I had an interesting conversation at bible study last night when the topic of “global warming” came up and I got some odd looks when I came out in favor of the proposition that much of it is essentially a fraud. I’m not really sure why that was such a controversial position but it did inspire me to put electrons to disc platter and outline my thoughts on the position.
To properly set the scene I have for many years followed the Intelligent Design movement and the things they have been doing and I’ve seen how a collection of interests in the scientific community with a philosophical agenda has sought to suppress their dissent from a materialist orthodoxy in the biological sciences. I’ve also seen a deep similarity between the sorts of tactics used by them and the sorts of tactics that are used by “climate change proponents” to quell dissent from their point of view. The upshot of this is that I think skepticism of “global warmers” is at least as justified as my skepticism of “Darwinian materialists”.
The first thing I should have communicated to my Bible Study members (and I failed too, but limits of time didn’t really help) was my observation (and reason for my skepticism) that stemmed largely from a failure of climate change proponents to be clear in the way they present evidence and how they essentially cheat in the way they present things. I have a real problem with this approach and it makes me extremely skeptical of either the competence or honesty. Either way, they are not to be trusted in the claims they make, but I will explain further.
Typically when someone makes claims about climate change and the need to “do something” they will try to present some evidence to buttress their claims and then claim this demonstrates that man made global warming is a fact and that “debate is over” as a result. “Apocalypse” Al Gore is particularly good at engaging in this sort of practice and he should be dismissed because he does this.
Consider the steps that are required to demonstrate the claims of global warming alarmists like Apocalypse Al and then compare that to the evidence they typically present.
Normally what will be presented is some observed change in weather patterns or global temperatures over some period of time. But what does this actually demonstrate? The answer is very very little. That the climate changes over time is not in dispute. The climate has been warmer (The Medieval Warm Period) and cooler in the past and these variations precede the industrial revolution, or as some smart alec put it, “Whose SUV’s caused the Medieval Warm Period?”. No amount of observations about changes over time in the temperature or weather patterns will demonstrate anything more than that the climate is variable and changes over time. Nothing in such data sets will allow you to distinguish a natural cycle in the climate from a supposed man made one.
Now there is an additional problem with these data sets, and that is one of selective culling of data points to suit a conclusion. Only pointing to observations that agree with your case (some area of sea ice has shrunk, or a particular glacier or set of glaciers is in retreat) while ignoring data points that disagree with the conclusion (other glaciers advancing, snow in all 50 states of the US etc) that is desired. I guess a person can do this, but it is dishonest and it certainly isn’t science. Still, even with the selective observations, none of it differentiates a natural cycle from a man made one.
Another trick, one Apocalypse Al used in his grossly fraudulent propaganda piece “An Inconvenient Truth”, was to misrepresent data. Al pointed to a large graph that purported to show CO2 levels and temperature went up and down together over time. It is even true there is a rough correlation between the two, but the rise in temperature precedes the rise in CO2 levels rather than follows it. Such gross dishonesty (or absolutely monumental incompetence) should make people stop listening to a clown like Al Gore immediately but for some reason it doesn’t. Honestly I don’t understand this. If some one makes a error this bad (deliberate or due to a staggering degree of incompetence) it really should utterly destroy their credibility.
Of course the problem gets worse from there. What is actually required to demonstrate that man is responsible for the climate change due to something we are doing requires that some work is done to show that there is a causal relation between something man has done and the change in the temperature over time. This really hasn’t been done. The claim is made that increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere as a result of the industrial revolution are causing the change in temperature, but that is problematic as we have seen changes greater than what is observed prior to the industrial revolution. So just pointing to some supposed trend based on CO2 levels and temperature is insufficient. Much more work is needed to actually even show the change over time is not some simple natural cycle that we are not going to be able to make a difference too.
Additionally, there is the simple historical reality that in the 70’s scientists were panicking about “global cooling”, prior to that there was a concern about warming, and before that a previous concern about cooling. Such chicken little behavior is hardly conducive to the idea that climatologists have any idea what they are talking about. Plus the previous round of panic about cooling contained all sorts of suggestions of things that must be done now to prevent it. How much worse would things be now if such actions had been undertaken I wonder?
Finally, a last thought. Even if the claims of man made climate change were substantiated it doesn’t mean we should do anything about it at all, or that we should try to prevent it. Even if it has negative side effects (an open question, CO2 is plant food after all) there is good reason to think that human innovation and attempts to ameliorate the problems will be cheaper and more effective than grand schemes to prevent the problem in the first place. All of the schemes to “prevent global warming” that have been proposed would ultimately be ineffective (take Kyoto for example) even if the targets could be reached and would prove devastating to industrial economies around the world. Why does it make sense to utterly destroy wealthy economies in the quest to “prevent global warming” when it is clear that the effort is expensive and pointless? We would be better off being wealthier as wealthier nations are better able to weather things like climate change than poorer nations. It isn’t a coincidence that you measure the lives lost from hurricanes in the industrialized west in the 10’s or 100’s, but the body count for them in chronically poor places like Bangladesh routinely starts at 1000’s and go up from there.
One of the Bible Study members cited some data point that increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere will render some crop grown in some poor part of the world poisonous. I’ve not heard this, but lets assume it is true and not based on a misunderstanding. Surely it makes sense to provide the farmers in the region a new staple food crop (assuming that is what is was) to grow in place of the crop that can no longer be safely grown. That would be cheaper and more effective than indulging in futile gestures designed to “prevent global warming”.
Just some random thoughts …
