http://climateaudit.org/2010/02/26/institute-of-physics-submission/
385
Published reconstructions may represent only a part of the raw data available
and may be sensitive to the choices made and the statistical techniques used.
Different choices, omissions or statistical processes may lead to different
conclusions. This possibility was evidently the reason behind some of the
[rejected] requests for further information.
5. The e-mails reveal doubts as to the reliability of some of the re-
constructions and raise questions as to the way in which they have been
represented; for example, the apparent suppression, in graphics widely used by
the IPCC, of proxy results for recent decades that do not agree with
contemporary instrumental temperature measurements.
The Institute of Physics has no reason to exaggerate or to hold any bias. The
Institute makes it clear that the information provided by the Climatic Research
Unit may not be credible or trustworthy. Clearly it will be some time before
the “science is settled.”
On May 29, 2010, Britain’s top science body, the Royal Society, an- nounced it
would review its literature on climate change in order to reflect the skeptical
view. The Royal Society stated, “Any public perception that science is somehow
fully settled is wholly incorrect—there is always room for new observations,
theories, measurements.” Along with the change of tone by the London Science
Museum this marks a sharp turning point, from certainty and “overwhelming
consensus,” to a balanced dialogue on the subject. One can only hope that other
major science bodies will adopt the same policy.
At this writing the developments in the climate change debate are changing
faster than the climate itself. The public is becoming more skeptical by the
day, while the believers work doubly hard to shore up their position, assuring
us warming will eventually return in earnest. This may be, but it is not
happening now, and even If warming does recur in future, that by itself won’t
prove that we are the main cause. I remain open to new information and continue
to follow the discussion on a daily basis.
Some readers will argue that I have only presented the skeptical side of the
debate. This is only because the historical evidence, what has actually
occurred, does not support the idea that we are the primary cause of global
warming, never mind that its impacts will be “catastrophic.” All the pre-
dictions based on computer models in this world can’t change history or
manufacture the future. For that we must patiently wait. Meanwhile we should
embark on the path toward a future that focuses on sustainable energy as
outlined in Chapter 15. We could gradually reduce our over- whelming reliance
on fossil fuels and replace some of them with cleaner, sustainable energy
sources. This will satisfy many agendas, including the agenda of the believers
in human-caused climate change.
- See more at:
http://www.cfact.org/2014/02/26/greenpeace-co-founder-earths-geologic-history-fundamentally-contradicts-co2-warming-fears/#sthash.TzJAwEAm.dpuf
