• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Global Warming: The Debate Continues

    When it comes to global warming in the news, it tends to be a zero-sum game: it’s either Armageddon style scenarios or their lips are sealed. The latest victim is Roy Spencer, a research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and former senior scientist for climate studies at NASA. Although his testimony last week before the
    Senate Environment and Public Works Committee fell on the media’s deaf ears, let’s hope his message resonates with policymakers:

    Despite decades of persistent uncertainty over how sensitive the climate system is to increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels, we now have new satellite evidence which strongly suggests that the climate system is much less sensitive than is claimed by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). If true, an insensitive climate system would mean that we have little to worry about in the way of manmade global warming and associated climate change. And, as we will see, it would also mean that the warming we have experienced in the last 100 years is mostly natural.”

    The rest of Spencer’s testimony moves though his research and climate model as well as policy implications as a result of his model. He suggests that if his model is correct, humans will be spared the catastrophic consequences proposed by Nobel Laureates Al Gore and the IPCC. Furthermore, any preemptive legislation could have grave results for the U.S. economy while having little impact on the environment.

    Of course, this is only one study but it’s certainly not the first that questioned the science behind global warming and it won’t be the last. Spencer’s study should be given serious consideration rather than being maligned for going against the grain. ABC’s John Stossel is right in saying that the debate shouldn’t be over just yet.

    Posted in Energy [slideshow_deploy]

    4 Responses to Global Warming: The Debate Continues

    1. Arthur LEMAY, Milhac says:

      It is astonishing that anyone can believe that the fear of global warming and the incredible propaganda foisted on us by the environmental lobby and by politicians who want more taxes for their favorite projects is actually true.

      The climate records for the last 1,000 years show variations of climate, CO2 concentrations, and historically indisputable evidence that Greenland was so warm a thousand years ago that the Vikings settled there and even had vineyards. There were periods of cold, and warming periods, well before man’s emissions of CO2. Today’s climate is not, in any way anomalous, the oceans are not rising, the climate is not out of pattern for this historical period, and the pattern of CO2 vs. temperature show that first the temperature changes, then the CO2 concentration changes.

      Somehow, people believe that the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the source of all truth on this subject. This is hard to believe when you consider that the world has spent more than 40 billion dollars on researching man’s role in CO2 emissions — and there not any evidence, none, that CO2 controls the climate. They actually say there is no other possible explanation; including the sun and they deny that there might be some reason they don’t know about. This is absurd; science discovers unknown things all the time. This is an insult to every scientist, who knows better.

      But, what can we expect? The IPCC is not all scientists, over half are politicians, activists, and environmentalists, the other half are not all climate scientists, they are geologists, biologists, and, most telling, there is not a single statistician on the IPCC! For those who don’t understand what this means, consider that the scientific results rely on statistical accuracy, and the management of the IPCC failed to understand this. What this says, loud and clear, is that the IPCC is not representing science, it is representing politics.

      The global warming theory gained popularity from 1975 to 1998 when the climate seemed to be warming every year, but in 1998, the warming stopped and since 2000 the climate has actually cooled. And, of course from 1940 to 1975, a period of dramatic increase in CO2 emissions, the climate also cooled. It is very hard for anyone to believe that a theory which explains only a short period in the 20th century can possibly be believed for the long term, measured in centuries, or even longer, when historical records contradict this theory.

      The IPCC has developed many climate models which have all predicted the same thing – that increasing CO2 concentrations makes the world warmer. None of their models, I repeat, none have ever made a correct prediction, and none predicted the stop of warming in 1998, and the subsequent cooling. Yet, the IPCC politicians say we should use the long range predictions of the models, even though the short range predictions are all wrong. Now, how can anyone believe this?

      We are left with the idea that the reason the IPCC is so intransigent in pushing this theory is because the governments and the United Nations are determined to levy carbon taxes on the world, or cap and trade schemes, not because it will control global climate change, especially warming, but because they want the money.

      Now, evidently making incorrect predictions is not a problem for the true believers in the press, and does not register with the public at all. We have even more predictions like this based on false information, and now the Government is telling us that the US voluntary approach to CO2 reductions is inadequate and we should adopt controls like the rest of world.

      The Kyoto Protocols are accepted by 170 countries, but only 37 countries are required to reduce the CO2 emissions by 7% to 8%. This has been very costly, has raised electricity and other energy prices very substantially, and, since 2005, the average Kyoto Protocol compliant country’s CO2 emissions have increased by double digits. America’s volunteer approach has kept the growth in single digits. So, now some Government EPA bureaucrat has his numbers wrong, and he wants to replace a system which works with one which does not work. This is either rank stupidity, or politics winning-out against science.

      Most climate scientists believe that the climate is mostly controlled by the sun, and is made predictable by counting sunspots which are highly correlated with the sun’s energy emissions. Galileo make drawings before 1610 of sunspots, and the classic climate prediction theory has worked since then, and it did predict the cooling trend since 1998.

      So, we have a group using a theory which does not work, telling us to spend trillions of dollars on a solution which cannot work, to solve a problem which does not even exist! Never have so many been duped by so few to get so much money for absolutely nothing. We are listening to con men that can’t get their facts straight and tell such whopping lies that everyone believes it.

      And, the politicians are in it for the money. The facts don’t support it, and those who believe it just can’t think straight, or they are worshippers of the religion of the true faith of Environmentalism which will not suffer false gods of practicality, economic survival, dignity of human beings, or anything which science has to show us.

      It seems that CO2 concentrations are based on temperatures, CO2 is absorbed by plants and the oceans, and man’s contributions based on burning carbon based fuels are hardly even measurable, but if we expect to stop these emissions why are we not trying to stop the much larger emissions of animals breathing, termites, bogs, and volcanoes which emit enormous amounts of CO2?

      The answer is, it is a fool’s errand, and it does not matter: the earth can adjust and so can we, so why are we doing this?

    2. king says:

      global warming is hoax!!!!

    3. owl, canada says:

      Spencer and Christie's satellite data is out of line with other measurements and observations. They've already gone through two major corrections, and still there's this martyr angle and false regard for both their measurements and some of their newest wizzy ideas. How about lay the dime on UAH and audit their work instead of creating another distraction debate based on it?

      Although the complex nature of 'climate-change' leaves lots of wiggle room, here's some 'knowns'. Temperatures are increasing and natural variations match poorly over the last half century. The greenhouse gas pollution is 'ours' (just like DDT and CFCs). Biosphere levels have increased 40% since pre-industrial times. The small count (380 ppm) is actually large – oxygen+nitrogen=99% … is neutral. Add the charged greenhouse effect to the temperature trend and the models go thumbs-up (Okay, except for UAH data). The oceans acid/alkaline balance is changing. The grand perp is GHG's, primarily CO2.

      The scary stuff both ways is armchair easy – it'll kill our economy versus it'll kill our biosphere. Try something without the hype in it – collapse of the major fisheries, regions of garbage-dump conditions (land and sea), and overload stress on the agriconomy.

      So go ahead – make it a public debate, kill the treaty, don't read the e-mails, and stop to smell every alternate reality on the road. Do it at 350ppm, 400ppm … hey, maybe you can show 'em your tuffness at 500 ppm. … Maybe not.

      The only real bets on the table are about a pollution problem – how fast it will grow; how bad it will get; and how long it will be be bad. There is no 'new satellite data' revelation. There is no cloud explanation; no sea-sourced CO2 de-gassification origin; no missing tropical 'hotspot'; no cancelled pollution problem because a hockey-stick graph has pinecone problems. There's a real pollution problem, and the longer the response-delay the larger the cleanup cost.

    4. Dan Pangburn, Americ says:

      Dr. Roy Spencer also included in his testimony before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on 22 July 2008 the statement “…I am predicting today that the theory that mankind is mostly responsible for global warming will slowly fade away in the coming years, as will the warming itself…” His complete testimony can be seen at http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction… . He points out flaws in the Global Climate Models. GCM models are the only indicators that human added carbon dioxide is a significant cause of Global Warming. Some of the GCM flaws are also exposed by review of climate history as presented graphically from government and other credible sources at http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/pangburn.html.

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.