NOTE: This op-ed is apparently too hot for some editors to handle. Late last week it was accepted and posted on politix.topix.com only to be abruptly removed some two hours later. After several hours of attempting to determine why it was removed, I was informed the topix.com editor had permanently taken it down because of a strong negative reaction to it and because of “conflicting views from the scientific community” over factual assertions in the piece.
Fortunately, some media outlets recognize a vigorous scientific debate persists over humanity’s influence on climate and those outlets refuse outside efforts to silence viewpoints that run counter to prevailing climate alarmism. My original piece follows below.- Craig Idso
Guest essay by Dr. Craig D. Idso
The release of a United Nations (UN) climate change report last week energized various politicians and environmental activists, who issued a new round of calls to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Some of the most fiery language in this regard came from Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), who called upon Congress to “wake up and do everything in its power to reduce dangerous carbon pollution,” while Secretary of State John Kerry expressed similar sentiments in a State Department release, claiming that “unless we act dramatically and quickly, science tells us our climate and our way of life are literally in jeopardy.”
Really? Is Earth’s climate so fragile that both it and our way of life are in jeopardy because of rising carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions?
In a word, no! The human impact on global climate is small; and any warming that may occur as a result of anthropogenic CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions is likely to have little effect on either Earth’s climate or biosphere, according to the recently-released contrasting report Climate Change Reconsidered II: Biological Impacts, which was produced by the independent Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC).
This alternative assessment reviews literally thousands of peer-reviewed scientific journal articles that do not support and often contradict the findings of the UN report. Whether the subject is the effects of warming and rising CO2 on plants, animals, or humans, the UN report invariably highlights the studies and models that paint global warming in the darkest possible hue, ignoring or downplaying those that don’t.
To borrow a telling phrase from their report, the UN sees nothing but “death, injury, and disrupted livelihoods” everywhere it looks—as do Senator Boxer, Secretary Kerry, and others. Climate Change Reconsidered II: Biological Impacts demonstrates that life on Earth is not suffering from rising temperatures and atmospheric CO2 levels. Citing reams of real-world data, it offers solid scientific evidence that most plants actually flourish when exposed to both higher temperatures and greater CO2 concentrations. In fact, it demonstrates that the planet’s terrestrial biosphere is undergoing a great greening, which is causing deserts to shrink and forests to expand, thereby enlarging and enhancing habitat for wildlife. And much the same story can be told of global warming and atmospheric CO2 enrichment’s impacts on terrestrial animals, aquatic life, and human health.
Why are these research findings and this positive perspective missing from the UN climate reports? Although the UN claims to be unbiased and to have based its assessments on the best available science, such is obviously not the case. And it is most fortunate, therefore, that the NIPCC report provides tangible evidence that the CO2-induced global warming and ocean acidification debate remains unsettled on multiple levels; for there are literally thousands of peer-reviewed scientific journal articles that do not support a catastrophic, or even problematic, view of atmospheric CO2 enrichment.
Unfortunately, climate alarmism has become the modus operandi of the UN assessment reports. This fact is sad, indeed, because in compiling these reports, the UN either was purposely blind to views that ran counter to the materials they utilized, or its authors did not invest the amount of time, energy, and resources needed to fully investigate an issue that has profound significance for all life on Earth. And as a result, the UN has seriously exaggerated many dire conclusions, distorted relevant facts, and omitted or ignored key scientific findings. Yet in spite of these failings, various politicians, governments, and institutions continue to rally around the UN climate reports and to utilize their contentions as justification to legislate reductions in CO2 emissions, such as epitomized by the remarks of Senator Boxer and Secretary Kerry.
Citing only studies that promote climate catastrophism as a basis for such regulation, while ignoring studies that suggest just the opposite, is simply wrong. Citizens of every nation deserve much better scientific scrutiny of this issue by their governments; and they should demand greater accountability from their elected officials as they attempt to provide it.
There it is, that’s my op-ed. It’s what some people apparently do not want you to read. While the over 3,000 peer-reviewed scientific references cited in Climate Change Reconsidered II: Biological Impacts are likely more than sufficient to establish scientific fact in a court of law, they are not sufficient to engage the real climate deniers in any debate. The rise in atmospheric CO2 is not having, nor will it have, a dangerous influence on the climate and biosphere. But don’t take my word for it, download and read the report for yourself (available at www.nipccreport.org). Compare it with the UN report. You be the judge!
Dr. Craig D. Idso is the lead editor and scientist for the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC).
davidmhoffer says:
April 20, 2014 at 7:27 pm
“Yet again, if that were so, your theory would be born out by ERBE and other data. Instead they show the EXACT OPPOSITE.”
—————————————–
No, the earth radiation budget experiment does not show the atmosphere warming the oceans. All it really shows is that the earth is absorbing and emitting around 255 w/m2. Climastrologists assume that the average 240 w/m2 that reaches the oceans does not have the power to heat them above -18C. They have provably made the mistake of treating the oceans as a blackbody instead of a selective surface. History can not be re-written. This critical mistake is at the very foundation of the radiative GHE hypothesis.
But let’s play “let’s pretend”. Lets pretend that DWLWIR was actually heating the oceans by 33C. Climastrologists claimed that the oceans would freeze to -18C without atmospheric cooling or DWLWIR. We know how hot an evaporatively constrained solar pond gets, 80C or beyond. So lets reduce that by 33C to 47C to eliminate all evaporative and conductive cooling and any heating effect of DWLWIR. That’s still 65C higher that the claim of the climastrologists. Our oceans are actually at around 15C, so the atmosphere must be cooling the oceans. And how does the atmosphere in turn cool? Radiative gases.
David, there is no way around it. The climastrologists went and treated our deep SW/UV transparent oceans as a blackbody, and to make matters worse they assumed that materials that can evaporatively cool respond to incident LWIR like solid materials. AGW is the greatest mistake in all of human scientific endeavour. In this context there can be no point in differentiating believer and lukewarmer positions and trying to get sceptics to adopt the latter. Both positions are utterly wrong.
drumphil says:
April 20, 2014 at 8:44 pm
Right, so, therefore you know that there wont be any negative effects in the future no matter how much C02 rises?
==================================================
Words in my mouth Sir. I infer through simple logic and analysis of the scientific papers. Science is always open to further evidence. What is your evidence of the “C” in CAGW. I am open to hear it.
April 20, 2014 at 1:15 pm | blackadderthe4th says
———
You quote Dr Karl, science presenter from the Australian Broadcasting Company, as an authority ? JOKE !
drumphil says:
April 20, 2014 at 8:44 pm
Right, so, therefore you know that there wont be any negative effects in the future no matter how much C02 rises?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
No we don’t know that. What we do know is what the effects are of living a zero emissions lifestyle is. Devastating. Its called the stone age. Life was brutal and short. The vast majority of people on earth would die. So you are asking us to weigh the outcome of mitigation strategies which have known and massive harm to humanity against the negative effects of something that might happen and for which there is increasing evidence will be mild at worst and potentially beneficial.
Your next comment was a blatant appeal to authority, devoid of fact or reason, and requires no further rebuttal.
@davidmhoffer
Of course for the rich, they merely buy indulgences.
“Words in my mouth Sir. I infer through simple logic and analysis of the scientific papers. Science is always open to further evidence. What is your evidence of the “C” in CAGW. I am open to hear it.”
Hang on, don’t you have to provide the evidence if you make the claim. I’m not making claims here.
This however is a big claim: “The rise in atmospheric CO2 is not having, nor will it have, a dangerous influence on the climate and biosphere.”
“No we don’t know that.”
Well, then isn’t it a problem for you that the OP claims that?
“The rise in atmospheric CO2 is not having, nor will it have, a dangerous influence on the climate and biosphere.”
drumphil;
Well, then isn’t it a problem for you that the OP claims that?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Less of a problem than people who appeal to authority while insisting we take measures with known harm in order to mitigate something that might happen and may well be beneficial if it does.
Eh, could you talk around and to the side of the point more deliberately if you tried?
I mean, this discussion is suppose to be about the OP and what they have presented isn’t it?
“drumphil says:
April 20, 2014 at 8:19 pm
““The rise in atmospheric CO2 is not having, nor will it have, a dangerous influence on the climate and biosphere.””
That was the claim. It’s a big claim.”
Something for you to read Drumphil.
http://www.freedomworks.org/content/13-worst-predictions-made-earth-day-1970
Enjoy!
If you have a point, please specify what it is.
drumphil says:
April 20, 2014 at 9:19 pm
I mean, this discussion is suppose to be about the OP and what they have presented isn’t it?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Your entire rebuttal consists of an appeal to authority. Then you accuse me of sidestepping the issue? LOL
Which still leaves you trying to justify doing something harmful to avoid something that might happen and might be beneficial if it does. The OP aside, that’s what this issue boils down to.
Reblogged this on gottadobetterthanthis and commented:
Note Dr. Idso’s references. He is talking science, not politics. The alarmists mostly talk politics, and taking things away from you.
Cosmos, and ND-T, ran their episode on determining the age of the earth by getting so good at detecting lead. The researcher then realized we were adding lead to the environment at dangerous rates. They pointed out the money to be made by letting lead remain. Science was used on both sides.
Sense finally won out. Of course, hyperbole held sway as well, as ND-T asserted there is no safe level of lead in humans. Well, his own show proved him wrong when they pointed out the snotty nosed worker had thousands of times more lead in him than there was in the ice they were trying to retrieve and analyze.
Yes, we want lead levels very low, but it is nonsense to assert that any exposure is dangerous. For global warming, the money is on the side of the alarmists. Those asserting the alarm is false are just refusing to be taken in. It is a scam. The politicians and the alarmists see much money to be made, and much political power to be grabbed. Don’t believe them. As ND-T likes to point out, and Sagan and Fineman, before, nature will not be fooled. Mother nature cares not. She will simply carry on, throwing rocks at us whenever the mode strikes, and not noticing one whit anything we do to mess our nest. Sure, we can mess it up good, and cause plenty of harm to ourselves, but burning fuel that nature concentrated for us is never going to matter. CO2 is plant food, and essential ingredient to life. We can burn all the fuel, and the plants will go right on growing, and us critters will go right on eating them, and the planet and life as we know it will continue.
“Your entire rebuttal consists of an appeal to authority. Then you accuse me of sidestepping the issue? LOL”
Exactly what I am I suppose to be rebutting? Can you actually explain what you mean?
“Which still leaves you trying to justify doing something harmful to avoid something that might happen and might be beneficial if it does. The OP aside, that’s what this issue boils down to.”
I never said anything about that. “The OP aside” is not an option when we are talking about claims made by the OP.
“drumphil says:
April 20, 2014 at 9:38 pm
If you have a point, please specify what it is.”
The point is the OP has made a statement and a claim that CO2 is not and will not have a damaging effect on the climate and biosphere. There are many statements and claims at the link I provide that something WILL happen and yet didn’t. I am trying to provide a bit of balance here. We have 40 odd years of statements and claims of some “things” that *WILL* happen due to planetary pollution/cooling/warming lergely driven by human activity etc and 40 odd years of evidence that positively debunks those claims. We also have almost 18 years of data showing no global warming, no increase in droughts, no increase in floods etc all the while CO2 concentration have increased significantly since those early claims were made. Who’s right? I don’t know, but we know who’s been mostly wrong in the last 40 years.
“Well, then isn’t it a problem for you that the OP claims that?”
This is a pretty straight forward yes/no question. You answered by talking about something. Why did you choose to do that?
“Less of a problem than people who appeal to authority while insisting we take measures with known harm in order to mitigate something that might happen and may well be beneficial if it does.”
So does that answer mean that it is a problem for you? If so, why not say what you mean.
*something else*
“Who’s right? I don’t know, but we know who’s been mostly wrong in the last 40 years.”
So, what does that tell us about the veracity of the claims made by the OP? I would suggest, basically nothing.
Steven Mosher says:
April 20, 2014 at 8:48 am
“The human impact on global climate is small; and any warming that may occur as a result of anthropogenic CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions is likely to have little effect on either Earth’s climate or biosphere, according to the recently-released contrasting report Climate Change Reconsidered II: Biological Impacts, which was produced by the independent Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC).”
so the science is settled. little effect?
I wonder how the clowns who wrote the NIPCC scientifically determined that there will be little effect in the future? how’d they do that? I read the NIPCC. I saw no experiments that proved there would be little effect. I saw no statistical analysis in that report that proved there would be little effect. And they explained why you could not use models to project the effects.
How did those clowns deduce from no evidence that there would be little effect
++++++++++++
The name calling shows you’ve lost the argument. The IPCC have proven that CO2 has not been shown to cause warming. Try as they might, their CO2 driven models (with water vapor feedbacks) have proven that CO2 must not be a significant driver of climate. Or don’t you understand this?
drumphil;
“The OP aside” is not an option when we are talking about claims made by the OP.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Ah, I see, the thread is restricted to only those things which YOU want to discuss. Points which you cannot address may be dismissed out of hand because YOU want to void talking about them, I already addressed the concern about the OP’s opinion upthread, and if you recall, agreed with you to some extent. Now, how does that change anything?
Stick around drumphil. Far more articulate and knowledgeable advocates of the CAGW position have come and gone over the years. Mostly gone. Mostly without scoring a point. Sad really. Frankly, I think the site is weaker without them. We need those with differing views to test the strength of our data and positions about the data. Lately we’ve had to content ourselves with debunking bullsh*t from people who think the ghe doesn’t exist at all or that radiatively active gases cool the atmosphere. But someone who comes along and points out facts that make us rethink our positions? Rare, very rare.
But do try to bring some facts to the table to rebut arguments, or even the OP itself. By all means. If you want to argue that once sentence is too strongly worded, by all means. But if you want to score points, then find fault with the substance of the OP and show us where it is wrong in fact or reasoning.
Welcome to the debate.
“Ah, I see, the thread is restricted to only those things which YOU want to discuss. Points which you cannot address may be dismissed out of hand because YOU want to void talking about them, I already addressed the concern about the OP’s opinion upthread, and if you recall, agreed with you to some extent. Now, how does that change anything?”
You can talk about whatever you like, but you can’t demand that I change topic because you want to talk about something else.
“Stick around drumphil. Far more articulate and knowledgeable advocates of the CAGW position have come and gone over the years. Mostly gone. Mostly without scoring a point. Sad really. Frankly, I think the site is weaker without them. We need those with differing views to test the strength of our data and positions about the data. Lately we’ve had to content ourselves with debunking bullsh*t from people who think the ghe doesn’t exist at all or that radiatively active gases cool the atmosphere. But someone who comes along and points out facts that make us rethink our positions? Rare, very rare.”
Blah blah, anything but talking about the claims made by the op, which is all that I was ever talking about.
“But do try to bring some facts to the table to rebut arguments, or even the OP itself. By all means. If you want to argue that once sentence is too strongly worded, by all means. But if you want to score points, then find fault with the substance of the OP and show us where it is wrong in fact or reasoning.
Welcome to the debate.”
What the hell does that have to do with the issues I raised. You can talk about anything you like, but you can’t demand that I justify claims that I never made.
thingadonta says: April 20, 2014 at 6:13 pm
Many people do not accept the fundamental basis of Malthusian ideology, in biology for example many species do not all behave like mosquitos which reproduce on mass leading to inevitable mass mortality, many species in fact adjust their reproduction according to resource availability and survive ad infinitum.
Not exactly….
Malthus, a cleric, pretty much limited his discussions & concerns to human populations in particular. In fact, most of his concerns & concepts have no real correlates in species other than humans.
Almost all species DO behave exactly like mosquitoes, producing many more offspring than the environment can support, and yet do survive “ad infinitum”. In general, they can be segregated by those that produce large numbers of offspring with high mortality and those that produce fewer offspring with lower mortality. We call this high R and low R (or K) species for the (R)eproductive rate. But BOTH types potentially produce many more offspring than the environment can support and the populations of both are controlled by mortality or death. ALL species adjust their R to resource availability as well; a poorly fed female mosquito will lay fewer eggs than a well fed one.
At any rate, nature is both more complex and simpler at the same time than we know.
davidmhoffer: I’m still trying to understand what it is we disagree on. We both seem to agree that the claims made by the OP go beyond what can be supported with good science, and that was the only claim I made in this thread. Exactly what else is it you expect me to justify?
drumphil says:
Right, so, therefore you know that there wont be any negative effects in the future no matter how much C02 rises?
Please note that over 500 million years ago, CO2 levels were over 7000ppm—over 17 times modern levels. Even at the low end of the uncertainty range (~3000ppm), that’s still over 7 times modern levels. And, hey, no catastrophe!
http://geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image277.gif
http://geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html
No runaway global warming. In fact, there was an ice age while CO2 levels were in the 4000ppm range.
But CO2 is chemically inert — it doesn’t react with or bind to other molecules. (Unless forced by photosynthesis or other energy input.)