• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • The Global Warming Debates Aren’t Over. (Part 5 in a 10-part series)

    When it comes global warming, two debates are currently taking place. At the forefront is the political debate. Current legislation introduced by House Democrats Ed Markey and Henry Waxman includes a cap-and-trade plan to attempt to reduce carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. But the debate unfortunately (and like most political debates) has largely evolved into each party talking past each other.

    In fact, even Democrats have been talking past each other, which forced Chairman Waxman to bypass subcommittee markup and moving to full committee to keep the bill moving forward—though this may have changed today. Regardless, A number of Democrats have concerns about job losses and the detrimental economic effects that will result from the Waxman-Markey bill. Recent Congressional Budget Office testimony that a 15 percent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions, a target that the Waxman-Markey proposal would reach within a decade, was estimated to cost the average household $1,600 per year.

    Instead of having a meaningful debate and carefully analyzing the legislation and its consequences, Waxman seems more concerned about keeping a strict timeline. House Speaker Pelosi recently said, “The committee is going to work its will on its own timetable. But it will fit in the timetable to move it so we can move on to health care.”

    Then there’s the debate on the backburner, but it’s the reason we’re even considering legislation that would impose crushing energy taxes, millions of jobs lost and falling household income – all for little environmental benefit. That’s the scientific debate.

    Despite the lack of consensus and waning public belief that man-made activity is a significant contributor to global warming and that global warming is a serious threat, we’re told otherwise. In fact, in the EPA’s recent endangerment finding said that global warming and climate change pose a serious threat to public health and safety and thus almost anything that emits carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases could be regulated under the Clean Air Act. The overview of the finding included this:

    After a thorough examination of the scientific evidence on the causes and impacts of current and future climate change, as well as other effects of greenhouse gases, the Administrator concludes that the science compellingly supports a positive endangerment finding for both public health and welfare. In her decision, the Administrator relied heavily upon the major findings and conclusions from recent assessments of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.”

    700 scientists, including some current and former UN IPCC scientists, tend to disagree. The quotes (available here) from dissenting atmospheric scientists are very compelling. We’ve often cited studies and conclusions from credible scientists arguing the global warming debate is anything but compelling and overwhelming. See, for instance:

    Addressing Drastic Sea Level Rises
    Natural Forces Slow Warming
    Tropical Cyclone Activity
    Warming and Cooling in the North Pacific
    Climate Change Modeling and the Sun’s Effect on Global Temperature
    Climate Engineering and the Fallacies in the EPA’s ANPR
    Anthropogenic Effects on Global Warming
    Global Warming is Irreversible
    Scientists Make Anti-Global Warming Case

    More recently, National Geographic reports that,

    The sun is the least active it’s been in decades and the dimmest in a hundred years. The lull is causing some scientists to recall the Little Ice Age, an unusual cold spell in Europe and North America, which lasted from about 1300 to 1850.”

    Yet, the article warns,

    Even if the current solar lull is the beginning of a prolonged quiet, the scientists say, the star’s effects on climate will pale in contrast with the influence of human-made greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2).”

    What? The sun’s effect on climate will pale in comparison to man’s CO2 emissions? Even if a very small portion of atmospheric emissions come from man? This leads us to wonder how conclusive the science really is.

    human-global-warming

    Without fully understanding how or why the earth is warming or cooling, do we really want to embark on a policy that will extract trillions from our economy to reduce the earth’s temperature too small to ever notice?

    Posted in Energy [slideshow_deploy]

    5 Responses to The Global Warming Debates Aren’t Over. (Part 5 in a 10-part series)

    1. Thomas, Anchorage, A says:

      I am probably misunderstanding these statements, but they seem contradictory:

      "Even if the current solar lull is the beginning of a prolonged quiet, the scientists say, the star's effects on climate will pale in contrast with the influence of human-made greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2).

      'I think you have to bear in mind that the CO2 is a good 50 to 60 percent higher than normal, whereas the decline in solar output is a few hundredths of one percent down,' Lockwood said. I think that helps keep it in perspective.'

      Even so, Lockwood added, small variations in the sun's brightness are more powerful than changes in greenhouse gas contributions."

      So is the sun more or less influential than CO2?

      NatGeo's section on Global Warming is terribly cursory.

    2. Marsha, Wheeling Wes says:

      It is about time someone start showing the actual elements that are in the atmosphere in a basic way so most can understand. I have written about this in a previous blog note in a different way.

      This is a good visual description of why the global warming kooks have major problems with their beliefs. Now the political corrupt congress men and women have taken advantage of this through ignorance or corruption and were smart enough to try and pass laws to benefit their portfolios.

      I think it is pure corruption!

    3. Pingback: | Eco Hide Out..

    4. jr., Michigan says:

      the global warming religion is for idiots who don't beleive in god. the earth runs in cycles, always has..always will. duh.

    5. Jason, Alabama says:

      According to this graph, the CO2 that is in the atmosphere as a result of human activity makes up only 0.0024% of the our entire atmosphere. How could something that exists in such a small concentration have such a profound effect on our planet, right?

      This is a red herring, which is based on two major misunderstandings. First, it actually IS entirely possible that a small substance can have a large effect. Take the ozone layer, for instance. You do understand that the ozone layer filters out harnful UV rays, right? However, ozone only makes up 0.00006% of the atmosphere (even less than our contribution to carbon dioxide).

      The part about the small percentage of CO2 that is emitted as a result of human activity displays a lack of understanding of the planet's natural carbon cycle. Before the Industrial Revolution, the planet's CO2 concentration in the atmosphere was largely in equilibrium. Natural emissions were absorbed by natural sinks. However, since that time, we have been producing an unnatural source of CO2 that has thrown this cycle out of balance. The natural sinks (plants and oceans) can no longer keep up, which has resulted in about a 35% increase in CO2 concentrations, to its highest level in the past 650,000 years, according to the latest research.

      This graph is nothing but misinformation. It is an explicit attempt to misinform the public about the science of climate change, in order to serve a ideological purpose.

      Recent Congressional Budget Office testimony that a 15 percent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions, a target that the Waxman-Markey proposal would reach within a decade, was estimated to cost the average household $1,600 per year.

      This number (and many like it) are misrepresentations of a study conducted by researchers at MIT.

      http://climateprogress.org/2009/04/23/mit-study-w

      I look forward to your response

    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.

    ×