Reflections From a Murky Pond

Back in 1992 Al Gore published Earth in the Balance, which was the relatively quiet first shot in the war of Global Warming v. The Developed World. Gore followed up this work with the 2006 release of An Inconvenient Truth, which was the first real frontal offensive by the Global Warming movement against the various commercial and industrial powers of our world. Years later we are deeply entrenched in a protracted battle over this issue.

This is sad and maddening because the entire perceived - or possibly manufactured - Global Warming crisis is based on the postulate that the Earth is growing warmer and that man-made greenhouse gas emissions are the primary cause of this warming.

From Merriam-Webster Dictionary:

Postulate
Pronunciation:\ˈpäs-chə-lət, -ˌlāt\

Function: noun
Date: 1646

Definition(s):

1. a hypothesis advanced as an essential presupposition, condition, or premise of a train of reasoning

The adherents Global Warming have based their whole platform of radical change on a hypothesis. Worse they continue to base their actions on this hypothesis even though what evidence they had to support it was always in contention and has later been countered by later evidence that they discovered themselves. Personally, I would describe that as an wildly inaccurate postulate from which to continue to propose an agenda.

We don’t actually have any proof that the planet is warming at all. Much of the earlier evidence that supported that hypothesis has since been called into question.

• Global ocean temperatures have not risen
• The West Antarctic Ice Sheet is over an active volcano
• Global surface temperatures have been stable for 10 years
• Sea levels may not be rising since the late 1990s

The Global Warming adherents are still clinging to the science of the last decade, which has been called into question by later findings. That is both foolish and poor science. The closest they seem to have come to altering their hypothesis to fit with the changing available facts is to rebrand Global Warming as Climate Change.

I’m am not saying that the Earth’s climate isn’t changing, nor am I saying it isn’t growing warmer. I am saying that it isn’t proven by any means to be doing so. I think more research has to be done. I certainly think though that people shouldn’t be taking drastic, society changing actions to curb Global Warming until it is somewhat more rational to believe it’s happening; a less emotional satisfying but more reasoned approach seems to be called for.

On the other hand, none of the contrary evidence is significant enough to complete refute the hypothesis of Global Warming or Climate Change. Perhaps the Earth is growing warmer - but is mankind’s greenhouse gas emissions the primary culprit? The followers of Al Gore describe it as Anthropogenic Global Warming and would certainly have you believe so.  Sadly for them, this is also a postulate that multi-disciplined evidence questions.

• The “Hockey Stick Graph”‘ was proven to be a fraud
• Astronomers have found other planets are warming as well
• Global temperatures don’t coincide with CO2 levels

So, in the face of contradictory evidence what should people do? Should we really overturn the industries and whole societies of the Developed World because of an innacurate postulate, or should we approach it with all due caution and not loose sight of issues beyond CO2 emissions?

On December 13, 2007, former US Vice-President Al Gore spoke at the UN Climate Conference in Bali. Once again Mr. Gore chose to attack his home country.

I am not an official and I am not bound by diplomatic niceties. So I am going to speak an inconvenient truth: my own country, the United States, is principally responsible for obstructing progress here in Bali

– Al Gore
At the UN Climate Conference

I suppose this is no surprise; Al Gore’s primary shtick is bashing the US. It is sadly also unsurprising that Mr. Gore is once again ignoring some truly inconvenient facts about the usefulness of the Kyoto Protocol:

It would seem reasonable to think that the signatory nations would be doing a better job of curtailing carbon emissions. It would also seem reasonable to think that the US, who won’t even ratify the Kyoto Protocol, would keep emitting CO2 at growth levels much higher than those signatory nations. It would be fallacious to think so.

Data on CO2 emission levels per nation are available from the U.S. Census Bureau. By comparing numbers from 1997 (the year the Kyoto Protocol was agreed upon) and 2004 (the latest year data is available for) we can arrive at the following statistics:

• Emissions worldwide increased 18.0%.
• Emissions from signatory nations increased 21.1%.
• Emissions from non-signatory nations increased 10.0%.
• Emissions from the United States increased 6.6%.

In point of fact United States’ CO2 emissions grew slower than those of over 75% of the Kyoto Protocol’s signatory nations.The Kyoto Protocol isn’t working - except as a vehicle for Al Gore’s ego.

One possible piece of good news for the world is that the Bali talks were aimed at launching negotiations to replace the Kyoto Protocol which expires in 2012. Hopefully something will be put into place that works this time. Perhaps the UN could start by stripping China and India of their supposed Emerging Nation statuses and applying the Protocol them as well.

• Emission increased from China 55%
• Emission increased from India 27%

Since the fact that these two up and coming commercial and industrial powerhouses wouldn’t be bound by the Kyoto Protocol due to their Emerging Nation status was one of the major reasons for the US’ refusal to ratify the treaty, perhaps that should be the first correction.