Reprinted with permission from The Science & Environmental Policy Project.....
Frequently Asked Questions About Climate Change
With all the hype about global warming and climate disasters filling the journals and air waves, here are some facts that need to be more widely known:
1)Is the climate stable or is it changing?
The climate is never just "average"; it changes all the time, from season to season, year to year, and over the millennia. And that includes not only temperature, but rain, snow, droughts, storms, and every conceivable feature of the weather. It is a well-known fact of statistics that the longer you take observatioins, the greater the chance of finding some kind of extreme event -- sometime, somewhere. So watch out when you read about the "hottest year", "longest drought", or "biggest hurricane."
2) But are there long-term climate trends? Is it getting warmer or is it getting colder?
The only correct answer is: Yes. It all depends on the time scale you choose. The global climate has warmed over the last 100 years, but not appreciably over the last 50 years. And it is colder now than it was 1000 years ago. And did you know that over the last 50 years the frequency of hurricanes has been dropping?
3) Are human activities influencing climate?
Yes, of course. The rise of agriculture and the growth of cities have changed the local climate significantly. With rising populations and rising industrial activity there have also been some worldwide changes: Temperature extremes have softened, the stratosphere is cooling, and atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases are rising. But this does not mean that there will be a catastrophic or even a substantial warming of the climate in the next century.
4) But isn't there climate warming already because of the increased burning of fossil fuels--oil, gas, and coal--that creates more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere?
True, carbon dioxide (CO2) levels are rising, but the climate seems not to be warming as a result. It did warm greatly between 1880 and 1940--long before CO2 increased significantly. But since 1940, weather satellites, tree ring data, and corrected thermometer readings all agree that climate has not warmed as much--even though CO2 levels rose.
5) And why hasn't climate warmed, when theory clearly expects this to happen?
The answer must be that even our best current models of the atmosphere are incomplete and leave out important features. Only in the last few years have modelers started to include ocean currents, atmospheric aerosol particles and dust into climate models. Most now suspect that clouds are the reason why models and observations do not agree. Models still cannot include solar influences properly.
6) What about climate calamities, like sea-level rise and the spread of tropical diseases?
Well, since the climate is not warming significantly, there is no immediate reason for concern. Diseases are not just spread by mosquitoes, but nowadays more by human contacts--which have been increasing markedly with the tremendous rise in global transportation.
Many scientists predict that sea level will drop slightly if oceans warm; the evaporated moisture may simply turn to snow and increase the thickness of the Greenland and Antarctic ice caps.
7) So, would a global warming be good or bad?
Probably both, but warming is definitely better than cooling. It is certainly better for agriculture and therefore for basic human existence. All historical evidence shows that during the warm periods of the Middle Ages people were better off than during the hard times of the "Little Ice Age" (1650-1850) when crops failed and people starved.
8) When it comes to it, what can we do about climate warming?
We can do little about the climate itself, but we could try to stop the increase of atmospheric CO2. Even that task is daunting; it requires that we cut emissions--worldwide--by 60 to 80 percent. In effect, this means cutting energy consumption by comparable amounts--including all transportation, heating, air conditioning, and electricity use. It would have an enormous negative impact on people's welfare--particularly for the poor and those in developing countries.
9) How would one reduce energy consumption by 60 to 80 percent?
There are basically two ways, short of drastically reducing population itself: energy rationing or energy taxes. Rationing means a political allocation, with governments and bureaucrats deciding who may use energy and who may not. Energy taxes are almost as unpalatable; just try to picture $5-per-gallon gasoline.
10) Should we ruin our economies and cause tremendous hardship for people to counter a phantom threat?
That's a leading question, of course; climate warming does indeed seem far away and a minor problem at that. There is a sure threat to human existence, however, and that is the near-certainty of a coming ice age. Geologists tell us that the present interglacial warm period will soon come to an end. Perhaps greenhouse warming can save us from an icy fate.
5 comments:
The Science & Environmental Policy Project is apparently a one man organization: Dr. Fred Singer.
You always accuse me of ad hominem attacks so this time I'll start with the science. Dr. Singer says that the climate has not warmed over the last 50 years. This is false. You have yourself acknowledged global warming. We merely disagree as to the cause. Dr. Singer has also elsewhere said that the glaciers are growing. This is false, contradicted by scientists who have actually measured them. Dr. Singer has apparently done no original research himself on this subject, confining himself to op eds and testimony before Congress. He also has questioned the Ozone CFC link, and attacked the science on second-hand smoke and health risks.
So, why does such a scientist go in for junk science? Yes, you guessed it. He gets money from Big Oil and Big Tobacco.
I want to thank you for your recent global warming posts. Before I had said that 90% of scientists disagree with you. Now I think it's likely higher. Before I had said that the skeptics could be right. Now I think that is about as likely on the global warming issue as on the tobacco issue.
You are really scraping the bottom of the barrel here. Can you not find ONE scientist not on Exxon's payroll? I know that all scientists are paid but somehow I think it is less likely that scientists actually doing research in their field, measuring temperatures and glaciers, etc, are falsifying their research for grant money, than it is that Dr Singer is a scientific whore.
If I were to see you with an extremely fine woman, and then were to later learn that she worked for an escort service, and that you had given her $500, I would conclude that she was a prostitute. But unlike Dr. Singer, an honest one.
If this is the best you've got (and Dr. Singer seems to be one of the best known skeptics) then your side has lost this debate.
Actually taking into consideration the data documenting the recent record cold front I am not so sure about the long term warming trend any longer, and would be of the thought that we are currently at the peak of the most recent warming cycle in the earths history.
And the fact is that some glaciers are growing which puts the alarmists in a bit of a predictament, but yet they somehow manage to blame that on global warming as well, just as they do the examples of shrinking glaciers. Which one is it?
Singer was wrong about second hand smoke, as were a good percentage of scientists, (the scientific community at one point believed cocaine was good for you) he just held out the longest. I do not hold that against him as the evidence is still not 100% conclusive one way or another, although I will concede it is undeniable that passive smoking is harmful to some degree.
Do you feel the same way about all the people and instutions that have received funding from Exxon such as Stanford that believe in man made global warming? Or how about notable warming alarmists The Pew Charitable Trust that is funded by Sunoco?
Once again EVERYBODY receives funding, you just have a hard on for Exxon because you hate capitalism.
First of all, I don't hate capitalism although I think you have to keep a close eye on capitalists. Sure everybody receives funding but Singer doesn't receive funding to do research, as he doesn't do any,he received funding to muddy the scientific waters. And again I would challenge you to find ONE skeptic who does not receive Exxon money.
Why is this guy Singer, who apparently does no actual research, and has been wrong in the past, and has a finanical incentive to be wrong, more credible than the much larger numbers of scientists who have actually done research who are on the other side of this issue?
It would be futile as no matter who I name you will find a way to try and smear or besmirch them, as you think the Exxon argumet is a winning one.
Unfortunately for the integrity of actual scientific debate, you are not alone in that tactic as the alarmists refuse to argue the science and conclude that the debate is over without accounting for solar irradiance, water vapor, and volcanic activity, not to mention historical and cyclical warming/cooling patterns, all of which have a noticeable affect on the climate and all of which have been essentially ignored by the alarmists.
Gary, what about the scientists that signed the petitition? They were all qualified and NONE OF THEM ARE FUNDED BY BIG OIL!
I just went back to that post (i was traveling when it was posted) and i see you had NO argument except to say that they weren't qualified however they ARE. All of their names and qualifications were linked in the post. Why do you still deny it? By the way, that was 17000 American Scientists, that wasn't even including the ones who are funded by big oil, or any scientists from other countries around the world.
You guys are following the religion of global warming and you want to stifle debate.... WHY?
Post a Comment