|
.
"Moontides, and Other Changes"
These
are from my book, "Moontides, and Other
Changes" with current update
(every other verse) to first piece.
Please take time to read the attached
articles. No matter what your
nationality, politics or religious beliefs
we should all be very concerned
about Mother Earth and our own future. We
just can't go on pretending there
isn't anything to worry about, no matter
what big business and gov't tells
us. I, for one, believe Global Warming IS
real!!
Abe
ENDANGERED SPECIES
Verses in ( ) are new and added
(I wrote this in the early 80s
And thought I’d add some more, today
As we still destroy our Planet
In the same, old, greedy, selfish way)
We talk about what we can do
To save what we don't kill
But I think we all know
That we never, ever will.
(Some inroads were slowly made
To save some endangered species
But all in all we all seem doomed
From the human being’s worst disease.)
We discuss all the things
That could and should be done
But it usually ends right there
Before they are begun.
(We talk and procrastinate
And I think it’s kinda strange
We know we should but never do
Those things we need to change.)
We won't waste our precious time
In our greedy haste
We will wait until it's gone
And cannot be replaced.
(We’re too busy with ourselves
And wait for someone else to lead
To change our ways of living
We’ll need to do to succeed.)
Then we'll bitch about it
Let another take the blame
And the worst part about it --
Next time we'll do the same.
(Some say we still have the time
To stop our self-destruction
And the release of greenhouse gas
Or at the least, some reduction.)
Some day we will realize
Though it will be too late
We're the endangered species
And have sealed our own fate.
(There are still some people
Some we may think are smart
Who say there is no problem
Can they believe that, in their heart?)
The world will be better off
Without the human being 'round
Without our intelligence(?)
Maybe sanity will abound.
(We seem keep ourselves at War
To control the flow of carbon fuel
And will never know righteous Peace
As long as the corporations rule.)
Maybe peace and tranquility
Will spread around the earth
Once we realize how little
We are really worth.
(Maybe when we go extinct
Nature will find a better way
To evolve a smarter, caring being
Who won’t be hell-bent on its doomsday.)
Let us hope we leave enough
To start some life anew --
That, we don't kill it all
'Fore we bid this world adieu.
Began in the early Eighties
Updated after some twenty pass
Will there be a time to write of changes
I doubt it, the way it looks, alas.
Del “Abe” Jones
1980s and 01.08.07
A FISH STORY?
It's another world
One that few have seen
At times wild and brutal
At times so serene.
A place where life abounds
Every shape and size
Where miracles seem to happen
Right before your eyes.
A garden paradise
With flowers that can walk
There's even some creatures
That know how to talk.
There are some animals
Not seen by the eye
And there are fish found here
That have learned to fly.
It has its own mountains
And rivers down below
Still hiding some secrets
That we may never know.
For millions of years
It's cared for its own
And would for millions more
If it were left alone.
But man pollutes its waters
He dumps his garbage there
Spills oil on the surface --
He doesn't seem to care.
So he destroys its life
All because of greed
I guess we think the sea's
Something we don't need.
But someday fish stories
Told from shore to shore
Will be nothing more than
Part of our folklore.
Del “Abe” Jones
80s
Climate Change Denial
"Wacky Weather" is Deadly Global Heating
Earth Meanders by Dr. Glen Barry
http://earthmeanders.blogspot.com/
January 7, 2007
As of 2007 the Earth System has already
undergone profound
global change of which global heating is the
most immediately
evident profound impact. It is getting hot,
and it is happening
fast. Many leading scientists tell us we
have 10 years at most
given current trends before climate change
becomes irreversible
and dangerous, beyond the generally accepted
rise of 2 degrees
Celsius considered adaptable (we are about
1/3 the way there).
Yet the chortling television weather people
tell us the
unprecedented wave of global mild weather -
really a lack of
winter in many parts - is not climate
change. We are encouraged
to take advantage of our good fortune and
get out there and play
golf. At what point will abrupt climate
change and deterioration
of the Earth System's life giving biosphere
be recognized as a
global ecological emergency, and responded
to as such? And will
it then be too late to limit damages, or
even to survive?
Global warming is not a slow, gentle,
pleasant rise in
temperatures to be savored. It is an abrupt
fundamental break
down in the Earth System's climate
sub-system that threatens the
Earth's, humanity's and your family's
ability to live. It is not
enough to blame the weather on El Nino,
which itself can be and
is exacerbated by climate change. As climate
change continues
unabated by systematic policy responses, and
"wacky weather"
more prevalent, we can expect immediately
budding trees to die
from later frosts, agriculture to struggle
to define growing
seasons, pest insects to multiply, and
ecosystems to deteriorate
and die.
The ability of individuals, communities and
nations to deny the
obvious is amazing. People do not like
hearing that their
consumptive, wasteful lifestyle is
destroying God's creation.
For most our addiction to lethargic comfort
is so great, our
ignorance of ecology and our total
dependence upon a healthy
biosphere so complete, and our psychological
inability to grasp
that humanity has overrun the biosphere
becoming the dominant
force in nature so absolute that we do
nothing as the greatest
avertable disaster to ever face
civilizations looms -
increasingly recognized but not nearly
sufficiently addressed.
Humanity is deeply within the Anthropocene
era whereby our
presence is the greatest force shaping the
biosphere. We are
witnessing the jarring collapse of the
Earth's most recent
climate equilibrium, and depending upon how
much climate forcing
occurs from continued emissions, there are
no guarantees what
the next climate will look like or even be
regularized within a
decent time period. And the longer term
results will be
calamitous - extreme weather including super
storms, floods and
droughts, massive crop failures, vegetation
die-back over whole
regions, a proliferation of tropical
diseases, rising seas
destroying cities, a massive refugee crisis
and a general
breakdown of anything resembling dependable
climatic patterns.
Don't believe me? Walk outside right now -
see or feel anything
different? Are the trees blooming in the
middle of winter like
in Washington D.C. and New York? Is there a
lack of snow as in
Minnesota and Europe, while other areas like
Colorado get dumped
upon? Are the rains failing as with
Australia's "Big Dry"? So
much of the global ecological system's
processes and patterns
which provide the life-giving context for
human civilization
have been lost and changed, and it continues
to intensify.
Essentially no natural processes are assured
as a very different
Planet emerges - climate patterns, water
supplies, ocean
fisheries, soil fertility, terrestrial
ecosystem energy and
nutrient cycling are all in doubt.
Many rightly do what they can individually,
but are discouraged
by the fact that many necessary changes like
widespread public
transportation, caps on emissions, and
universal adoption of a
low carbon energy economy requires societal
changes beyond an
individual's immediate grasp. Goddamn it,
snap out of it! I want
to shake every climate denier and ambivalent
Earth slayer,
slapping them in the face to awake them from
their slumberous
death march. We are witnessing a human
caused disintegration of
ancient climatic cycles, with anthropogenic
emissions forcing
the global climate beyond what has always
been a high level of
variability.
We must get past the ingrained illusion that
humanity has not
become a planetary ecological force. And
that the changes we are
witnessing in a single lifetime are good. As
the ecologically
ignorant chortle, pleased to be outside in
winter in short
sleeves, perhaps they should consider how
global heating will
impact their water, food and shelter
requirements for life - to
say nothing of the economy and their
prospects for employment.
How deeply and sadly we are in denial
regarding the consequences
of the abrupt climate changes we are
witnessing. The life giving
biosphere is in tatters and near collapse
because of you and me
and everyone. We are witnessing the logical
conclusion of
deforesting 80% of the world's natural
ecosystems while working
on the rest, breeding and increasing in
numbers recklessly,
using fossil fuel energy wastefully, and
believing our
lifestyles and consumption are independent
of the Earth.
Massively reducing emissions must become
this next greatest
generation's central call to duty.
Dramatically and rapidly
reducing greenhouse gas emissions must
become the central
organizing principle of governments,
business and individuals.
Contracting rich nations' carbon emissions,
while allowing
materially poor nations to converge with the
rich's level of
emissions, is the only way forward that is
both equitable and
likely to be successful. We need contests,
and publicity for
best practices, and technology sharing, and
a rejection of coal,
and emission caps, and global carbon
trading, population
control, huge renewable energy subsidies and
so much more.
Only massive public and political pressure -
now - can save the
Earth and all her species. The recent vote
in the U.S. was a
repudiation of oil industry governance. Now
it is up to
Democrats to stop pandering on gas prices
and propose a
progressive, workable carbon tax; ratify
Kyoto and meaningfully
rejoin international climate talks; launch
an "Apollo project"
supporting renewable energy, and generally
for the U.S. to get
on the ball and rejoin the league of
civilized nations that are
working on climate solutions.
I exhort all that read this to break the
denial that the current
"wacky weather" is natural; it is more, much
more; the start of
systematic collapse of being as we know it.
And I ask that you
help other non-ecologically attuned people
grasp what their way
of life is doing to creation - risking
ridicule as an acolyte of
ecological truth. Take responsibility
personally, and become
involved in the great climate
change/ecological sustainability
movements that are set to rock this world -
bringing forth the
necessary societal changes. Time is short,
but solutions exist.
Save the climate, save the Earth, save
yourself and your
posterity. Get active, organize, agitate,
protest and above all
else reduce your carbon emissions!
To subscribe, send a blank email to
join-ecological_internet@ecoearth.info
Or visit here:
http://www.ecoearth.info/subscribe/
Earth Prophecy
And the way out
Earth Meanders December 23, 2006
Imagine the panic as Americans and others in
the world that are
ecologically ignorant and isolated realize
food does not come
from grocery stores but from healthy
agro-ecosystems with
dependable climatic patterns and rich soil.
That water does not
come from the tap, but from aquifers and
rivers. That weather
need not follow reliable cycles, that
natural resources are
finite, and that social order depends upon
all the above. I
prophesize that within my lifetime
environmental destruction and
unsustainable living will lead to widespread
global ecological
collapse and social disintegration; leading
eventually to
extinction for most life forms including
humans and Gaia - the
Earth system itself. This is the Earth
Prophecy.
None of what follows need happen, and I
close this essay by
repeating the policies that offer the way
out. We have all the
tools and knowledge on hand to prevent
global ecological and
social collapse. Yet the hour is late,
widespread political and
personal will essentially absent, and the
momentum behind Earth
destroying trends so pernicious and constant
that barring major
social change unprecedented in scale and
ambition, the Earth and
her inhabitants are going to die a hard and
brutal death.
Globally as the climate becomes wildly
unpredictable, droughts
and floods prevalent, and the land and
oceans lifeless;
starvation and disease will become rampant,
economies will fail,
and social cohesion will break down leading
to unprecedented
violence and death as the truth of existence
is revealed to a
formerly air-conditioned, consumer society
fighting to survive.
Firstly, what do I mean when I say the Earth
is dying? The
prevailing sentiment is whatever the fate of
humanity; the
Earth’s biota shall sufficiently persist to
maintain other life
forms. Evolution will be set back by a sixth
major extinction
event, but over geological time life will
bounce back. I am not
convinced this is the case. Given the
magnitude and speed of the
assault upon every aspect of Gaia’s
biosphere and ecosystems -
toxins interacting, oceans dead and empty,
failed water
ecosystems, a dysfunctional atmosphere, and
the virtual
annihilation of native terrestrial habitats
- it is not
inconceivable that the planet could
essentially become lifeless.
Maybe entirely, or possibly some bacteria,
dandelions and rats
hold on - in either case the Earth is dead.
It is prophesized that advanced, complex
life including humans
and the Earth as a living system are
imminently threatened with
extinction. Humanity’s manner of existing
threatens advanced
life for a very long time if not forever.
The coming eco-
collapse is going to be brutal and violent.
And it could all be
averted, or at least some semblance of
humanity and ecosystems
achieved post-collapse, given people power
and political will
now.
Eco-collapse
When will ecological collapse start? I would
say it has already
as polar bears drown, bears refuse to
hibernate and penguins die
off. What has become of winter? Falling
water tables, eroded
soils, desertification, extreme weather,
melting ice caps, it is
all happening now. Climate change is but one
of many aspects of
our alienation from the Earth; as soils,
water, oceans, forests
are all failing along with the atmosphere.
Global ecological
apocalypse is upon us and the day is late.
Only pampered,
isolated modern humans could refuse to
acknowledge we have a
problem. Malthus was right and we are as a
species and planet
fully feeling the ramifications of believing
there are no
limitations upon resources and that
exponential growth of many
types including population, economic growth
and resource use can
be sustained. Technology puts off limits to
growth, it does not
supersede them.
The ecological foundation of being is
failing. And as a result
here is just a sampling of what we can
expect. The effects of
human consumption and fossil fuel use are
going to spawn
tremendous climate feedbacks. The Amazon,
Congo and Asia/Pacific
rainforests (those that remain) will largely
die releasing their
carbon. Melting permafrost and ocean methane
hydrates, along
with heat absorbing open Arctic waters, will
further consolidate
and ensure run-away climate change of such
magnitude that
adaptation is futile.
China is going to implode under the weight
of its own runaway
economy, followed closely by India, the U.S.
and Europe. The
collapse of these over-developed regions
will destabilize the
entire world, leading to military
adventurism to access
resources including water, energy and
fertile land. Rising seas,
extreme weather, degraded soils,
desertification, dead oceans,
scarce water - and the resultant
militarization to maintain
over-consumption - are going to make
billions of refugees. And
as these human beings lack places to run
too; they will die from
disease and starvation, and from violence
including murder, rape
and slavery by those in technologically
rich, well stocked
compounds seeking to protect what they have.
As energy supplies are disrupted and run out
the whole
industrial, agricultural, transport and
production system will
grind to a halt. Those that have access to
land and seeds - from
small farms to suburban lawns - will be
called upon to raise
their own food, while fighting off marauders
and with shortages
of seeds and tools of self-sufficiency. Two
approaches will
emerge to combat the gravest threat ever to
civilization. One
will strive to return to, and restore the
Earth. The other will
try to engineer a way out of a crisis caused
by over-engineering
with such things as fertilizing the oceans
with iron, installing
space mirrors, and releasing sulphur
pollution. The latter can
only fail as the biosphere is too complex to
be engineered, and
unknown effects guaranteed.
The way out
Clearly there is much individuals can do to
reduce consumption
and lead an eco-conscious lifestyle. And by
all means we should
eat less or no meat, drive little, consume
only quality items we
need but disavow conspicuous needless
consumption, and a hundred
other things. But the uptake of such beliefs
is spotty, human
numbers too great by at least four times to
sustain anything
approximating our present lifestyles, and
thus personal action
alone is unlikely to in itself nullify the
Earth Prophecy. In
addition to taking personal action, we need
to organize and work
for a movement that envisions and implements
societal changes
truly adequate to avoid ecological and
societal collapse.
On other occasions I have written in depth
regarding what is
necessary in terms of Earth policy if
humanity is to have a
future. There are two critical variables
that influence the
Earth Prophecies likelihood, and whether the
coming ecosystem
collapse kills the Earth system and its
inhabitants, or whether
it is weathered and after much death and
suffering a new,
simpler yet fuller ways of ecologically
restorative living
embraced. The first is how quickly humanity
embraces reduction
of industrial greenhouse gas emissions as a
central organizing
principle of global community and
responsibility. We should have
started in earnest in the booming 90s, but
barring that we need
to have started and made real progress in
decarbonizing our
economies within the decade, and continue
until emissions are
reduced to the extent that global heating
can be managed.
Further keys to address climate change
include renewable energy
subsidies, energy efficiency and
conservation, and leaving our
coal in the ground.
Ecological Internet's "Sustainability
Solutions Initiative" runs
through the whole gamut of the top ten
governance policy
initiatives necessary to avert the coming
ecological apocalypse.
A more full accounting of this new project
meant to identify
sufficient policies to save the Earth can be
found at
http://www.ecoearth.info/ssi/ . Let me
paraphrase here. We need
to go far beyond better light bulbs and
hybrid cars and
fundamentally reorganize human existence. In
addition to the
adequate climate policy above, major
initiatives are needed in
the realm of population control and
reduction; terrestrial,
aquatic and hydrological ecosystem
protection and restoration
including no more logging or other
industrial development in
ancient forests; the pursuit of sustainable
economies requires a
rethinking of both agriculture and
economics, and the embrace of
appropriate green technologies. And finally
the world can not be
saved and the prophecy averted without
strengthened global
governance, global demilitarization and a
reallocation of these
funds to the programs above and urgent
efforts to tackle
terrible inequitable poverty which plagues
the world.
Maybe world environmental leaders like Al
Gore, Leonardo
DiCaprio and Laurie David will embrace this
ambitious yet
sufficient agenda. Or maybe they will
continue talking, hawking
light bulbs and virtually marching. But as
all hell starts
breaking loose, and society and individuals
refuse to make the
types of changes listed above, there is
another option I have
considered academically in depth - and that
is an Earth
Revolution to topple the whole rotten,
polluting, inequitable
and Earth killing economic system (see
http://earthmeanders.blogspot.com/2006/06/earth-treatise-living-
for-earth.html ) .
If all else fails, a band of Earth
insurgents must rise to
eliminate Earth destroyer’s property,
principles and economic
system. A vast, well financed network of
Earth rebels will
develop to make a last ditch effort to save
salvation.
Simultaneously such a movement would promote
practitioners of
truly sustainable agrarian, relocalized and
democratic living to
step in to provide the solutions to
reconstitute humanity and
the Planet post collapse and revolution. We
must be prepared
with seeds, workable permaculture methods,
and ways to help
people reconnect to the Earth to feed and
house themselves while
nurturing a sick global patient - Gaia, the
Earth system.
Let us all recommit ourselves this year to
organizing,
advocating and protesting to stop and
reverse Earth destruction;
at the personal, campaign and global policy
level. And let us
prepare for the final battle to avert global
ecological
Armageddon, by living as sustainably as
possible given social
constraints and preparing the knowledge,
seeds, tools and
methods to fight for a future for Homo
sapiens, the millions of
species with which we share existence, and
the Earth's being. I
love the Earth so much and my heart is
breaking, yet the above
is a truthful examination based upon decades
of learning and
action. It is my gift to you this solstice
season. Let us
together find the way out from this horrific
Earth Prophecy.
by Dr. Glen Barry
http://earthmeanders.blogspot.com/
Below is an article from Imprimis: the
news letter for Hillsdale College.
Hillsdale College is an
independent, co-educational, nonsectarian,
liberal arts college located on the
north side of the city of
Hillsdale in central-southern
Michigan,
United States. Although
"nonsectarian," the College has long been
distinctly Christian.
The following
is adapted from a lecture delivered by S.
Fred Singer on the Hillsdale College
campus on June 30, 2007, during a seminar
entitled “Economics and the Environment,”
sponsored by the Charles R. and Kathleen
K. Hoogland Center for Teacher Excellence.
S. Fred Singer
is professor emeritus of environmental
sciences at the University of Virginia, a
distinguished research professor at George
Mason University, and president of the
Science and Environmental Policy Project.
He performed his undergraduate studies at
Ohio State University and earned his Ph.D.
in Physics from Princeton University. He
was the founding dean of the School of
Environmental and Planetary Sciences at
the University of Miami, the founding
director of the U.S. National Weather
Satellite Service, and served for five
years as vice chairman of the U.S.
National Advisory Committee on Oceans and
Atmosphere. Dr. Singer has written or
edited over a dozen books and mono-graphs,
including, most recently, Unstoppable
Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years.
Global Warming - Man-Made
Or Natural ?
IN THE PAST few years there has been
increasing concern about global climate
change on the part of the media,
politicians, and the public. It has been
stimulated by the idea that human
activities may influence global climate
adversely and that therefore corrective
action is required on the part of
governments. Recent evidence suggests that
this concern is misplaced. Human
activities are not influencing the global
climate in a perceptible way. Climate will
continue to change, as it always has in
the past, warming and cooling on different
time scales and for different reasons,
regardless of human action. I would also
argue that—should it occur—a modest
warming would be on the whole beneficial.
This is not to say that we don’t face a
serious problem. But the problem is
political. Because of the mistaken idea
that governments can and must do something
about climate, pressures are building that
have the potential of distorting energy
policies in a way that will severely
damage national economies, decrease
standards of living, and increase poverty.
This misdirection of resources will
adversely affect human health and welfare
in industrialized nations, and even more
in developing nations. Thus it could well
lead to increased social tensions within
nations and conflict between them.
If not for this economic and political
damage, one might consider the present
concern about climate change nothing more
than just another environmentalist fad,
like the Alar apple scare or the global
cooling fears of the 1970s. Given that so
much is at stake, however, it is essential
that people better understand the issue.
Man-Made Warming?
The most fundamental
question is scientific: Is the observed
warming of the past 30 years due to
natural causes or are human activities a
main or even a contributing factor?
At first glance, it is quite plausible
that humans could be responsible for
warming the climate. After all, the
burning of fossil fuels to generate energy
releases large quantities of carbon
dioxide into the atmosphere. The CO2 level
has been increasing steadily since the
beginning of the industrial revolution and
is now 35 percent higher than it was 200
years ago. Also, we know from direct
measurements that CO2 is a “greenhouse
gas” which strongly absorbs infrared
(heat) radiation. So the idea that burning
fossil fuels causes an enhanced
“greenhouse effect” needs to be taken
seriously.
But in seeking to understand recent
warming, we also have to consider the
natural factors that have regularly warmed
the climate prior to the industrial
revolution and, indeed, prior to any human
presence on the earth. After all, the
geological record shows a persistent
1,500-year cycle of warming and cooling
extending back at least one million years.
In identifying the burning of fossil fuels
as the chief cause of warming today, many
politicians and environmental activists
simply appeal to a so-called “scientific
consensus.” There are two things wrong
with this. First, there is no such
consensus: An increasing number of climate
scientists are raising serious questions
about the political rush to judgment on
this issue. For example, the widely touted
“consensus” of 2,500 scientists on the
United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) is an illusion: Most
of the panelists have no scientific
qualifications, and many of the others
object to some part of the IPCC’s report.
The Associated Press reported recently
that only 52 climate scientists
contributed to the report’s “Summary for
Policymakers.”
Likewise, only about a dozen members of
the governing board voted on the
“consensus statement” on climate change by
the American Meteorological Society (AMS).
Rank and file AMS scientists never had a
say, which is why so many of them are now
openly rebelling. Estimates of skepticism
within the AMS regarding man-made global
warming are well over 50 percent.
The second reason not to rely on a
“scientific consensus” in these matters is
that this is not how science works. After
all, scientific advances customarily come
from a minority of scientists who
challenge the majority view—or even just a
single person (think of Galileo or
Einstein). Science proceeds by the
scientific method and draws conclusions
based on evidence, not on a show of hands.
But aren’t glaciers melting? Isn’t sea ice
shrinking? Yes, but that’s not proof for
human-caused warming. Any kind of warming,
whether natural or human-caused, will melt
ice. To assert that melting glaciers prove
human causation is just bad logic.
What about the fact that carbon dioxide
levels are increasing at the same time
temperatures are rising? That’s an
interesting correlation; but as every
scientist knows, correlation is not
causation. During much of the last century
the climate was cooling while CO2 levels
were rising. And we should note that the
climate has not warmed in the past eight
years, even though greenhouse gas levels
have increased rapidly.
What about the fact—as cited by, among
others, those who produced the IPCC
report—that every major greenhouse
computer model (there are two dozen or so)
shows a large temperature increase due to
human burning of fossil fuels?
Fortunately, there is a scientific way of
testing these models to see whether
current warming is due to a man-made
greenhouse effect. It involves comparing
the actual or observed pattern of warming
with the warming pattern predicted by or
calculated from the models. Essentially,
we try to see if the “fingerprints”
match—“fingerprints” meaning the rates of
warming at different latitudes and
altitudes.
For instance, theoretically, greenhouse
warming in the tropics should register at
increasingly high rates as one moves from
the surface of the earth up into the
atmosphere, peaking at about six miles
above the earth’s surface. At that point,
the level should be greater than at the
surface by about a factor of three and
quite pronounced, according to all the
computer models. In reality, however,
there is no increase at all. In fact, the
data from balloon-borne radiosondes show
the very opposite: a slight decrease in
warming over the equator.
The fact that the observed and predicted
patterns of warming don’t match indicates
that the man-made greenhouse contribution
to current temperature change is
insignificant. This fact emerges from data
and graphs collected in the Climate Change
Science Program Report 1.1, published by
the federal government in April 2006 (see
www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/finalreport/default.htm).
It is remarkable and puzzling that few
have noticed this disparity between
observed and predicted patterns of warming
and drawn the obvious scientific
conclusion.
What explains why greenhouse computer
models predict temperature trends that are
so much larger than those observed? The
answer lies in the proper evaluation of
feedback within the models. Remember that
in addition to carbon dioxide, the real
atmosphere contains water vapor, the most
powerful greenhouse gas. Every one of the
climate models calculates a significant
positive feedback from water vapor—i.e., a
feedback that amplifies the warming effect
of the CO2 increase by an average factor
of two or three. But it is quite possible
that the water vapor feedback is negative
rather than positive and thereby reduces
the effect of increased CO2.
There are several ways this might occur.
For example, when increased CO2 produces a
warming of the ocean, a higher rate of
evaporation might lead to more humidity
and cloudiness (provided the atmosphere
contains a sufficient number of cloud
condensation nuclei). These low clouds
reflect incoming solar radiation back into
space and thereby cool the earth. Climate
researchers have discovered other possible
feedbacks and are busy evaluating which
ones enhance and which diminish the effect
of increasing CO2.
Natural Causes of Warming
A quite different question, but
scientifically interesting, has to do with
the natural factors influencing climate.
This is a big topic about which much has
been written. Natural factors include
continental drift and mountain-building,
changes in the Earth’s orbit, volcanic
eruptions, and solar variability.
Different factors operate on different
time scales. But on a time scale important
for human experience—a scale of decades,
let’s say—solar variability may be the
most important.
Solar influence can manifest itself in
different ways: fluctuations of solar
irradiance (total energy), which has been
measured in satellites and related to the
sunspot cycle; variability of the
ultraviolet portion of the solar spectrum,
which in turn affects the amount of ozone
in the stratosphere; and variations in the
solar wind that modulate the intensity of
cosmic rays (which, upon impact into the
earth’s atmosphere, produce cloud
condensation nuclei, affecting cloudiness
and thus climate).
Scientists have been able to trace the
impact of the sun on past climate using
proxy data (since thermometers are
relatively modern). A conventional proxy
for temperature is the ratio of the heavy
isotope of oxygen, Oxygen-18, to the most
common form, Oxygen-16.
A paper published in Nature in 2001
describes the Oxygen-18 data (reflecting
temperature) from a stalagmite in a cave
in Oman, covering a period of over 3,000
years. It also shows corresponding
Carbon-14 data, which are directly related
to the intensity of cosmic rays striking
the earth’s atmosphere. One sees there a
remarkably detailed correlation, almost on
a year-by-year basis. While such research
cannot establish the detailed mechanism of
climate change, the causal connection is
quite clear: Since the stalagmite
temperature cannot affect the sun, it is
the sun that affects climate.
Policy Consequences
If this line of reasoning is correct,
human-caused increases in the CO2 level
are quite insignificant to climate change.
Natural causes of climate change, for
their part, cannot be controlled by man.
They are unstoppable. Several policy
consequences would follow from this simple
fact:
> Regulation of CO2 emissions is pointless
and even counterproductive, in that no
matter what kind of mitigation scheme is
used, such regulation is hugely expensive.
> The development of non-fossil fuel
energy sources, like ethanol and hydrogen,
might be counterproductive, given that
they have to be manufactured, often with
the investment of great amounts of
ordinary energy. Nor do they offer much
reduction in oil imports.
> Wind power and solar power become less
attractive, being uneconomic and requiring
huge subsidies.
> Substituting natural gas for coal in
electricity generation makes less sense
for the same reasons.
None of this is intended to argue against
energy conservation. On the contrary,
conserving energy reduces waste, saves
money, and lowers energy
prices—irrespective of what one may
believe about global warming.
Science vs.
Hysteria
You will note that this has been a
rational discussion. We asked the
important question of whether there is
appreciable man-made warming today. We
presented evidence that indicates there is
not, thereby suggesting that attempts by
governments to control greenhouse-gas
emissions are pointless and unwise.
Nevertheless, we have state governors
calling for CO2 emissions limits on cars;
we have city mayors calling for mandatory
CO2 controls; we have the Supreme Court
declaring CO2 a pollutant that may have to
be regulated; we have every industrialized
nation (with the exception of the U.S. and
Australia) signed on to the Kyoto
Protocol; and we have ongoing
international demands for even more
stringent controls when Kyoto expires in
2012. What’s going on here?
To begin, perhaps even some of the
advocates of these anti-warming policies
are not so serious about them, as seen in
a feature of the Kyoto Protocol called the
Clean Development Mechanism, which allows
a CO2 emitter—i.e., an energy user—to
support a fanciful CO2 reduction scheme in
developing nations in exchange for the
right to keep on emitting CO2 unabated.
“Emission trading” among those countries
that have ratified Kyoto allows for the
sale of certificates of unused emission
quotas. In many cases, the initial quota
was simply given away by governments to
power companies and other entities, which
in turn collect a windfall fee from
consumers. All of this has become a huge
financial racket that could someday make
the UN’s “Oil for Food” scandal in Iraq
seem minor by comparison. Even more
fraudulent, these schemes do not reduce
total CO2 emissions—not even in theory.
It is also worth noting that tens of
thousands of interested persons benefit
directly from the global warming scare—at
the expense of the ordinary consumer.
Environmental organizations globally, such
as Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, and the
Environmental Defense Fund, have raked in
billions of dollars. Multi-billion-dollar
government subsidies for useless
mitigation schemes are large and growing.
Emission trading programs will soon reach
the $100 billion a year level, with large
fees paid to brokers and those who operate
the scams. In other words, many people
have discovered they can benefit from
climate scares and have formed an
entrenched interest. Of course, there are
also many sincere believers in an
impending global warming catastrophe,
spurred on in their fears by the growing
number of one-sided books, movies, and
media coverage.
The irony is that a slightly warmer
climate with more carbon dioxide is in
many ways beneficial rather than damaging.
Economic studies have demonstrated that a
modest warming and higher CO2 levels will
increase GNP and raise standards of
living, primarily by improving agriculture
and forestry. It’s a well-known fact that
CO2 is plant food and essential to the
growth of crops and trees—and ultimately
to the well-being of animals and humans.
You wouldn’t know it from Al Gore’s An
Inconvenient Truth, but there are many
upsides to global warming: Northern homes
could save on heating fuel. Canadian
farmers could harvest bumper crops.
Greenland may become awash in cod and oil
riches. Shippers could count on an Arctic
shortcut between the Atlantic and Pacific.
Forests may expand.
Mongolia could become an economic
superpower. This is all speculative, even
a little facetious. But still, might there
be a silver lining for the frigid regions
of Canada and Russia? “It’s not that there
won’t be bad things happening in those
countries,” economics professor Robert O.
Mendelsohn of the Yale School of Forestry
& Environmental Studies says. “But the
idea is that they will get such large
gains, especially in agriculture, that
they will be bigger than the losses.”
Mendelsohn has looked at how gross
domestic product around the world would be
affected under different warming scenarios
through 2100. Canada and Russia tend to
come out as clear gainers, as does much of
northern Europe and Mongolia, largely
because of projected increases in
agricultural production.
To repeat a point made at the beginning:
Climate has been changing cyclically for
at least a million years and has shown
huge variations over geological time.
Human beings have adapted well, and will
continue to do so.
* * *
The nations of the world face many
difficult problems. Many have societal
problems like poverty, disease, lack of
sanitation, and shortage of clean water.
There are grave security problems arising
from global terrorism and the
proliferation of nuclear weapons. Any of
these problems are vastly more important
than the imaginary problem of man-made
global warming. It is a great shame that
so many of our resources are being
diverted from real problems to this
non-problem. Perhaps in ten or 20 years
this will become apparent to everyone,
particularly if the climate should stop
warming (as it has for eight years now) or
even begin to cool.
We can only trust that reason will prevail
in the face of an onslaught of propaganda
like Al Gore’s movie and despite the
incessant misinformation generated by the
media. Today, the imposed costs are still
modest, and mostly hidden in taxes and in
charges for electricity and motor fuels.
If the scaremongers have their way, these
costs will become enormous. But I believe
that sound science and good sense will
prevail in the face of irrational and
scientifically baseless climate fears.
Online Degrees
Front Page
|