The climate change/global warming alarmist movement is desperate. Now, rather than openly debate the science surrounding this issue, attorneys general in multiple states are attempting to criminalize dissent. This seems an excellent time to review the theory of man-made climate change, the basics of which theory haven’t changed despite volumes of hot rhetoric by celebrities, politicians, beneficiaries of green subsidies and climate alarmists in the scientific community whose funding depends on the existence of a climate crisis.
The brilliant physicist Stephen Hawking once said, “… you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory.”
The original theory of global warming can be summarized thusly:
- Fossil fuels (including coal) give off carbon dioxide when burned.
- As the world’s population increases so does the burning of fossil fuels and thus the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
- Increased CO2 in the atmosphere creates a “greenhouse affect” (a blanketing of the earth’s upper atmosphere that reduces the escape of heat from the surface of the earth to outer space).
- Therefore as population and CO2 continue to increase, there will be a corresponding increase in the GLOBAL AVERAGE (Those two words are key. Climate alarmists would have us go into a policy panic over temperature increases in one region of the US. However those temperatures are not relevant to the discussion of GLOBAL warming. The theory is that GLOBAL average temperature will increase not the temperature of a single region) temperature of the earth.
- This increase is expected to result in the melting of polar ice, flooding, and more violent storms.
As the graph shows, the centered average for Global Average Temperature (GAT) shows no upward trend since 1999. In addition, there were natural causes for the minor temperature delta prior to the year 2010 and in April and May of this year (The y-axis is shown in tenths of a degree and 2016 is an El Nino year.) Now, looking back to Hawking’s’ comment above, we can ask, “Have we not found the single scientific observation he was speaking about?”
I am not skeptical that there has been some warming over some timescales in our century, particularly through the 90’s; however, I am extremely skeptical that we have scientifically established causality. I do not believe that changes in climate are caused by man. Therefore, I do not believe the abandonment of fossil fuels is the solution to climate change. I do not even believe that a solution is needed because there can be no significant environmental impact to such miniscule changes in GAT. Those of us who believe that our God given coal resource should remain a viable component of our energy policy should also be allowed to drive the climate debate toward potential natural causes of climate change. We must focus the national discussion on lack of credible scientific evidence of man-made causality.
It is precisely the lack of observed warming, (which undermines the alarmists in their pursuit of research funds) which led first to the sudden name change from “global warming” to “climate change” and now to “global climate disruption”. Climate alarmists must now attempt to blame every snow storm and hurricane and drought that occurs on global warming/climate change. This is being done despite recent peer reviewed scientific studies that show such claims are not at all credible. In fact, tornadoes, hurricanes and global tropical cyclone activity have all declined since the 1950’s. Therefore the true science deniers seem to be our opponents in the debate.
Despite all this evidence, thirteen attorneys general as well as several liberal senators are attempting to criminalize scientifically based dissent on the causes of climate change. Though you may not be an aficionado of climate science, but every American is being affected economically by misguided policies to force Americans to expensive “green energy. Therefore each of us that believe in the merits of a robust energy policy with coal as its centerpiece, owe it to ourselves to stay informed. We must communicate the truth of the data in every media medium that we possibly can. I wrote an “eco-thriller” novel in this genre for precisely that reason. We must not cede the cultural or scientific high ground to our opposition. And we must not be silenced.