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 the public.

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 people. 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 ruthless.

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) is inaccurate. 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.

More information: Richard S. Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Bldg. 54, 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. Phone: 602/379-4356. Book: "Carbon Dioxide and Global Change: Earth in Transition". IBR Press, Div. of Institute for Biospheric Research, address above.

* * *

< previous | chapter index | next >
back to Main Chapter Listing
back to Home Page