Catastrophic Man-Made Climate Change Far From Settled Science

It has been some time since I have posted directly on Climate Change/Global Warming. Note, I have no problem using the new CYA term Climate Change (replacing GW in case it becomes GC). From now on every time I post on Climate Change, I will begin with the following points:

1) Has it been proven that Global Warming is actually happening?
2) Has it been proven that Global Warming is caused by man-made greenhouse gases?
3) Has it been proven that Global Warming will cause catastrophic conditions that will result in massive human casualties?
4) Has it been proven that if 1-3 are correct that it is possible for man to prevent #3 by reducing or eliminating their output in greenhouse gases?
5) Just because 2-4 are unproven and likely a crock, does this excuse man's irresponsible polluting of the earth.

I came up with 4 of these questions some time back while disputing in the comments section here. I added the 5th later. At the time I was ready to throw in the towel on numbers 1 & 2. Recent revelations have caused me to back away from #2 a bit. Here is my run-down on these questions.

Question 1: So, yes there is proof that the earth has warmed by about 1 degree. Conservatives spent a lot of time being skeptical about this point and have been shown to be wrong "to a degree".

Question2: Have the activities of man caused this 1 degree warmth? Like I said, I was ready to yield this point but then a recent flurry of information on the subject has put me back in the skeptical column. Here are some of the recent things:

1. The Man-made global warming theory is partly based on climate models. While I have posted and commented before on the fact that computer models are programs that do what they are programmed to do. If the programmer is biased OR is lacking key information to put into the program then the output will be flawed. Garbage in - Garbage Out. Recently, we have seen that the climate models have been wrong about their predictions for Antarctica. You can read this article titled "Antarctic temperatures disagree with climate model predictions". The author does state that this does not necessarily mean the model is wrong. You would think it would be a good time to see why it gives incorrect predictions and to drop the "settled science" jargon that is based on a model that has taken a serious credibility hit.

2. The Man-made global warming theory is based on the notion that there is a consensus among scientists around the world that it is true. Now how can there be a consensus among scientists when there is a petition with over 17000 signatures of scientists that do not seem too worried about the effects of Global Warming.

3. There are alternate sources of greenhouse gases that combined dwarf those caused by man's burning of fossil fuels. These sources include: volcanoes, oceans, livestock, trees and plants, and of course human non-fossil fuel sources (breathing and flatulence). So are we to be forced to not only give up our modern conveniences, but will we be asked to give up eating meat and reduce our population?

4. There are alternate theories for the causes of global warming.

a. There is increased solar activity that may be shown by the warming effect that is happening on Mars. The National Geographic article is quick to point out that mainstream scientists dismiss this as a coincidence. They prefer to believe it is caused by planetary "wobble". The question is do they reject it because they are already onboard the Climate Change bandwagon or do they really have some evidence. The article only gives opinion and no real meat to go by.

b. The theory that high solar magnetic activity causes fewer cosmic rays to reach the earth. This results in fewer clouds to be formed and warming to occur. Henrik Svensmark, the Danish scientist who originated the theory says ""It was long thought that clouds were caused by climate change, but now we see that climate change is driven by clouds." So what some think are the effect, is actually the cause.

c. The warming is a natural cycle that happens periodically. Here is a good link to show that the famous "Hockey Stick" graph that raised such a furor on global warming actually left out the Medieval Warming Period and the Little Ice Age. Neil Boortz in his famous list "Why I am Skeptical About Man-made Global Warming" wonders at the seeming deception in the oversight. He has three points worth mentioning:

- What happened to the Medieval Warm Period? In 1996 the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued a chart showing climatic change over a period of 1000 years. This graph showed a Medieval warming period in which global temperatures were higher than they are today. In 2001 the IPCC issued another 1000 year graph in which the Medieval warming period was missing. Why?
- Why has one scientist promoting the cause of man-made global warming been quoted as saying "we have to get rid of the medieval warming period?"
- Why did a reporter from National Public Radio refuse to interview David Deming, an associate professor at the University of Oklahoma studying global warming, after his testimony to the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee unless Deming would state that global warming was being caused by man?

5. Global Warming supporters want to cut off debate. They use terms like "settled science", "Global Warming Deniers" (making them equal with holocaust deniers). Neil Boortz asks in his list:
- Why are global warming proponents insisting that the matter is settled and that no further scientific research is needed? Why are they afraid of additional information?
- There are about 160,000 glaciers around the world. Most have never been visited or measured by man. The great majority of these glaciers are growing, not melting.
- Like Antarctica, the interior of Greenland is gaining ice mass.

Isn't the scientific community curious about that? Their champion Al Gore has been challenged to debates on the subject. In addition to his hypocrisy, he is either a coward or so arrogant that he will not debate it.

Question 3: Even if points 1 and 2 are at some point proven to be true. Does this mean that catastrophe is waiting for mankind? Climate Change proponents talk about settled science and scientific consensus. Their message lumps the first 3 of my questions into one category. In reality I see no evidence that anything beyond question 2 is considered "settled". The petition I referred to earlier signed by over 17,000 scientists has this bold statement in the petition heading:

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

Not only do they see no fear of catastrophe, they see the potential for benefits upon the planet. This is not the first time I have seen this. Several years ago there was a Reader's Digest article that put forth the notion that global warming could bring about a global paradise. On the radio recently I heard someone state that Al Gore was speaking about the potential increase in annual deaths due to heat related issues. He refused to debate the point that many more deaths than his estimate were already annually caused cold related issues. (I wish I had a link for that). Here are links for recent cold related deaths. Related to Midwest Snowstorm. Related to Tornadoes caused by cold winter.

The wild claims of catastrophe are for two main reasons:

1. To generate fear and therefore bulldoze past the need to prove their contentions. They accused Bush of doing this when he was justifying attacking Iraq. Now they are using the same tactic with Climate Change.

2. They want to get in your wallet. Some feel that much of the environmental movement is based on an anti-capitalistic bent. While I may feel that way, it is difficult to prove. However, there is no doubt with recent developments that the world has their eye on the United States wealth and are eager to take a cut.
- President Jaques Chirac of France recently threatened the U.S. to sign onto climate pacts or face a "Carbon Tax".
- The UN Climate Panel recommendation of a Carbon Tax "to prevent catastrophic climate change".

As an aside, even if the UN had the best of intentions a global tax is too much of a threat to each country's sovereignty. We have also seen what happens when the UN gets massive amounts of money in their hands. It will be diverted to the pockets of those in power and not to the cause it was set up for. There is simply no way to hold the UN accountable.

Question 4: Even if questions 1-3 could be proven is there really anything feasible that can be done? How much reduction can be made to with certainty reverse the catastrophic effects of Global Warming? We would need to reduce the burning of fossil fuels to the point that our transportation industry would be wiped out. We could not replace it with animal driven methods due to their "output" of gases. Nobody seems to want to curtail China for its increase in emissions. Even those who sign onto agreements to reduce emissions do not keep them consistently. There are two alternatives that have not been given much attention. These may in the long run be more cost effective than preventative measures.

1. In the event the catastrophic events look like they will occur, set aside resources to prevent / mitigate massive deaths. Pay to re-locate those in the path of catastrophe. Pay to move those whose country is so devastated by warming that they cannot sustain themselves.

2. Invest in technology that will counter emissions. Recently there have been ideas popping up such as burying the gases under the ocean or in the earth where they will leak out more slowly. Others have suggested sending them into outer space. Sir Richard Branson recently made a significant move in this direction by offering a reward of $25 million to whomever could devise a plan to rid our atmosphere of the CO2 gases using technology.

Question 5: In the event or anticipation of the event that catastrophic man-made global warming is proven to be a crock, this does not justify ignoring man's harm to the environment. Conservatives have wasted a lot of time fighting against man's responsibility to the environment. Liberals have harmed the cause of environmental protection by extremism. While U.S. libs fought against nuclear power, Europe built nuclear plants. Extreme measures that do not allow for the reasonable move in the right direction give some ammunition to block moderate environmental measures. Both sides have guilt. I for one am all for clean water and air. I am all for technologies that will reduce our dependency on fossil fuels. There is windmill power on land and sea. There are under ocean current generators. There is solar power. We should continue to research cleaner ways of burning fuel.

The main thrust of this post is that the debate must look at the entire picture and be honest. There is too much dishonesty, disinformation, spin and hysteria. The worst crime is for those who want to cut off debate completely. Some may have good intentions by not wanting to waste time preventing something they believe will happen. By doing so they turn science into a religion. I and others have posted on the similarities to the Climate Change crowd and organized religion. Those of religious background know the difference between a religion and a cult. I think the Global Warming crowd is often more similar to a cult. There is also a strange rush among GW proponents. I often wonder if those that are using this issue as an agenda item and tool to accomplish other goals are rushing before the earth begins to cool again. If solar hyper-activity is the cause, it will reduce in the near future. If debate holds off measures that will harm the U.S. economy or implement a global tax long enough for the pendulum to swing back, the left will not recover from the embarrassment. However, if the left gets their way in these areas the power they will gain and the weakening of the U.S. is worth the gamble. By then if the earth cools, they will claim victory that the steps taken prevented disaster. The water carriers in the media will be more than happy to support them.