THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA
An Online Journal of Political Commentary & Analysis
Volume VII, Issue # 86, April 15, 2005
Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr., Editor
Government Committed to & Acting in Accord with Conservative Principles
Ensures a Nation's Strength, Progress, & Prosperity
THE ORACLE AT EARTH INSTITUTE:
CLIMATE CHANGE COMPUTER MODELS
NOT MUCH BETTER THAN ANCIENT ORACLES
By Paul K. Driessen
COMPUTER MODELS WHICH FORECAST CATASTROPHIC CLIMATE CHANGE FOR THE EARTH -- MISPLACED RELIANCE ON THESE
COMPUTER MODELS BY POLITICIANS, THE NEWS MEDIA, LIBERAL LEFTIST ACADEMIC CIRCLES, & THE IDEOLOGICALLY-DRIVEN
RADICAL ENVIRONMENTALISTS: RELIANCE THAT COULD RESULT IN HORRENDOUS POLICY DECISIONS FOR DEVELOPING
AS WELL AS DEVELOPED COUNTRIES
FULL STORY:
In ancient times, priestesses at the Oracle at Delphi often answered important political questions with enigmatic predictions derived
from dreams, signs, casting lots, or reading animal entrails. Today, in the realm of climate change, that function is served by scientific
priests and priestesses who offer forecasts of dubious value, derived from computer models.
Investing in the stock market, like planning next Summer’s vacation, is a dicey proposition. But, if someone offered to eliminate the
uncertainty – by using computer models to pick surefire investments and perfect weather windows at idyllic resorts – few would jump
at the chance.
Most people know complex markets and weather defy such predictions. Computers certainly help understand and analyze these
systems; they can even forecast trends, if they’ve been tested against actual data. However, even predicting tomorrow’s IBM closing
price or hurricane path is iffy, and attempts to do so months or years in advance are meaningless.
Thus the rapt attention that certain academics, journalists and policymakers give to climate models is truly astounding.
The latest example comes from Columbia University, where the Earth Institute (EI) asserts that its new “Climate Change Information
Portal” will enable people to assess, avoid, and adapt to “the problems that climate change and variability can cause” – and can even
do so years into the future for regions as small as the tri-state New York metropolitan area. The Institute begins by assuming that
human-induced global warming of alarming proportions is a fact. It then offers computer-driven guidance as to how we should
respond.
Several computer models have presented “scenarios” of what might happen if temperatures really do increase 5 or 10 degrees in 100
years. These dire projections garner extensive coverage. However, the models fail miserably when tested against actual data, and
there is simply no evidence to support theories of catastrophic climate change.
Indeed, satellite and weather balloon measurements have found little or no warming over the past 25 years, and other climate models
project only modest warming – a degree or two over the next century. Such warming would be mostly beneficial, by bringing us longer
growing seasons and lower heating bills. This kind of change people and planet can readily adapt to.
World-class geologists and climatologists emphasize that Planet Earth has been buffeted by numerous natural climate shifts for
millions of years. The shifts often come in 50, 500 and 1,500-year cycles, they say.
For instance, our Earth went through a 500-year Little Ice Age – then warmed about a degree since that era ended around 1850. Nearly
half of this warming occurred before 1940 – long before carbon dioxide began building up in the atmosphere. Other past climate swings
also show there is little cause for alarm.
Wild weather whipsawed Detroit awhile back, according to news accounts. Six snowstorms hit during April of '68, frosts in mid-August
of '69, ice in mid-May and a 98-degree heat wave in June of '74, and ice-free lakes in January of '77 and '79. But that was 1868 to 1879!
New England saw average annual temperatures increase by about 2.5 degrees F over a half century. But that was 1904-1954.
Arctic temperature increases between 1971 and 2003 might spell trouble if they continued, even though the rise was below what
computer models had predicted: 1.4 degrees F per half century. However, between 1938 and 1966 average annual Arctic temperatures
fell 6 degrees F. Had that trend continued, temperatures would have plummeted 10.7 degrees F in 50 years!
Moreover, the CO2 that is supposedly causing “catastrophic” warming represents only 0.00035 of all the gases in the atmosphere (1.25
inches out of a 100-yard football field), and proposals to control this vital plant nutrient ignore a far more critical greenhouse gas: water
vapor.
There are at least three reasons the debate has nonetheless focused on carbon dioxide – though some are now talking about dandruff
as a possible source of global warming!
CO2 is easy to measure, villainize, and regulate. It would be extremely difficult to sequester water vapor, without draining the Great
Lakes and turning the planet into a vast Sahara Desert. And water vapor doesn’t come out of tailpipes, smokestacks, and chimneys. It
isn’t an unwanted bastard child of the hated fossil fuel industries that radical Greens want to relegate to the ash heap of history.
Certainly, human pollution and land use activities can and do affect climate. But, overall, that influence is minor, except sometimes
locally. So we should resist calls for immediate drastic action, especially the kind that would take a wrecking ball to our economy.
Natural climate change will always be with us – driven by variations in the sun’s energy output and other factors over which we have
no control. For this reason, and because huge countries like China and Brazil would not be bound by their restrictions, proposals like
the Kyoto Protocol would have almost no effect on future temperatures. Even treaty proponents admit that, at best, the treaty might
lower the Earth’s temperature by 0.1 degrees over the next half century.
That’s why hardcore eco-activists now insist on a series of treaties, each one more restrictive – and more destructive – than the last.
Ultimately, they would force signatory nations to slash their fossil fuel use and air emissions by up to 80% over the next 50 years. But
even this wouldn’t stop Mother Nature.
However, it would devastate our economy, and Europe’s. Manufacturing jobs would head to countries that are not governed by the
treaties. Prices for gasoline, heating, air conditioning, food, and consumer goods would skyrocket – hurting our poor most of all. And
government tax revenues would fall precipitously, even as demand for welfare and unemployment benefits soars.
A far better alternative is to continue improving fuel efficiency and pollution control. This would conserve resources, improve people’s
health, and reduce potential impacts on our climate.
As poor countries adopt these technologies, their reliance on wood and animal dung would decline – protecting habitats and reducing
pollution. They would also expand their economies, ensuring greater opportunity for their people and improved health, transportation,
and early warning systems that would help them avert or minimize the damage and death toll from natural disasters.
Meanwhile, we can also continue funding climate research by alarmists, skeptics, and fence-sitters alike. At the very least, we may learn
much more about what to expect from the next natural climate cycle – and how to adapt to the changes it will bring.
Those scary dinosaurs in “Jurassic Park” sure did look real. So do the frightening scenarios conjured up by outliers in the computer
modeling and climate change catastrophe industries. The challenge is separating fact from probability, possibility, and agenda-driven
fantasy.
© 2005 Paul K. Driessen
LINKS TO RELATED TOPICS:
Policy Issues Relating to Energy, Environment,
& Natural Resources
Paul K. Driessen is Senior Policy Advisor for the Congress of Racial Equality, the Committee for A Constructive Tomorrow, and the
Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise. Driessen is author of Eco-Imperialism: Green Power, Black Death, which can be
obtained at www.Eco-Imperialism.com. Email: pdriessen@cox.net --- Telephone:
(703) 698-6171
Return to Top of Page
Go to the WEBSITE INDEX
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA,
Public Issues & Political Controversies
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA
Most Recent Articles
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA,
Volume VII, 2005
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA,
Subject Matter Highlights
Return to POLITICAL EDUCATION Homepage
CONTACT & ACCESS INFORMATION
This is not a commercial website. The sole purpose of the website is to share with interested persons information regarding civics,
civic and social education, political science, government, politics, law, constitutional law and history, public policy, and political
philosophy and history, as well as current and recent political developments, public issues, and political controversies.
POLITICAL EDUCATION, CONSERVATIVE ANALYSIS
POLITICS, SOCIETY, & THE SOVEREIGN STATE
Website of Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr.
Government, Politics, Public Policy, Legal Issues, Constitutional Law, Government & the Economy, Cultural Values, Foreign Affairs,
International Relations, Military Defense & National Security, Geopolitics, Terrorism & Homeland Security, American National Interests,
Political Systems & Processes, Political Institutions, Political Ideologies, & Political Philosophy
INDEX FOR THE ENTIRE WEBSITE
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
W
X
Y
Z
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA
An Online Journal of Political Commentary & Analysis
Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr., Editor
Conservative & Free-Market Analysis of Government, Politics & Public Policy, Covering Political, Legal, Constitutional, Economic,
Cultural, Military, International, Strategic, & Geopolitical Issues