Hard Science, Real-World Data Melt Greenhouse Theory

By David Rothbard and Craig Rucker

"That increased accumulations of greenhouse gases, particularly CO₂, cause global warming,

there is no longer any serious debate."

- Vice President Al Gore -

That's right folks, the verdict is in. Global warming is here! It's time to stop checking our thermometers, say the sages of pop-science, and begin the necessary task of disembowling our cars, factories, and other vestiges of the industrial past. Just ask President Clinton, who has promised to deliver a blueprint by the end of August detailing how he plans to slash the amount of carbon dioxide our economy exhales. Or ask the international leaders who recently convened in New York City for the fifth anniversary of the Earth Summit to discuss, among other things, how to fund and enforce a global greenhouse treaty.

As is widely known, those losing sleep over the terror of global warming believe our tailpipes and smokestacks are creating an inviable blanket over the earth that, if left unchecked, promises to do more than just make us sweat. Their solution, of course, is to severely curtail -- and ultimately do away with -- the nasty fossil fuels like coal, oil, and gas responsible for these emissions.

From the recent rash of international activities, it is clear the debate over global warming has shifted focus. No longer are we talking about if this theory is reality, but rather, how to save the world from it. Is this prudent? Or are we, should we say, jumping the gun, putting the cart before the horse, and maybe even making a mountain out of a mole hill? As it turns out, after taking a look at concrete scientific data and some real-world observations brought to light by CFACT scientific advisor, Dr. Edward Krug, it would be easier to believe in the flat earth theory than in the threat of a greenhouse catastrophe.

Global warming proponents base much of their hysteria on the premise that levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have risen dramatically over the past century -- from roughly 270 ppmv before the Industrial Revolution, to around 360 ppmv today. They use past and present carbon dioxide measurement records as well as ice core sample to bolster this claim. But as Krug points out, the problems with their evidence are myriad.

To begin with, the claim by greenhouse enthusiasts that the historical record shows a sharp increase in carbon dioxide is nothing short of bogus. By carefully picking and choosing their data, they selectively threw out any piece of evidence that did not fit their puzzle. G.S. Callendar, one of the fathers of the modern greenhouse theory, paved the way for this technique in the 1950s when he ignored 16 of the 26 measurements of carbon dioxide from the 19^th century that were above his figure of 292 ppmv. And modern scientists recently perfected this sleight-of-hand at the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii by rejecting some 80 percent of their carbon dioxide measurements and fabricating the data for 17 percent more, to come up with a trend of rising carbon dioxide values. In reality Krug affirms, and accurate comparison of all past and present measurements show no real change in carbon dioxide.

That ice core samples reveal an increase in carbon dioxide likewise results from a slick game of pick-and-choose. But an even more important flaw in the ice core argument (if that is possible) is the assumption by these pop-scientists that carbon dioxide does not react with ice and that ice can thus preserve a perfect record of past carbon dioxide like it does a wooly mammoth. But ice is not teflon. It is not a chemically-unreactive substance. In fact, there are at least 40 classes of reactions that can occur when carbon dioxide mixes with ice -- each capable of easily throwing off any future readings. In addition, many of the ice samples used for measurements are "contaminated" by drilling and poor storage. So it is somewhat preposterous to assert, as do global warming enthusiasts like Boyce Rosenberger, that "air bubbles trapped in ice" can show an "uncontestable" record of past carbon dioxide levels.

Another gross representation of fact surrounds Green rhetoric about man's contribution to atmospheric carbon dioxide. To hear them speak, one would assume man is singularly responsible for flooding the skies with a barrage of increased carbon dioxide fumes. When you consider, though, that of the estimated 213 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide snorted into the air each year, man's activities account for a measly seven gigatonnes -- leaving 206 gigatonnes from natural sources. (This doesn't even take into account man-made "sinks" for carbon dioxide, like dams and such human activities as planting crops that take up much of the carbon dioxide we produce.)

The most fundamental scientific probem with the greenhouse theory, however, is the fact that even if man were bellowing massive amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, as far as temperature is concerned, it wouldn't amount to a hill of beans. This is because the atmosphere is already nearly saturated with carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas. Increasing it would thus do el-zippo to improve its efficiency as an atmospheric insulator. Even one of the grand poobahs of global warming, Stephen Schneider, admitted as much in his 1971 Science magazine article when he wrote to warn the world of the coming Ice Age.

While there are still some who cling to the greenhouse models in spite of these obvious gaping holes, the task becomes next to impossible in the face of real-world observations that show global warming to be a hoax. It is here, where the rubber meets the road, that actual findings -- not classroom speculations -- deliver a deathblow to this doomsday hypothesis.

The first bit of tangible evidence, as Krug notes, comes from the world of agriculture, where a simple comparison of SUDA Plant Hardiness Zone Maps reveals a trend of cooling, not warming, over a recent period of 25 years. These maps, which are published in seed and plant catalogues, show what plants can successfully be grown in various climatic regions. They can tell you, for instance, that planting an orchard of orange trees in Minnesota is not a very good idea. Most growing zones were pushed south between 1965 and 1990 as a result of increasing cold. For example, the crops and vegetation that grew in zone 9 were driven out of southern South Carolina, out of Georgia, and out of most of northern Florida by 1990. One need only be a gardener, not a rocket scientist, to observe this trend.

An even more important nail is driven into the coffin of global warming by findings in the Arctic. Here, we are told by greenhouse theories, is the place we should see the first and greatest warming effects of increasing carbon dioxide. But what do we find? The Arctic, by every way you slice the data is getting colder. Indeed, the recent publication of previously inaccessible Soviet data shows that over the last 40 years, winter temperatures in the Arctic got colder by 4.4 degrees F. Ecology further supports what the thermometers tell us about the region as increasing cold is causing forests to retreat and arctic tundra to advance.

And what about the alarm being raised over potential worldwide flooding from melting ice caps? Measurements unequivocally show that both the Arctic and Antarctic ice caps are growing, not melting.

While international leaders rack their brains about the best way to dismantle our industrial world economy to save us from global warming, it would behoove someone to tap them on the shoulder ever so gently and tell them to smarten up! The case simply isn't there to support the greenhouse theory, and what facts do exist point 180 degrees in the opposite direction. Al Gore says there is no longer any "serious debate" about global warming. Indeed, with the mass of science stacked against him, "serious debate" is the last thing there should really be.

CFACT is a Washington-based non-profit organization that has been working since 1985 to promote free-market and safe technological solutions to current consumer and environmental concerns.

Next Article | Table of Contents