Couple of notes. First this isn’t a review about a book, but about a paper published in the Journal of the American Physicians and Surgeons called Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide. Second, while the authors of the paper have outstanding credentials, they aren’t climatologists by trade or training. (I don’t think that necessarily matters if the science is sound.) Third, I haven’t actually verified one of their foundational studies: determination of the global temperature over the last three thousand years based on core samples from the ocean. Not saying it isn’t so, just not convinced about the science until I actually verify the work done.
This paper makes the premise that Earth’s temperature has been significantly higher in the past (particularly in medieval ages). Then the temperature sunk a full three degrees Celsius in the 1700’s. According to Robinson and company the current global temperature has just reached the median for the last three millenniums. They also demonstrate that the shrinking of the glaciers began in the 1850’s, long before CO2 began to rise. The increase in sunspots also has coincided with the temperature increase.
Intriguingly, they quote studies that have shown that increased CO2 enhances plant life (obviously) but that it also decreases a plant’s need for water. So how hard would it be to cause the desert to bloom under increased CO2? Definitely some food for thought here.
Plenty of scientists have debunked the Global Warming Crisis. Not only does it not appear to be a crisis, but the current lack of sunspots and the very long La Nina effect have stopped, nay, reversed the temperature trends. Of course, Gore doesn’t typically mention that inconvenient truth. It is usually spun as predictable variations as the temperature trends upward. Which of course is true. That certainly happens, but when those fluctuations map almost perfectly to natural forces like the El Nino/La Nina effects and the presence of sun spots, why do we pretend that CO2 is the cause? Oh right, as the Czech president said, Global Warming Alarmism has replaced Communism. Its all about the control. That’d be power….
Yeah, I’m somewhat passionate about this, mostly because I enjoy my freedoms and I hate to see them taken over by some people who have created a false threat to gain power and control. Its almost as bad as labeling EVERYTHING a terrorist threat and using that to swipe freedoms. (No, I am not against the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan but I am against using the specter of terrorism to increasingly consolidate power amongst the few.)
This global warming scare is intriguing as it demonstrates the great power of the media. From Readers Digest to the 6 o’clock news, all assume that global warming is a threat and that radical action must be taken. I heard a caller on a radio show angrily proclaim that this debate is stupid. He stated emphatically that he didn’t need a GED to know that this is a real threat.
And its people like that who are well meaning but swallowing the party line that is fed to them that help keep this ball rolling.
This paper is the most scientific work I have read on the debate so far and when it comes to controversial subjects, I like academic. Especially when I agree with the premise, I want it in documentable and scientific format so that I can verify that what I believe isn’t screwy. 😉
Please read a few of these links and at least the highlights of the paper and let me know what you think. If you disagree, why? What scientific evidence do you have for your side? Let’s frame the debate in quantifiable terms instead of hyperbole and opinions.
Also read Senator Inhofe’s blog. And yeah, that is an official US government blog.
Again the paper: Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide