Imprimis on Global Warming

In their August issue of Imprimis, Hillsdale College has published a lecture by S. Fred Singer, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia. Now, Dr. Singer is not a "right wing religious nut." He's not some religious wacko. Nor is this piece one laced with overblown arguments. He simply addresses some of the evidence of Global Warming and asks if it is man-made or natural. Based on the title of his most recent book, Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years, I think you can guess his conclusion.

Dr. Singer brings up some interesting points. He addresses, for instance, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report so often referred to as "consensus" by the pro-Global Warming folks. On this he points out, "Most of the panelists have no scientific qualifications, and many of the others object to some part of the IPCC’s report. The Associated Press reported recently that only 52 climate scientists contributed to the report’s "Summary for Policymakers.'" And, as we know, science doesn't work on "consensus"; it works on pushing the envelope. It functions by going beyond consensus to places that people don't agree to settle such questions. Dr. Singer doesn't deny that the temperature around the world is rising, but he points out a basic fallacy: "What about the fact that carbon dioxide levels are increasing at the same time temperatures are rising? That’s an interesting correlation; but as every scientist knows, correlation is not causation." He points to various facts that contradict the man-made global warming theory, such as the fact that the climate has cooled at times during the last century of accelerated CO₂ production by Man's industrialization. He suggests that the computer models that are predicting the end of the world as we know it have failed to accurately depict what is occurring, and have failed to do so because they have failed to take into account relevant data. In fact, Dr. Singer suggests that the most likely culprit for global warming is not Man, but the Sun. He goes on to suggest that it isn't necessarily all bad news; there may be large benefits from an increase in the Earth's temperatures.

One of the things that I appreciated in the article was that Dr. Singer was the first I've read to offer reasons why there is such furor over the topic when science is so undecided. What is the motivation for pushing this Global Warming Catastrophe scenario if it isn't true? If global warming is such a certain catastrophe, why does the Kyoto Protocol expire in 2012? If it is such a serious problem, why do they allow for the "Clean Development Mechanism" in which a major CO₂-producing nation can avoid reducing their production by coming up with a reduction scheme for developing nations? What's wrong with this picture? Dr. Singer points out that power companies and other entities are collecting "windfall fees" from consumers to reduce emissions without actually reducing emissions. He points out,

Environmental organizations globally, such as Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, and the Environmental Defense Fund, have raked in billions of dollars. Multi-billion-dollar government subsidies for useless mitigation schemes are large and growing. Emission trading programs will soon reach the $100 billion a year level, with large fees paid to brokers and those who operate the scams. In other words, many people have discovered they can benefit from climate scares and have formed an entrenched interest.

We've arrived at an interesting point in history. If you don't agree with the "consensus" (which Dr. Singer questions), you aren't merely in disagreement. You are "anti-environmental." If you don't believe the absolutist claims that Man in general and the U.S. in particular are to blame for global warming, you are a wacko with something to gain at the cost of the entire world ... bordering on criminal. Instead of the "religion" of our age -- science -- being allowed to do its job, people are simply leaping on the misinformation bandwagon and pointing accusatory fingers at those of us who say, "Wait! Perhaps we ought to examine the evidence?" We aren't counting the cost or considering the consequences or asking the questions. That is neither right nor safe.