Global warming from another perspective
Much to my wife’s chagrin I am, admittedly, a bit of a pack rat. I do have a tendency to keep too much stuff around so periodically, after much prodding from her, I have to go clean a lot of it out and, as much as it pains me, throw it away.
A lot of my accumulations of "stuff" were clippings and various items I came across that might be used as topics in future columns.
I actually had them categorized into areas of interest such as the Second Amendment, liberalism, etc. So my junk was at least somewhat organized.
Anyway, while sorting through piles of old articles and columns I came across an old piece from the Wall Street Journal editorial page titled "Science Has Spoken: Global Warming Is a Myth."
It was written by two chemists from the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, Arthur B. Robinson and Zachary W. Robinson.
In their article they made the point very plainly that any debate over how to cut emissions has at times been overheated and that the entire enterprise of reducing carbon dioxide emissions was futile as there was not one shred of persuasive evidence that humans have been responsible for increasing global temperatures.
Carbon dioxide emissions, they point out, have actually been a boon for the environment.
While the myth of "global warming" started off with an accurate observation that the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere had been rising and that rise probably results from human burning of coal, oil and natural gas. But even that is not altogether certain.
The Earth’s oceans and land hold some 50 times as much carbon dioxide as is in the atmosphere and CO2 movement between the two is poorly understood.
Strangely enough, "the observed rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide does not correspond with the time of human release and equals about half of the amount released."
There have been five extended periods over the last 3,000 years where Earth was warmer than it is today, according to the Robinsons. There can be no argument about SUVs or other man-made carbon dioxide emitters causing those warm periods since SUVs didn’t even exist then. Such a statistic would lead to the rational conclusion that warming cycles occur naturally without man’s help.
Messrs Robinson point out the global warming hypothesis was no longer tenable because scientists have been able to test it carefully and it just doesn’t hold up under scrutiny.
During the last 50 years as atmospheric carbon dioxide has risen scientists have been able to make precise measurements of atmospheric temperatures and those measurements have definitively shown atmospheric warming is not occurring and is unlikely ever to occur.
In response to the question as to why temperatures were rising during the last 250 years they charted the length of the solar magnetic cycle during the same period and there was such a close correlation between that and temperature change it demonstrated that gradual warming since the Little Ice Age had been caused by changes in solar activity.
About 1940 was the period of highest temperatures and during the last 20 years atmospheric temperatures have actually trended down.
All this was confirmed by reliable satellite data as well as weather balloons. Another chart showed actual temperatures which were dramatically less than the predicted rise in greenhouse global warming.
The Robinsons pointed out that "in science, the ultimate test is the process of experiment. If a hypothesis fails the experimental test, it must be discarded. Therefore, the scientific method requires that the global warming hypothesis be rejected."
So, they conclude what we should be worried about is not global warming and any resulting environmental calamities which won’t happen, but rather hydrocarbon rationing as has been proposed over and over.
Hydrocarbon use has major environmental benefits such as accelerated growth rate of plants and an increase in animal life which depends on plants to live. Our children and their children will enjoy Earth with twice as much plant and animal life as what we currently see.
Another conclusion is that hydrocarbons are necessary to feed and lift from poverty vast numbers of people all across the world, eventually allowing human beings to live long, prosperous, healthy productive lives. A rationing of the use of hydrocarbons would produce global poverty and death.
Oh, I guess I omitted an important fact about this article: its date. The piece appeared in the Wall Street Journal Thursday, Dec. 4, 1997.