Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout: The Making of a Sensible Environmentalist (72 page)

According to the official records of surface temperatures, 1998 was the warmest year in the past 150 years. Since then the average global temperature has gone down slightly, completely contrary to the predictions of the IPCC, and in spite of steadily growing CO
₂
emissions from countries around the world. This drop in temperature is now attributed to natural factors, something that was downplayed in previous predictions. Mojib Latif, a prominent German meteorologist and oceanographer, explains it this way, “So I really believe in Global Warming. Okay. However, you know, we have to accept that there are these natural fluctuations, and therefore, the temperature may not show additional warming temporarily.”
[39]
The question is, How long is temporarily? At this writing the global temperature has shown a slight cooling trend over the past 12 years. The assertion that it will resume warming at some time in the future is a prediction, not a fact. And even if warming does resume, it is possible that this may be due to natural factors.
It is not logical to believe that natural factors are only responsible for cooling and not for warming.

The situation is complicated further by the revelations of “Climategate” in November 2009, which clearly showed that many of the most influential climate scientists associated with the IPCC have been manipulating data, withholding data, and conspiring to discredit other scientists who do not share their certainty that we are the main cause of global warming.
[40]
It has also been well documented that the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Science, which is responsible for one of the primary temperature records, has dropped a large number of weather stations, mainly in colder regions, thus likely making it seem warming is occurring even though this may not be the case.
[41]
The situation is in such a state of flux that it may be several years before an objective process is in place to sort out what is believable and what is not.

Leading up to the 15th Conference of the Parties in the Framework Convention on Climate Change in Copenhagen in December 2009, the IPCC, the European Union, and many other participants warned we must keep global temperatures from rising more than 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) or we will face climate catastrophe.
[42]
Yet the global temperature has been 6 to 8 degrees Celsius (11 to 14 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than it is today through most of the past 500 million years. It seems clear that the real “climate catastrophes” are the major glaciations that occurred during the Ice Ages, not the warm Greenhouse Ages when life flourished from pole to pole.

The graph on the next page, Figure 2, is a record of global temperatures from 1850 to 2008, as prepared by the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in the U.K.
[43]
It was authored by Phil Jones, who was at the centre of the “Climategate” scandal. As previously mentioned, the emails he and his colleagues exchanged indicated they withheld data, manipulated data, and attempted to discredit other scientists who held contrary views. Jones was suspended from his post in November 2009, pending an inquiry into the scandal. Therefore the data this graph is based on are not necessarily credible; they need to be rigorously re-examined.
[44]
But the graph does provide a useful tool for examining a couple of points about recent temperature trends.

Figure 2. Global temperature trends 1860-2008 according to Phil Jones of the Climatic Research Unit in the U.K.

The graph indicates global temperature has risen by about 0.8 degrees Celsius (1.4 degrees Fahrenheit) over the past 150 years. But about half of this warming occurred from 1910 to 1940, before the huge increase in CO
₂
emissions from fossil fuel that began after the Second World War. What caused this increase? We simply don’t know. Then there was a period of cooling from 1940 to 1980, just as CO
₂
emissions started to increase dramatically. In the mid-1970s, mainstream magazines and newspapers, including
Time
,
Newsweek
, and the
New York Times
, published articles on the possibility of a coming cold period, perhaps another Ice Age.
[45]
[46]
These articles were based on interviews with scientists at the National Academy of Sciences and NASA, among others. Prominent supporters of the global cooling theory included present-day global warming supporters such as John Holdren, the Obama administration’s science czar
[47]
and the late Stephen Schneider, a former leading member of the IPCC.
[48]

In 1980, global temperatures began a 20-year rise, according to the now questionable records used by the IPCC for its predictions of climate disaster. This is the only period in the 3.5 billion years of life on earth in which the IPCC attributes climate change to human activity. Since 1998 there has been no further increase in global temperature, even according to the IPCC sources. How does one 20-year period of rising temperatures out of the past 150 years prove we are the main cause of global warming?

The alarmists declare that the present warming trend is “unprecedented” because it is happening on a scale of centuries whereas past warming trends have been much slower, giving species time to adapt. This is shown to be false even during the past century. The IPCC does not contend that humans caused the warming from 1910 to 1940; therefore it must have been a natural warming trend. But the warming from 1910 to 1940 was just as large (0.4 degrees Celsius or 0.7 degrees Fahrenheit) and just as rapid over time as the supposed human-caused warming from 1975 to 2000. How can scientists who claim to be on the cutting edge of human knowledge miss this point?

It is a testament to the fickleness of trends in science, public policy, and media communications that such certainty about human-caused climate change came about. That era finally seems to have ended now that more attention is being paid to the proposition that we really don’t have all the answers. One hopes this will usher in a more sensible conversation about climate change and a more balanced approach to climate change policy.

Carbon Dioxide

The trains carrying coal to power plants are death trains. Coal-fired power plants are factories of death.
—James Hansen, director, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, science advisor to former vice president Al Gore

The entire global warming hypothesis rests on one belief—human emissions of CO
₂
are causing rapid global warming that will result in a “catastrophe” if we don’t cut emissions drastically, beginning now. Let’s look at the history, chemistry, and biology of this much-maligned molecule.

Carbon dioxide (CO
₂
) and carbon are probably the most talked about substances in the world today. We hear the term “carbon footprint” every day and fossil fuels are now routinely described as “carbon-based energy.” True believers speak of CO
₂
as if it is the greatest threat we have ever faced. Perhaps our CO
₂
emissions will have some negative effects. But in my view CO
₂
is one of the most positive chemicals in our world. How can I justify this statement given that the US Environmental Protection Agency has declared CO
₂
and other greenhouse gases are “pollutants” that are dangerous to human health and the environment?
[49]

What about the undisputed fact that CO
₂
is the most important food for all life on earth? Every green plant needs CO
₂
in order to produce sugars that are the primary energy source for every plant and animal. To be fair, water is also essential to living things, as are nitrogen, potassium, phosphorus, and many other minor elements. But CO
₂
is the most important food, as all life on earth is carbon-based, and the carbon comes from CO
₂
in the atmosphere. Without CO
₂
life on this planet would not exist. How important is that?

When President Obama appointed Lisa Jackson as head of the EPA, she promised to “ensure EPA’s efforts to address the environmental crises of today are rooted in three fundamental values: science-based policies and program, adherence to the rule of law, and overwhelming transparency.” During the EPA’s deliberations on the “endangerment” ruling for CO
₂
, one of its top economic policy experts, Alan Carlin, a 35-year veteran of the agency, presented a 98-page analysis concluded that the science behind man-made global warming is inconclusive at best and that the agency should re-examine its findings. His analysis noted that global temperatures were on a downward trend. It pointed out problems with climate models. It highlighted new research about climate change that contradicts apocalyptic scenarios. “We believe our concerns and reservations are sufficiently important to warrant a serious review of the science by EPA,” the report read.

In response to the report Carlin’s boss, Al McGartland, emailed him, forbidding him from engaging in “any direct communication” with anyone outside his office about his analysis. In a follow-up email, McGartland wrote, “With the endangerment finding nearly final, you need to move on to other issues and subjects. I don’t want you to spend any additional EPA time on climate change. No papers, no research, etc, at least until we see what EPA is going to do with Climate.”
[50]
These emails were leaked. So much for transparency, and so much for science.

There is an interesting parallel here with the issue of chlorine, a chemical described by Greenpeace as the “devil’s element.” There are some chlorine-based chemicals that are very toxic and should be tightly controlled and even banned in certain contexts. But as discussed earlier, chlorine is the most important element for public health and medicine, just as carbon is the most important element for life. And yet Greenpeace and its allies give the impression these two building blocks of nature are essentially evil. It is time to bring some balance into this discussion.

Al Gore is fond of reminding us that there is more CO
₂
in the atmosphere today than there has been for the past 400,000 years.
[51]
He may be correct, although some scientists dispute this.
[52]
But 400,000 years is a blink of an eye in geological history. It is also true to state that CO
₂
levels in the atmosphere have rarely been as low as they are today over the entire 3.5 billion years of life on earth, and particularly during the past 500 million years since modern life forms evolved. Figure 3 (opposite page) shows the historic levels of CO2 as well as the global temperature, going back 600 million years

Note the graph shows CO
₂
was at least 3000 ppm, and likely around 7000 ppm, at the time of the Cambrian Period, a Greenhouse Age when modern life forms first evolved. This is nearly 20 times the CO
₂
concentration today. The Ice Age that peaked 450 million years ago occurred when CO
₂
was about 4000 ppm, more than 10 times its present level. If both warm and cold climates can develop when there is far more CO
₂
in the atmosphere than today, how can we be certain that CO
₂
is determining the climate now?