Warming debate heats up, but facts aren't all in
Tuesday, January 22, 2008 2:16 PM PST
By William G. Dennis / for The Daily News
Printable version
E-mail this articleGlobal warming is a controversial topic. Surprisingly The New Statesman, a left-leaning British publication, and the Boston Globe ran articles recently which stated that the earth's warming had stopped, at least temporarily, some years ago. Here are some other reasons why an open-minded person may want to consider something besides the current ballyhoo.
The Christian Science Monitor pointed out on Dec. 3 that the science on the subject is at best incomplete. An increase in solar radiation is likely to be a cause of global warming but the ongoing studies on that subject will not be done until about 2012.
Also the theories that assume mankind is a major cause of global warming all require there to be high temperatures in the upper atmosphere especially in the tropics. I have seen this point made repeatedly by climate scientists. So far those high temperatures have not been recorded, which suggests major weakness in the theory that we are at fault. The article closed with the modest suggestion that we get our science in order before locking ourselves into any particular policy.
The question of whether global warming is entirely a bad thing is also open. The answer may seem straight forward to a polar bear or a diking engineer in Holland or Bangladesh. But before it became politically correct to deplore any increase in the earth's temperature, climate scientists used to write about "the climatic optimum," the warmer period that the earth experienced about a thousand years ago. It was so warm that a population of about 6,000 Norse could make a living off their sheep and cattle in southern Greenland.
Much of the earth's farmland is concentrated in the higher latitudes of the northern hemisphere. A thousand years ago, they were much more productive because of longer growing seasons and warmer summers. So if you are trying to make a living farming in the countries around the Baltic or the wheat country of northern China, global warming may seem like a good thing.
Then there is the question of what to do about it, assuming we are an important part of the cause. The strategy of the Kyoto accords is to have the major Western industrial nations make the deep cuts in carbon emissions and, inevitably, production that may be needed. The problem with that is that industry in the West has already cut its pollution back to a fraction of what it once was. As a result, Western industry puts out a very small amount of pollution per unit of production compared to places like China an India.
One reason that cheap Chinese goods are causing American workers to lose their jobs is that those places have shown little inclination to do their part. Not long ago, they were balking at adopting modern refrigeration technology to cut greenhouse gasses. So it is more than a little hard to make the case that American industry should face big expenses, and more job losses, to make small cuts in pollution when those countries can make big cuts at small cost. If those countries want our help installing scrubbers on their coal plants and putting out underground fires in coal mines, I would support helping them. But please, no more industrial cutbacks here.
All in all, I think it is fair to say Al Gore and his ilk need to be viewed with some skepticism.
William G. Dennis is a Kelso business owner.
Past Month's Most Commented Stories