GLOBAL WARMING? (PART III) TRADITIONAL THINKING CAUSES TROUBLE
Three years ago my column on alleged "global warming" was 180 degrees
opposite to traditional thinking. Naturally, conventional thinkers
and those who accept indoctrination without reservations, exploded.
Slightly more than a year later, a second column (which some editors
put aside because it was too controversial) provided additional
backup. That column drew attention to the work of Dr. Sherwood B.
Idso of the University of Arizona and President of the Institute for
Biospheric Research in Tempe, Arizona. Idso grew carbon-dioxide
"fat" sour orange trees. They were fed three times the normal intake
of CO2. Surprise! They grew three times faster than trees with
today's normal carbon-dioxide intake!
Inference: Increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will return
the planet to those days, 6,000 years ago when that growth cycle
provided what is known as the "Climatic Epoch", a time of greatest
plant growth ever known.
Here is more scientific rather than advocacy support for the theory
that what man has put into the atmosphere is not, in any significant
measure responsible for global warming, even if such a change is
happening ... which has not been proven scientifically to date.
Richard S. Lindzen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
hardly a fly-by-night operation, will soon be publishing several
papers on this subject. These are in addition to those he has
already published and records of his appearances before various U.S.
agencies and other hearing groups. One of his papers, is entitled
"On the absence of a scientific basis for global warming scenarios",
points out that: "If all CO2 were removed from the atmosphere, water
vapor and clouds would still provide over 98 percent of the present
greenhouse effect." He adds that "CO2 is only a minor greenhouse
gas". He also states in his "absence" paper, that "the physics of
the water vapor budget is largely absent in current models", those
used to 'scare' the public and garner government and military
funding. Some major reports have been funded by environmental
advocacy groups, part of the 50,000 new jobs created in the
environmental "industry". This has not been generally revealed to
Does this mean that all those thousands flown, mainly at taxpayers'
expense, to Rio in the cool of the southern hemisphere's fall season
are wrong? Yes. Why do developing countries clamor to be heard and
support such views? Because their leaders hope to increase guilt
feelings that the first world is causing catastrophic warming so
they, the third world leaders, will be beneficiaries of even more
handouts, little of which actually filters through to the needy
Now I am not saying that such countries do not need some assistance.
I am saying that in most countries, people should be given the hooks
to catch the fish or the seed to grow and harvest crops themselves,
rather than rely on monetary aid that only rigidly enforces their
dependency on foreign aid and their current leaders. That's not aid,
that's enslavement. There are times when true compassion must be
As for pollution, the facts are that the recent volcanic explosion of
Mount Pinabato in the Philippines, sent more "global warming"
pollution into the air than everything man has produced since the
industrial revolution began! And a century prior to Pinabato, the
eruption of Krakatoa, in Indonesia, threw even more such pollutants
into the earth's atmosphere. While we should not add even a minute
portion of pollution to what is already there, but it appears that
man's errors thus far are puny in comparison to nature's creations.
Looking at it one way man is still pretty arrogant in his belief that
he can "control" the planet, either for good or bad. One day man
will be able to control planets, but that time is not yet at hand.
Remember the atmosphere is about as complicated a phenomenon as
science has encountered and we have only been keeping accurate
records for a mere footnote in the annuals of time. We are not aware
today of cycles that cover such vast time frames and even now remain
incomprehensible to man.
According to Lindzen, CO2 has been increasing from a rating of 275
ppmv (parts per million by volume) to today's 355 ppmv. Half of the
carbon dioxide produced appears in the atmosphere. The other half is
absorbed by plankton in the seas, plants and trees, etc. Models used
by most environmentalists, if drawn from a time line of a century ago
would show today's CO2 content around 400 ppmv. It just isn't the
fact and that model (known as the "business as usual" classification)
Another model produced by the Max Planck Gesellschaft in Hamburg
shows that the content in the atmosphere may not increase any more by
the year 2100. Lindzen adds "Given our present crystal ball technology, predictions for 50-100 years are more than anyone would
rationally attempt". He wrote me: "in particular, I do not think
there will be noticeable warming from increasing carbon dioxide."
I believe advocates for scare tactics are being carried away by their
belief that this is a good method of cornering government and private
funding (fear sells, both in newspapers, in halls of academe and in
the corridors of political power). Given the new alliance of
environmentalists and the military, this provides secondarily, a new
"front" on which to battle, thereby ignoring and taking attention
away from the many real problems facing the world's population in
their respective geographical areas.
One day society will take retribution on those who willfully or
unconsciously attempt to lead the masses astray. The media who write
quickly without checking facts will find themselves also embarrassed.
Remember, war crimes never used to be punished in the past either.
All these "causes" springing up in such times of increased information flow allow misinformation to be inserted, which in many cases,
gets accepted unconsciously without verification. This shows what
can happen in times of social instability, much like the rumor days
in wartime: any wild scare tactic can be picked up, blown out of all
proportion and quickly supported by large masses of people causing
expensive, perhaps fatal results, without having any solid foundation. Check facts.
Richard S. Lindzen,
Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
Cambridge, Mass 02139.
Phone: 617/253-2432. Fax: 617/964-3953.
Dr. Sherwood B. Idso, President,
Institute for Biospheric Research,
631 E. Laguna Drive,
Tempe, Arizona 85282.
"Carbon Dioxide and Global Change: Earth in Transition".
IBR Press, Div. of Institute for Biospheric Research, address above.
* * *
chapter index |
back to Main Chapter Listing
back to Home Page