(This IBD Editorial was sent to me by the authors)
By WILLIE SOON, ROBERT CARTER AND DAVID LEGATES
This is a response to “Why Can’t We Innovate Our Way To A Carbon-Free Energy Future?“, a “Perspective” by Bjorn Lomborg that ran in this space a week ago.
Bjorn Lomborg, author of “The Skeptical Environmentalist” and “Cool It,” is right about the need to focus on critical health and economic priorities. But he is wrong about human carbon dioxide emissions causing what is now being called “global climate disruption.”
By demonizing the gas of life, in league with Al Gore and Bill Gates, Lomborg commits several serious scientific errors. As independent scientists, with broad training in mathematics, physics, chemistry, geology and geography, we know CO2 is not a pollutant, and the notion of “carbon-free” or “zero-carbon” energy is inherently harmful and anti-scientific.
If nitrogen, oxygen, hydrogen, helium or any other nontoxic gas is pumped into a chamber containing air and a growing plant, the response is barely measurable. By contrast, if more CO2 is added, the plant and its root system benefit enormously, displaying enhanced growth and more efficient use of available water and nutrients.
Far from having detrimental effects, carbon dioxide has decidedly beneficial impacts on plants, aquatic and terrestrial alike, and a new study connects enhanced plant productivity to greater bird species diversity in China. How, therefore, can anyone conclude that human carbon dioxide is a pollutant that must be eradicated?
These facts erect a formidable barrier for “zero-carbon” advocates. By insisting that no human CO2 should be emitted, they are promoting continued suboptimal growth of food plant species in the face of impending global food shortages — and poorer functioning and less diversity in the global ecosystem.
Zero-carbon activists respond to these facts by asserting that human CO2 emissions cause “dangerous global warming.” They are wrong about this, too.
If rising atmospheric CO2 levels drive global temperatures upward, as they insist, why is Earth not suffering from the dangerous “fever” that Al Gore predicted? Instead, after mild warming at the end of the twentieth century, global temperatures have leveled off for the past decade, amid steadily rising carbon dioxide levels.
Lomborg’s claim that we need to “cure” so-called “unchecked climate change” is thus fallacious and contradicted by reality. Reducing human CO2 emissions will likely have no measurable cooling effect on planetary temperatures.
His insistence that we prioritize expenditures is spot-on when applied to genuine environmental and societal problems. However, it is irrelevant when the problems are mythical — or devised to advance ideological agendas. Moreover, even if human impacts on the global climate can actually be measured at some future date, humans currently lack the scientific and engineering understanding and capability to deliberately “manage” Earth’s constantly changing climate for the better.
Most certain of all, atmospheric carbon dioxide is not the “climate control knob” that anti-hydrocarbon alarmists assert, and it is irresponsible for Lomborg to claim his socio-political agenda will provide a low-cost solution for the global warming “problem.”
The scientific reality is that even the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has been unable to demonstrate a cause-and-effect scientific connection between rising human CO2 emissions and dangerous warming.. To support global limits on CO2 emissions, in the absence of real-world data showing clear cause and effect, is scientific and policy incompetence on the highest order.
Imagine a drug company seeking FDA approval for a new drug, based on an analysis that says simply: “Our supercomputers say the drug is safe and effective. We have no clinical data to support this, but can think of no reason actual results would contradict what our computers predict. Moreover, failure to license the drug will be disastrous for patients suffering from the targeted disease.” Failing to demand actual dose-and-response studies, before licensing the drug, would be gross negligence on FDA’s part.
Between 2007 and 2009, U.S. carbon dioxide emissions dropped approximately 10%, to their lowest level since 1995, largely because of reduced energy consumption during the recession. Similar CO2 emission reductions occurred in Britain, Germany, France and Japan.
Have their climates gotten better or less dangerous? Are they now a better place, for having a lower intensity carbon energy diet? Have global temperatures been statistically unchanged since 1995 because, or in spite of, Chinese and Indian carbon dioxide emissions increasing far more than the aforementioned countries reduced theirs?
These are practical, not rhetorical questions. As far as we can see, the only direct effect of decreasing CO2 levels via expensive renewable energy programs has been to cost more American and European jobs than would otherwise have been the case during the global economic recession.
The central issue is not whether rising CO2 levels will cause a warmer planet. The fundamental concern is whether globally warmer temperatures are factually worse (or better) for human societies — and more (or less) damaging to the environment — than colder temperatures (like those experienced during the ice ages and Little Ice Age).
Bjorn Lomborg, Al Gore and Bill Gates need to consider the likelihood that, driven by changes in solar activity and ocean circulation, Earth will cool significantly over coming decades. Damaging the global economy with ineffectual carbon dioxide controls, in a futile quest to “stop global warming,” looks stupid now.
Viewed later, with hindsight, it will be judged outrageously irresponsible.
• Soon studies sun-climate connections at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.
• Carter is an emeritus fellow of the Institute of Public Affairs and chief science advisor to the International Climate Science Coalition.
• Legates is a hydroclimatologist at the University of Delaware and serves as the state climatologist of Delaware.
This editorial appeared at Investors Business Daily – here
Whatever happened to physical experimentation?
My automobile needs no CO2 to get rather hot in sunshine with its windows rolled up. In a greenhouse, CO2 is constantly being consumed by the plants. Either the air has to be changed constantly, or has to be enriched with more CO2.
Get a greenhouse, plant some plants, and when they are going well, shut of circulation of air to the inside of the greenhouse. The plants will stop growing and die.
Set up some small equivalents to greenhouses, with automatic temperature measuring devices that measure the temperatures in each at exactly the same time throughout the day. Modify the CO2 level in each before sunlight each day. Vary the CO2 levels randomly among the greenhouse equivalents before each day.
This would show what “entrapment of heat” different levels of CO2 would cause, if any, and would put paid to all of the nonsense.
Speculation, hypothesis, theory. All stand or fall before well designed physical experiments. Computers and high-sounding verbiage can’t cut it, and never will be able to do so.
If whatever it is can’t be verified by physical experimentation, it is no more than hogwash. Scientific method demands replication.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubisco#Enzymatic_activity
I question whether either side has the goods on whether the earth is heading towards warming or cooling, so tossing around an accusation like “outrageously irresponsible” strikes me as over much.
What climate skeptics don’t seem to understand about Lomborg is that, although he titled himself The Skeptical Environmentalist, he meant he was skeptical of Paul Ehrlich, Lester Brown, the Greenpeacers et al.
To support his points, Lomborg always resorts to mainstream statistics and projections from the UN and large government agencies, so it’s just his standard operating procedure that he accepts climate change — which is the mainstream opinion these says (though not necessarily the consensus) — but not the catastrophic narratives of climate change.
GM says:
October 30, 2010 at 10:21 am
I am not saying that they should be jailed
No, just locked up. Completely different thing, obviously.
What I have never understood about Climate Change/Global Warming (or whatever it’s being called this week) is that if the ‘science’ is ‘in’, and the ‘debate is over’, then what do they need more millions of Dollars/Pounds/Euros for more research to prove?
john r
It’s interesting that the attack was on Bjorn Lomborg’s conclusions and the reasoning to those conclusions. Not on Bjorn Lomborg.
You don’t need to do anything with true believers except ask one thing. Prove the weak hypothesis that human emited CO2 is or will producing catastrophic global warming, any warming for that matter. I’m staggered that these guys stick their heads above the parapet now after the smack downs and humiliations that their movement has suffered recently. I’ve started to feel sorry for them
“I won’t even comment on the fact what is revealed about the intellect of the author by his inability to understand that the problem with CO2 is that by a long, unfortunately much longer than the ability to grasp such things that the average ignoramuses let loose on the pages of this blog possesses, it will end up harming plant growth in large areas of the globe by decreasing the water supply to plants….”
The explosion of plant growth that gives us our widespread deposits of coal today occurred during the Carboniferous period, when CO2 concentrations were up to 1500 parts per million, compared with 380 today.
During the Jurassic period, when dinosaurs grew incredibly large thanks to the availability of plant and other food sources, the ppm was about 1800 ppm.
This is what we insane people call facts.
I am not saying that they should be jailed – they should be laughed at and ignored as the village idiots they are.
But surely that is cruelty of treatment. Whatever happened to good old fashioned liberal compassion?
Besides, all Lomborg has done is adduce the consideration of cost-benefit to the debate. Surely one would have to be a village (or, more likely, urban) idiot to reject such considerations out of hand.
Just ask the Sahara.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/07/090731-green-sahara.html
http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/publications/trends_africa2008/desertification.pdf
http://www.eoearth.org/article/Greening_of_the_Sahel
1982 – 1999 biosphere changes
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/300/5625/1560
GM should be aware that oxygen is not germain to the argument at hand, it is not a by product of human activity and as such cannot be mitigated by altering our behaviour. As for basic risk management, that does not mean taking every possible precaution regardless of cost, it means taking sensible and cost effective precautions that are proportionate. Yes people take out insurance, my house is insured against complete re-building if required but if the premiums were several times the value of the house I just wouldn’t bother.
If Lomborg is advocating “research only” to make alternative energy economically competitive, more power to him regardless of his CO2 views. The WILLIE SOON, ROBERT CARTER AND DAVID LEGATES post is good as it politely says:
the hubris of climate scientist is quite amazing. Just as computers were suppose to cut down on the need to print, but instead made thousands of charts and all writing much easier to produce, which lead to much greater printer use, so computers and computer models take thousands of POORLY known and disparately created observations, and numerous POORLY understood physical processes, and arrive at CERTAIN prophecies of global disaster while demanding trillions of dollars NOW, which all sides admit will have NO EFFECT without China and India aboard, all the while ignoring the KNOWN benefits of increased CO2.
GM,
We all know that often there are fundamental divergences between the views of the ‘settled/consensus science’ supporters and the views of more independent thinkers (a.k.a. skeptics). Your discussions with others here are a case in point. Emotions happen in the diverged situation on both sides. Our host understands and is very tolerant. I thank him occasionally for that rare tolerance, but probably not as much as I should.
I think that as the reformation /renaissance of climate science continues progressing to replace the problematic climate science of the past >20 years, then the divergence will cease. : )
Happy times these are for climate science.
John
GM says:
“Elementary risk management tells us that we should try to avoid climate change at all costs”
At all costs, GM?
Sounds very ‘elementary’ indeed.
Do these people have it in their head that people made Co2 is bad and natural Co2 is not bad? Is there a difference I begin to wonder.
If we do actually enter an extended cooling phase or even another Little Ice Age then I will insists on jail time for those found to have been “outrageously irresponsible.”
Funds > research > follow up research required > funds > research >follow up…….
slightly off topic, I guess but..
Does anyone know of any recorded (e.g. video) debates (as in proper scientific discussion – not end of presentation or lecture questions) between fully qualified scientists on both sides of the AGW? For example, has anyone of any standing presented the actual ‘physics’ of global warming and then been ‘opposed’ in debate by another expert?
in the context of this topic, I guess a full scientific debate about the ‘numbers’ and ‘efficacy’ of proposed CO2 reduction measures would be in order – has there been such a debate as per above?
GM: “I won’t even comment on the fact what is revealed about the intellect of the author by his inability to understand that the problem with CO2 is that by a long, unfortunately much longer than the ability to grasp such things that the average ignoramuses let loose on the pages of this blog possesses, it will end up harming plant growth in large areas of the globe by decreasing the water supply to plants….”
Before you run your mouth about things you do not understand, why not spend some time reviewing the available online literature on CO2 enhancement in greenhouses – the commercial agriculture trades had this CO2 thing worked out long before Hansen could figure out which finger to use for red and which for blue in kindergarten.
As for locking people away, that’s maybe a good idea – lets start with institutionalizing warmists like you, and jailing the frauds behind the IPCC and other AGW policies, starting with Al Gore.
GM wrote:
Well, I don’t support arbitrary population control measures. But when there’s population growth to—as you might say—decrease the oxygen content in the atmosphere, you have the Malthusians freaking out and projecting doom and gloom. Those guys apparently want more oxygen in the atmosphere to “poison” the plants. 😉
Could anyone tell me what GM means by “rick management” ? After all , he’s obviously too brilliant to make a typo . I’d ask him directly , but he’s currently in the troll bin . ( Thankyou for that , Anthony . )
Bjorn Lomborg ;
His book, the original version of “The Sceptical Environmentalist” was the first time I got a hint that organisations like Greenpeace, WWF and so on isnt just sweet, innocent organisations. It made me more sceptical to all the claims from these organisations.
Now I know that you really can’t trust anything these people say. You have to check for yourselves.
Then I found the writings of Michael Chrichton. RIP.
And then there was Climategate. And now I am here.
I think Lomborg says what he says just to be accepted in certain circles. I don’t like that he behave like a politician. But, there you have it.
GM says: October 30, 2010 at 9:17 am
AGW is an untested hypothesis, that’s correct. The problem is that it will be tested only once and when this happens it will be too late to do anything about it. We don’t happen to have another planet to play with, you know.
——————————————————————————————————–
So GM – ‘’We’ have to take all steps to make sure that the unknown outcomes of untested hypotheses are prevented. Great stuff as usual, from your superior intellect.
Elementary rick management tells us that we should try to avoid climate change at all costs
—————————————————————————————
This of course is a canard. An unproven notion to avoid unproven outcomes at ALL costs – come on GM.
—————————————————————————————
the same people who whine about the uncertainty in climate science buy insurance policies against events that happen with probabilities of less than a percent.
———————————————————————————-
Well, if this is so, they are using their own money – what little freedom they have left ii would seem can be ‘wasted’ on things of their own choice – or is this to be controlled by the like of you GM as well?
I suggest that you get a life GM
Doug
—————————
chip,
I appreciated the info on the Carboniferous period. What went on during earths ancient history has occasionally crossed my mind these days. It is a useful sound bite to have in one’s pocket (or Blackberry) for dialogs on AGW-by-CO2.
Thanks,
John
@Jimbo
I agree – the dogmatic approach by the climate science ‘elite’ cannot go unpunished. Firstly, in the real analysis, it is tantamount to a crime against humanity if shown to be so deliberately promulgated (it’s no different to conspiracy to murder/defraud, etc). Secondly, the mere fact that these folk have destroyed the faith and trust of the general public in the scientists and the scientific method, and in particular the trust of other ‘true’ scientists – would warrant explusion from all and any scientific institution – permanently.
Thirdly, if possible, any of their ill-gotton gains (called the ‘proceeds of crime’ over here) should be removed from their posession – the likes of Gore should have millions repossessed from his movie alone!
I am not proposing a witchhunt against climate scientists – there is no harm with those who have diligently researched and perhaps come to the ‘wrong’ conclusion (which when you think about it is quite easy if you are basing your research on previous rubbish or manipulated data?) – but those who have essentially ‘forced’ the concensus need to be ‘outed’ and punished properly, with appropriate justice being served.
To GM
Thank you for your humorous posts. Great caricature of the supercilious adolescent blowing smoke off the top of his head while posing as an intellectual.
Of course, you know that O2 as well as CO2 is essential for plant physiology. During photosynthesis (ie while the sun shines) plants are generally net O2 producers as they convert CO2, H2O, and other sundry nutrients into carbohydates useable as energy sources (especially glucose, other sugars, and starches). However, all day and all night, plants also use O2, as do animals, to oxidize these carbohydrates, using the energy released to drive all manner of synthetic reactions that allow them to stay alive and grow.
O2 and CO2 are both essential to plants, along with sunlight, water, and the many trace minerals found in good soil.
KW