4/09/04
THE MYTH OF GLOBAL WARMING
For decades, Americans and people around the world have been plagued by the theory of global warming. Millions have been convinced that their own actions could bring the end of the human race. Global warming theorists promise massive floods, severe droughts and famine due to the human pollution of the gas CO2 (Carbon Dioxide) (Bender 143). This theory has been taught in public schools as if it were fact; even the American Pentagon is investigating this theory because of its supposed threat to national security (Vasey). Nothing could be farther from the truth. This theory is only a crackpot idea spawned from shortsighted scientists and extreme environmentalists and politicians. The global warming theory falls apart from even the slightest of scrutiny.
The global warming theory basically states an increase in the greenhouse effect due to human factors. The greenhouse effect exists. It is cause predominantly because of two gases, CO2 and water vapor. These gases occur naturally in the atmosphere. CO2 composes about 0.035% of the atmosphere while water vapor varies between 0-4%. These gases have the unusual ability to trap heat radiating from the earth to further warm the earth. This phenomenon is essential. Without it the earth would be 68 degrees Fahrenheit colder. The greenhouse effect allows humans to exist (Bender 2). The global warming theory states that human activity and the burning of fossil fuels increases the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. This would increase the amount of heat trapped by the greenhouse effect and therefore increase the global temperature, which could melt the ice caps and flood the earth or several other possible negative externalities (Bender 143). This theory was first examined by Svante Arrhenius in the 19th century who stated that the planet should warm 5 degrees centigrade for doubling concentration of CO2 (Winter). This theory died until a revival in the 1970's when scientists realized that the earth had warmed about 1 degree Fahrenheit in the past century. One of these scientists was James Hansen director of NASA institute for space studies, who claimed the temperature increase was caused by a combination of deforestation and burning of coal and other fossil fuels (Winter). Current EPA and NASA statements estimate an increase in global temperature of about 5-6 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100. However these statements are misguided by inaccurate, inconsistent and shady evidence (Bender 53).
The problems arise when examining their first statement. This being that the earth has warmed 1 degree in the past century. This cannot be considered credible evidence for the following reasons. Taking global temperature measurements over 100 years old is extremely inaccurate. In the 1800's the only temperature reading were on only 30% of the earth, only on land. Also, these reading were subject to local weather patterns and not averaged correctly (Robinson). The only accurate way to measure global temperature is with a satellite, which can measure temperature from all surfaces of the earth. This technology was not developed until 1960 with the launch of TIROS I, the first satellite that could analyze the earth using infrared radiation (Widger 93). According to William Widger "Infrared radiation can be used to measure the temperature of the earths' surface, atmospheric layers and amounts of various gases" (102). Global temperature reading before this time should not be used to accurately portrait the theory. Also, early readings of concentration of CO2 must be disregarded because of their inaccuracy. These reading are taken for ice core samples in the artic. Scientists drill into glaciers to look at air pockets formed over time. They can analyze these pockets of air and calculate them to a period in time to achieve a streaming graph of the concentration of CO2 for the past 150 years. This is an inaccurate way to measure global gas concentrations. This is because the site of the sample is subject to local weather changes and can only represent the concentration of gases at a very particular area, not world wide. Also these pockets of air can not be decisively pinned to the year of their origin, it's all estimation. In addition these measurements were all at artic areas. These artic areas are extremely dry so they lack the water vapor that would be seen at more tropic areas creating a proportionally inaccurate sample. This method is somewhat accurate in establishing local estimations of artic gas concentrations, but in no way can these be used to measure global gas concentrations (Vasey). Accurate measurements of global gas concentrations can only be achieved by satellite infrared radiation (Hubert 33).
Even if one could disregard the inaccuracies presented with the evidence, their own research doesn't correlate to their theory. One would expect that the largest increase in global temperature to correlate with the greatest period of pollution, but this is not the case. Of the 1 degree increase in temperature, the majority of this increase occurred between 1910 and 1935, a period of little CO2 pollution. Approximately 3/4 of the century's CO2 pollution by humans occurred after 1940 (Winter). If the theory was accurate the largest increase would be after WW2 or perhaps during the 1970's, before many clean air initiatives. Since 1940, global temperature has relatively leveled out after a period of cooling. A recent NASA study of satellite imaging concluded that in the past two decades the global temperature has been declining despite increasing human CO2 pollution (Robinson). These are clear inconsistencies in the global warming theory unexplained by theorists.
Although the theory would have you think otherwise, humans play an insignificant
role in the pollution of CO2 into the atmosphere. Human activities and
industries have estimates of 6 billions tons of CO2 emissions per year and
account for 5% of CO2 in the atmosphere. This may seem extreme if you don't
consider the following. According to a documentary on England's channel 4,
oceans emit 90 billion tons of CO2 and decaying plants pollute another 90
billion tons (Winter). Human activity is rather trivial when compared with other
natural factors, such as volcanoes or natural forest fires. In 1980, Mount St.
Helen erupted releasing more CO2 at once than all human activity in the last 100
years (Bender 206). Yet the polar ice caps did not melt, nor did we experience
drought. There are hundreds of volcanic eruptions like St. Helens a year.
If human involvement isn't the cause
for the rise in temperature, than what is? Theorists often present global
temperature graph going as far back as 1850, rarely is a graph presented dating
before this time period. The reason for this is because between the years
1350-1850, the earth was experiencing what many have referred to as the "Little
Ice Age". During this period, much of the Netherlands region was uninhabitable.
The entire earth went into a cooling period (Vasey). Using graphs post 1850
shows a moderate upswing in temperature due to the earths natural regression
from the ice age, but cleverly disguised as the end of the earth. These natural
cycles have occurring for millions of years, periods of ice age and increased
heat. Analysis of ice core and tree rings shows such cycles with extremes
averages temperatures of up to 110 degrees (Bender 134). Other natural patterns
can explain an increase in global temperature. Recent studies of the sun show
that it has been more active now than any other time in the past millennium
(Robinson). Periods of extreme solar activity appear in cycles called sunspots.
A dark circle can be observed on the sun during such cycles, hence the name. The
sun spot activity perfectly correlates to the increase in temperature. The
increase in CO2 concentration can be easily explained as well. As the
temperature of water in lakes and oceans increases, the solubility of water
deceases. This means that water becomes less able to dissolve the gas CO2 as the
temperature of the water increases. This is why the atmospheric CO2
concentration and global temperature seem to correlate (Winter).
Assuming that CO2 levels are increasing leading to rising temperatures, what
would the world be like in the future? Al Gore, former vice president and
aspiring geologist, describes the consequences of global warming in his book,
Earth in the Balance, to be so paramount they would rival the Black Death
(Winter). This simply isn't the case. One thing that must be understood while
considering this scenario is the history of the earth. The earth is estimated at
4.6 billion years old; humans have been a major ecological factor in the earth
for about 3,000 years, fractionally human have been a factor for 1.5 millionth
of the earth history. The belief that humans could bring about the end of the
earth in such a short time period defies logic (Bender 76). At times in the
earths' history, it has been hotter and more concentrated with CO2, yet it still
exists as an inhabitable place. The earth has natural balance factors that many
scientists believe would take place instead of unavoidable doom. Scientists
predict the earth would be slightly warmer and greener if CO2 concentration
increases. Because of the increase in temperature water would evaporate and
precipitate more frequently. Plants and trees would thrive on the increased CO2
levels, warmth and increased water supply. Because of the increase in plant life
the CO2 levels would gradually decrease and the cycle would continue (Robinson).
Even though the feeble evidence,
theorists still contend that global warming is real. It would seem that these
people are generally independently working for the best interest of our
environment, but nonetheless a money trail emerges. Research for global warming
and human induced climate change is a billion dollar industry (Vasey). If such
research firms declare that global warming does not occur then they would bring
an end to their own business. Governments would be no longer interested in
paying for research if it was known it was a hoax. Since the 1960's funding for
the EPA has more than tripled, coincidently all EPA reports show a link from
human activities and rising global temperatures (Robinson). Unfortunately in the
society we live in, fear sells. Media sources thrive on stories such as global
warming despite there place in reality. It wasn't long before politicians got
involved and in 1997 delegates from the world met in Kyoto, Japan to resolve
this "problem". The Kyoto Protocol was the result of this meeting, a plan to
reduce CO2 emissions that several countries have already ratified. The U.S.
Senate refused to ratify it because of its tremendous impact on the economy. By
some estimates, the curb in energy production mandated by the Kyoto Protocol
would have cause the U.S. GDP to fall by $318 billion and would destroy 3.1
million jobs (Winter). The price to fight this phantom crisis is simply
impractical.
Of all the problems people face
today, none is more benign and harmless than that of global warming. This theory
is nothing more than a bold faced lie. Environmentalists and politicians have
successfully used their scare tactics to convince the world of their inevitable
demise. To find such a wide scale assault on people emotions is heart wrenching.
We may not be safe from extremist environmentalists or ramped government
agencies, but we can rest assured that the world we live in is a healthy one,
one that will be there for our children, perhaps even more vibrant and beautiful
than it is today.