Questions
about Global Warming
By Mark W. Hendrickson,
PhD
The Center for Vision and Values at Grove City
College
US
For those who believe in the
global warming (GW) theory (i.e., that human activity
is heating the planet to dangerous levels) the
ace of trump has been played. On Groundhog Day
2007, the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) — the ultimate authority
in the eyes of GW disciples — declared with
90 percent (i.e., virtual) certainty that the
theory is true.
Pardon me if I don’t genuflect. The IPCC
has been irretrievably politicized. This is self-evident
in light of the IPCC’s current stunt of
calling for radical action now, months before
it publishes its scientific research. Such impropriety
is rather typical of the IPCC. In 1995, the body
of its report stated explicitly the scientific
conclusion that there was no definitive link between
GW and human behavior, yet the policymakers’
summary — the part that the media latched
onto — directly contradicted what the scientists
had written. That political recommendations take
precedence over scientific findings is made explicit
in Appendix A to the Principles Governing IPCC
Work, which states, “Changes ... made after
acceptance by the Working Group or the Panel shall
be those necessary to ensure consistency with
the Summary for Policymakers or the Overview Chapter.”
The reflex response of GW true believers to what
I just wrote is to suspect me of being a lackey
for Big Oil. Well, I’m not. And neither
are the 17,000-plus scientists who have signed
a petition in opposition to GW orthodoxy. (See
www.oism.org/pproject/s33p357.htm.)
As an economist, I sympathize with the meteorologist-climatologist
fraternity. None of us predicts the future accurately,
because there are too many variables and unknowns.
Unfortunately, in the case of GW, the public is
obsessed with a single variable — carbon
dioxide. Millions of people believe that increases
in the concentration of carbon dioxide in our
atmosphere will heat the planet. Whether Earth
will warm or cool this century, I know not, but
I can safely say that the mechanistic theory “the
more carbon dioxide, the warmer the Earth”
is not only simplistic, it is fallacious. It certainly
cannot be a scientific law, because the climate
frequently acts contrary to that relationship.
Examples are legion; here are three: 1) Most of
the warming in the 20th century occurred in the
first half, while most of the increase of carbon
dioxide happened in the second half. 2) According
to Stephen Schneider, a leading GW proponent,
throughout Earth’s history, warmer periods
have preceded periods of increased carbon dioxide
in the atmosphere; thus, given the cyclical nature
of climate change, increased carbon dioxide historically
has been followed by cooler periods. 3) According
to paleoclimatologist professor Tim Patterson,
the coolest period on Earth in the last half-billion
years occurred when concentrations of carbon dioxide
were more than 10 times what they are today (levels
attained, incidentally, long before the advent
of homo sapiens).
What can explain such phenomena? One factor is
that carbon dioxide isn’t the primary greenhouse
gas. Carbon dioxide causes somewhere between nine
and 26 percent of the greenhouse effect; water
vapor accounts for most of it. Water vapor alone,
then, can more than offset carbon dioxide’s
impact. (By the way, since humankind’s carbon
dioxide emissions comprise five percent or less
of the total — far less than oceans, volcanoes
and termites — that means that the human
contribution to any greenhouse effect is minuscule.)
Furthermore, even when greenhouse gases are abundant,
increased cloud cover may reflect the sun’s
energy back into space rather than trapping it
in the Earth’s atmosphere, thereby cooling
the planet. Our understanding of cloud formation
is far from complete, but apparently cosmic rays
play a significant role. I’m not sure how
Congress could regulate those.
More fundamentally, the greenhouse effect isn’t
even the primary driver of GW. Some scientists
calculate that three-fourths of the fluctuations
in Earth’s temperature are caused by changes
in solar activity. The sun, too, lies beyond the
control of Congress. Speaking of solar activity,
when you hear the familiar refrain that the most
recent decade was “the warmest in history,”
remember that they are disingenuously defining
“history” as that infinitesimal sliver
of geological time since Uncle Sam started keeping
temperature records in the 1870s, and understand
that Earth should be warmer now, since a low point
in the solar cycle made the 19th century unusually
cool.
Like King Canute, who vainly commanded the waves
to halt, we delude ourselves if we think we have
the knowledge or power to control Earth’s
climate. Rather than squander our wealth on futile
attempts to fine-tune the ever-changing climate,
our leaders should enact wealth-generating policies
that will provide the wherewithal to cope with
the myriad changes and challenges confronting
us in this amazing world.
(Dr. Mark W. Hendrickson is an economist and contributing
scholar with The Center for Vision and Values
at Grove City College)
