Garbage In - Gospel Out
A Note on Global Warming
Science has spoken. The numbers are in. Observed reality shows no evidence
to support the hysteria over global warming. The whole saga--large-scale greenhouse
warming of the atmosphere, accompanied by catastrophic environmental consequences--turns
out to be a figment of computer-model imagination.
Yes, it's true that the carbon dioxide concentration of the atmosphere has
risen from around 290 parts per million a century ago to about 360 ppm presently.
And in this time the mean global temperature has increased by about 0.5 deg
C. This is what the TV screens have been blaring will melt a continental ice
cap miles thick, at an average temperature of minus 60 deg C. You figure it
In any case, the rush to proclaim that even this modest temperature rise is
caused by the carbon dioxide isn't supported by the evidence. The temperature
rise took place over the fifty years before 1940, the final phase of the climate's
recovery from the "Little Ice Age" of around 300 years ago. The increase
in carbon dioxide that's supposed to have caused it happened for the most part
after the 1940s. This is in keeping with the general pattern reconstructed
for thousands of years, in which carbon dioxide appears to increase due to the
release of carbon from such reservoirs as Arctic permafrost as a result of
warming due to other causes. The warming and cooling cycles correlate closely
with the level of the Sun's activity. The greenhouse gases that all the publicity
has been about play a minor role in the process. The major contributor by far,
accounting for over 90 percent of the effect, is water vapor.
Since 1940, the mean temperatures recorded by balloons, air and ocean measurement,
have actually shown a mild decline, confirmed over the past 18 years by extremely
accurate satellite data--all in flat contradiction to the computer-model predictions.
A very readable and comprehensive summary of the story is given in the November
1997 special issue of Arthur Robinson's Access to Energy newsletter (See
"ENERGY" Archives, posting dated
October 29, 1997)
Robinson asks: "Why then is there continuing discussion of atmospheric
"global warming"? What possible support can it find--even among scientists
who are willing to compromise their integrity in order to report results that
the politicians and bureaucrats who fund them want to hear?"
A good question.
AND MORE . . .
What They Were Telling Us Then:
In these days when attention spans and retentiveness seem increasingly to be
TV-conditioned to thirty minutes or thereabouts, it's worth being reminded of
what the big panic was a quarter of a century ago.
Science Digest, February 1973, warned that the "world's climatologists
are agreed" that humanity must "prepare for the next ice age."
Science, March 1, 1975, announced that the Earth had better prepare
for "the approach of a full-blown 10,000 year ice age." And later,
December 10, 1976, predicted "extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation."
International Wildlife, July, 1975: "A new ice age must now stand
alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery."
Newsweek, April 28, 1975: "the Earth's climate seems to be cooling
down," which would "reduce agricultural productivity for the rest
of the century."
New York Times, August 14, 1975 discussed "the many signs pointing
to the possibility that the Earth may be heading for another ice age."
The culprits? Americans mainly, for showing the rest of the world how to stop
squabbling and make life better instead. The solution? More government funding
of more studies; more taxes; more controls.