• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • The Fog of Climate 'Science'

    San Francisco Fog

    In 2009, environmentalists were sure global warming was the reason California’s Bay Area fog was increasing.  Now they’re saying global warming is making the fog go away—indicating that the science may not be as “settled” as some seem to think.

    Gateway Pundit
    noted that in 2009, The San Francisco Chronicle claimed that “The Bay Area just had its foggiest May in 50 years. And thanks to global warming, it’s about to get even foggier.”  Yet, in 2010, The Telegraph has asserted that “the sight of Golden Gate Bridge towering above the fog will become increasing [sic] rare as climate change warms San Francisco bay.”

    The first article was written in May of 2009; the second, February of 2010.  When scientists start trying to explain how global warming is affecting our everyday life, their findings conflict drastically.  Both papers and claims are under a year old.  Which one do we trust?

    The issue isn’t whether or not global warming is happening: the issue is how much scientists really can know about how new climates will effect us. There are far more variables involved with climate change than any scientist in today’s world could hope to understand. Given the constantly evolving stances of climate scientists, we ought to be more careful when it comes to what we believe about climate change.

    As Heritage expert Dr. James Carafano explained in his 2009 testimony before the Environment and Public Works Committee, the global warming theory suffers the “folly of simplicity,” pointing out that in Jared Diamond’s study Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed, “Diamond lists a daunting 12 factors that historically contributed to the collapse of a society–and these are only the factors directly controlled by humans. It is worth noting,” Dr. Carafano went on, “that Diamond is able to detail how this myriad of forces and choices interacted with one another only through the hindsight gained through hundreds of years of historical and archeological research.”

    In other words, the complexity of human-environment causal relationships is such that it typically takes many years—centuries, even—to fully understand what causes what when it comes to humans interacting with the environment:

    History is in fact littered with case studies that suggest straight-line mapping of human-environment interaction is problematic,” Dr. Carafano testified.  “Anticipating with certainty how climate change will affect human progress is a march of folly.

    His points are only validated by the assumptions regarding the Bay Area’s fog today.  We cannot anticipate anything regarding climate change with certainty—and the “new” research is proving it.

    Allie Winegar Duzett currently is a member of the Young Leaders Program at the Heritage Foundation. For more information on interning at Heritage, please visit: http://www.heritage.org/About/Internships-Young-Leaders/The-Heritage-Foundation-Internship-Program

    Posted in Energy [slideshow_deploy]

    8 Responses to The Fog of Climate 'Science'

    1. Harry Braun, Vancouv says:

      What’s happening now is nothing new.

      In the 1980’s, scientists were concerned about the ozone layer when most of the world didn’t have the slightest clue about what ozone was. Scientists were saying that a compound best known by the DuPont brand name “Freon” was harming the planet. They said that certain chemicals were destroying part of the atmosphere that is essential for human life because it blocks out harmful ultraviolet radiation that causes cancer.

      The first step was The Vienna Conference; the first international conference on ozone layer depletion. Next came The Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer; a multilateral environmental agreement. Soon after, came The Montreal Protocol on Substances That Deplete the Ozone Layer; an international treaty designed to protect the ozone layer by phasing out the production of a number of substances believed to be responsible for ozone depletion.

      The Montreal Protocol is said to be the single most successful international agreement to date. All countries in the United Nations have now ratified the original agreement and three of the many noteworthy scientists who worked hard to solve the problem were awarded a Nobel Prize in Chemistry for both brainpower and effort. Their names are Mario Molina, Paul Crutzen, and Frank Rowland.

      Check out their video lectures:

      Read: Opinions that Matter

      http://harryhammer.wordpress.com/2010/03/16/opini

    2. Jim Brown says:

      You can't have it both ways.

    3. Harry Braun, Vancouver BC Canada says:

      There are plenty of groups opposing action by the U.S. government to curb greenhouse gas emissions. The problem is that most of them have little or nothing to do with science. The core of the denial movement are conservative think tanks like the Competitive Enterprise Institute. If not for their herculean effort to derail science, we could very well be on our way to solving a major crisis in which time is a critical factor.

      What’s happening now is nothing new.

      In the 1980’s, scientists were concerned about the ozone layer when most of the world didn’t have the slightest clue about what ozone was. Scientists were saying that a compound best known by the DuPont brand name “Freon” was harming the planet. They said that certain chemicals were destroying part of the atmosphere that is essential for human life because it blocks out harmful ultraviolet radiation that causes cancer.

      The first step was The Vienna Conference; the first international conference on ozone layer depletion. Next came The Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer; a multilateral environmental agreement. Soon after, came The Montreal Protocol on Substances That Deplete the Ozone Layer; an international treaty designed to protect the ozone layer by phasing out the production of a number of substances believed to be responsible for ozone depletion.

      The Montreal Protocol is said to be the single most successful international agreement to date. All countries in the United Nations have now ratified the original agreement and three of the many noteworthy scientists who worked hard to solve the problem were awarded a Nobel Prize in Chemistry for both brainpower and effort. Their names are Mario Molina, Paul Crutzen, and Frank Rowland.

      Are we honestly expected to believe that the opinions of these Nobel Prize Winners don’t matter?

      Here’s what they think:

      Mario J. Molina:

      http://www.metacafe.com/watch/1973070/pt_3_nobel_winner_mario_j_molina_climate_change/

      Paul Crutzen:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyTZbJqRQkQ&feature=related

      Frank Rowland:

      http://vega.org.uk/video/programme/273

      Read: Opinions that Matter

      http://harryhammer.wordpress.com/

    4. Lighthorseman, Lexington, KY says:

      “History is a vast early warning system.” – Norman Cousins

      “No snow, too much snow. It does not matter to the enviroleft crowd. For them, global warming always is to blame.” –The Heritage Foundation

      Poor man-made global warmers, their sad religion of self-hate is under attack.

    5. Judy, Georgia says:

      The enviro reasoning is about as clear as mud and so thick-headed it can be cut with a knife!
      I happen to love the fog and the foghorns, so what would they do with that side of the story?!!

    6. Space Doc, Westport, says:

      Ms. Duzett

      You're right to suggest the existence of "hidden variables" influencing climate and our interaction with it over time. As a species we've adapted to far more drastic climate changes in the past than are projected over the next few centuries – are we now suddenly unable to cope? Hardly.

      Grammatical note, 4th para. 1st sentence: the word you want to use is "affect" (the verb), not "effect" (the noun). Even those of us who know better occasionally get it wrong!

    7. Scott Faulkner, KY says:

      Earthquakes, volcanoes, hurricanes; how much more proof do we need? Well in my opinion these things are proof of only one thing, we live one an ever changing planet and we can control none of it. While it is true we must be responsible and not pollute our environment, we must also understand that this planet was intact (albeit perhaps in a different condition) long before humans became dominant and it will be around (again, in different shape) long after we are gone. I believe that the biggest problem in the whole global warming/climate change debate is scientists and activist who can not come to grips with the fact that we are not in control and we never will control our planet. Just be responsible, adapt to the changes and enjoy the ride.

    8. Steve Wahls Nebraska says:

      Based on scientific studies in a California desert we have learned on January 1st every year, earth receives more energy from the sun than humanity will manipulate for that year and humanity will run out of fossil fuel in less than 150 years. So that means we have less known fossil energy reserves on earth than she receives from the sun in the first six months of every year. It should also be obvious that all the energy the earth receives everyday must be radiated back into space at the same rate it is received or we would have burned up or froze many eons ago.

    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.

    ×