Comfort for Those Concerned About Climate Change

Let me begin by saying I’m 100% committed to saving our environment for future generations, developing sustainable alternative energy sources and reducing my personal impact on Planet Earth.  I’ve felt this way since high school, well before it became fashionable to be green, and I have the bona fides to prove that (memberships in many of the major environmental organizations, financial support for the protection of endangered species and the conservation of natural areas, and active participation in a wide range of recreational activities for people who simply enjoy the great outdoors). I recently moved into a smaller home that has reduced my annual energy consumption by over 50%, and I’m always looking for ways to become more energy-efficient and environmentally aware.

However, being an empiricist, not an ideologue, I’m inherently suspicious of the growing hysteria about climate change.  One only needs to peruse my bookshelves to know that I’ve read extensively on this subject and have studied the issue from all sides. Because of my keen interest in geology, paleontology, archaeology and all things ancient, I’m well aware that the Earth has been much cooler in the past (e.g., Ice Ages) – and also much, much hotter (e.g., the Mesozoic). These natural cycles were established long before homo sapiens ever set foot on the planet.

So, what could possibly cause most college-educated Millennials and assorted others to believe the world as we know it will end in 12 years?  There are, of course, many reliable sources of information on climate change but they all need to be understood in the context they were presented.  Unfortunately, most alarmists don’t spend enough time evaluating the actual data and reaching their own independent conclusions.

Let’s start with the “biggie” – that the average global temperature has increased 1.9 degrees Fahrenheit (or 1.05 degrees Celsius) since 1880.  A quick search of the internet will turn up various “heat maps” and “hockey stick” graphs dramatically showing this warming over the past 139 years.  Do the math.  That’s about 0.0136 degrees per year during a time when the world’s population increased six-fold, many nations underwent rapid industrialization, and most people increased their consumption of fossil fuels.  Even if this variation from some hypothetical norm is statistically significant (which, given the span of human history, I submit it’s not), one needs to consider that about half of that warming recently reversed during a single 2-year period. According to NASA’s Goddard Institute www.data.giss.nasa.gov, from February 2016 to February 2018, the world’s average temperature decreased approximately 1.0-degree Fahrenheit (0.56 degrees Celsius). I don’t remember such good news getting much media coverage last year. Why was that?

Anthropogenic factors don’t seem to be the only things in play. Indeed, the scientific literature is replete with discussion of factors, other than those attributable to humans, that directly impact average global temperatures. These include cyclical variation in the amount of solar energy reaching the Earth, volcanic activity and other sources of “internal variability” (bear in mind, our planet is mostly a molten ball of iron that until recently was thought to be 1,000 degrees Celsius cooler than it actually is).  Even those scientists attempting to downplay these other causes of climate change, see, for example, https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science-and-impacts/science/effect-of-sun-on-climate-faq.html#.XG6w1_ZFxmA must acknowledge that, notwithstanding the billions that have been spent on research, we’re just beginning to understand the complex reasons why global temperatures (and with them sea levels) go up and down and have done so for eons.

But what about those ominous computer models that project skyrocketing increases in surface temperatures because of that nasty carbon dioxide, which is unavoidably emitted by all living things, as well by producing energy from fossil fuels?  All I can say is thank goodness for carbon dioxide!We wouldn’t want to live on a planet without it.  Obviously, humans need oxygen to survive, but our planet had little or none of it until plants began doing we couldn’t do for ourselves – convert carbon dioxide into breathable oxygen. We can certainly debate whether greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, are now above optimal levels, but nothing I’ve read convinces me we’ve crossed into a danger zone, much less a “point of no return,” as some claim.  Again, I ask you to consider the Mesozoic Era when dinosaurs thrived despite experiencing carbon dioxide concentrations up to 1,500 parts per million, compared with 410 parts per million today.  Granted, humans should do all they can to avoid becoming extinct like those ancient creatures, but there’s absolutely no evidence their demise was caused by global warming or carbon dioxide poisoning. More likely, a comet did them in.

What troubles me more than anything in the climate change debate is the dishonesty of so many scientists who have allowed their politics and self-interest to impair their intellectual integrity. Hardly a week goes by without the exposure of yet another fraudulent research study. Most recently, I learned that meteorologists in Australia weren’t happy when temperatures hadn’t risen as much as they had predicted, so they simply went back and adjusted the historic temperatures downward in order to inflate the modest warming that has occurred in recent decades. See John Hinderaker at

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/02/the-greatest-scand al-in-the-history-of-science.php. 

And then there is the hypocrisy of urban environmentalists, particularly those who live in the state of California. Nowhere is the green energy movement stronger than it is there. Yet, nowhere are American cities dirtier, more dangerous and more prone to diseases like typhus and tuberculosis than San Francisco and Los Angeles. Not since the plagues of the Middle Ages have urban populations been exposed to streets strewn with trash, rotting food scraps, vermin, human feces and urine. How can so-called environmentalists tolerate such desecration of our greatest urban landscapes?  Is it, as Victor Davis Hanson points out, that cleaning up these places, ensuring modern standards of hygiene, and dealing with the homeless problem would require lawmakers to make difficult decisions that have sadly become taboo in a relativistic society? https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/02/strange-paradoxes-race-environmentalism-immigration-gulf-between-rhetoric-and-reality/

Scientists may yet prove that manmade climate change is in fact the greatest challenge ever faced by the human race. I doubt it. On the other hand, if my skepticism turns out to be wrong, I commit to doing everything in my power to preserve and protect the small, blue planet I so dearly love. However, I refuse to be labeled a “climate change denier” because of my legitimate doubts.  I remain open to new, un-doctored data and any plausible theory why the United States needs a more aggressive environmental policy than it has had over the past five decades. While waiting for something that might change my views, I will continue to replace incandescent light bulbs with LEDs, ride my bike as much as possible instead of drive my car, and try to tread lightly as I go.  But I will not be sacrificing centuries of economic and social progress in favor of something as utterly insane as the Green New Deal.