|
|||
 |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|||
 |
|||
|
|
|
|
Global Lukewarming Detouring briefly to spank President Bush for refusing to ratify the Kyoto protocols, our knowledgeable author then listed the cures for global warming: holding global temperature to no more than 3.5 degrees above pre-industrial temperatures (and we've already increased by 1.1 degrees), limiting atmospheric carbon to a maximum of 480 ppm (we are already at 373 ppm), converting to sustainable energy (solar, thermal) by 2050, and so on. This just warmed up things (so to speak) for his final solution, which mandated carbon-burning by all countries on an allocated per-capita basis. Such stringent measures require a system of cheats to make implementation possible, so our author concluded with a description of the carbon emission credit system. Unexcelled as a wealth redistribution scheme, this system grants third world countries with large populations and little technology a high number of credits, gratis. It then adopts a miserly approach to the countries of the industrialized west, granting them few credits. The third world proceeds to reap huge profits by selling their credits to the modern countries of the west, which will be unable to maintain their technologically advanced societies without them. The peak cost to the west, our author estimated, would be equivalent to a surcharge of $2.50 per gallon of gasoline. What about the countries who refuse to join in this game? Not surprisingly, the velvet glove of global concern covers an iron fist of retribution. Non-participants in this scheme will face economic and political sanctions. To an Objectivist, such an article provides many targets. I might argue against the wealth-redistribution, or the blind eye that the credit system turns to the type of government in each country. I might question how the physics teacher calculated average global temperature and maximum permissible carbon in the atmosphere. But an Objectivist has to resist the urge to completely dissect an article and pin up its guts for all to see. The most effective approach is to question the basic premise. In this case, the premise is that atmospheric carbon controls global temperature. I sent the following letter to the paper's editor, on my geologist's letterhead: "Speaking from a geologist's perspective, Art Hobson's view of the progress of global warming needs to use a wider-angle lens. His dire predictions are based on the last 420,000 years, which is a trivial amount of time compared to all of earth's history. The earth has typically sustained much higher atmospheric CO2 levels than the 370 ppm measured today. Atmospheric CO2 reached 5X our current amount in the Jurassic Period (200 million years ago), and a whopping 19X the current level in the Cambrian (500 million years ago). If you also look at global temperatures during times of comparable atmospheric CO2, only the end of the Carboniferous Period (300 million years ago), and the end of the Ordovician Period (430 million years ago) show such low temperatures as we have today. Even worse, the end of the Ordovician was an ice age, despite having atmospheric CO2 levels 12X higher than ours! It is a kangaroo court that wants to lynch atmospheric carbon for controlling global temperature. "Not only has the earth continuously cooled during the last 30 million years, but we currently live toward the end of a predictable 20,000-year vacation between episodes of glaciation. Before you resign yourself to ‘Hobson's Choice’ and sign on to a draconian world council that apportions carbon-burning credits regardless of type of government, you would be well advised to buy a spare overcoat. You're going to need it." An argument of this type is alien to most proponents of global warming. They prefer, like first-year medical students, to propose an infinite number of hypotheses based upon ten seconds of patient inspection. I find myself in the role of seasoned country doctor, pointing out that my patient's fever comes from an influenza that always visits around this time of year. Global warmers never seem to possess significant knowledge of the earth. They measure a sea level rise in inches over the past decade when they should be bracing for a 400 foot drop within the next 1000 years. They want to limit the burning of carbon to prevent global heating, but even the best estimates show complete exhaustion of all fossil fuels within 100-200 years. Burning every bit of oil, gas, and coal might hold the the walls of ice at bay, briefly, but it will not stop them from returning. Are we truly warming up? If you look at the last 100 years of U.S. national temperature data, for example, you see two cycles of warming and cooling with no overall warming trend. What about CO2? Ice core studies document a steady increase in atmospheric CO2 for the last 18,000 years, well before man's puny contribution. How puny? Man's total contribution to greenhouse gases is less than 1/3 of 1% (including intestinal gas, for grins). The remaining 99 and 2/3% of the greenhouse effect is due to natural causes, mainly water vapor. Human CO2 contribution is insignificant. We have been in an ice age for at least the last 750,000 years, with predictable vacations from the ice every 100,000 years, lasting 18,000-20,000 years. Our modern civilization has developed entirely during the last hiatus from glaciation, a glaciation that just 15,000 years ago put a mile of ice atop present-day Seattle, Washington. At the start of our current vacation from the ice, the only man-made lights on earth were campfires scattered about the equator. Perhaps this is the ultimate setting to which the global warmists would like us to return. Global warming is the 21st century version of alchemy. A flawed premise supports a mountain of pseudo-science and a cottage industry of short-sighted professionals swapping their integrity for 15 minutes of fame. Similar arguments have been used to justify every form of historical collectivism, and if followed these proposed cures will produce an identical disease. Postscript—the newspaper ran my letter verbatim, with additional letters ridiculing global warming. Score one for reason! _______________________________________________ References: One of the best-organized, most concise web sites about the errors in global warming can be found at: http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/ice_ages.html For a readable discussion of the life cycle of the earth and similar planets, I recommend: "The Life and Death of Planet Earth," by Peter Ward and Donald Brownlee, Times Books, Holt & Co., New York, NY, 2002. If you enjoyed this, why not subscribe to The Free Radical?
Discuss this Article (2 messages) |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
