No climate change but yes for a different clean energy bill

June 26, 9:21 PMBaltimore Weather ExaminerTony Pann

Previous Next

13 comments Print Email RSS Subscribe

Subscribe

Get alerts when there is a new article from the Baltimore Weather Examiner. Read Examiner.com's terms of use.

Email Address   Include other special offers from Examiner.com Terms of Use

From Joanne Nova: The Skeptic's Handbook

The vote on the Climate Change Bill, otherwise known as House Resolution 2454, has been rushed through so fast in order to pull the wool over our eyes.  The debate is not over and the science is not settled...not by a long shot!  There is no doubt that the increasing population and extent of technology requires more efficient, cleaner energy.  But politics is replacing, not embracing, science on this issue.  Is cap and trade the answer?  Is a war on carbon dioxide the answer? Keep reading to see just some of the flaws in this approach.

First, Climate Change and Global Warming are buzz terms that are still quite subjective.  While we have been overwhelmed by the media coverage of Al Gore and the IPCC report, there is a lot lost in the translation.  Recovering sea ice has been under reported...I could write a book on it, and many people have.  However, for the purpose of this story, I want to be more fair than Congressional leaders.  I want you to read this, with plenty of time to spare.

The Skeptic's Handbook

A skeptic is a person who will not subject himself to popularity or authority in order to accept the truth of opinion.  I have always followed the motto that proof of warming is not proof that greenhouse gasses caused it.  Joanne Nova recently put together, "The Skeptic's Handbook", with four distinct points to support this argument.  She was an advocate for greenhouse gas reduction from 1990 until 2007. Who better than a recent convert to the skeptic side to make these points below? (Supporting images can be found in the slide show below.)

 1. The Greenhouse signature is missing.

The computer modeling just doesn't fit what was expected and what has occurred - not whether or not it's warmer, but that other levels of the atmosphere are much cooler than expected.  Check out the first two images in the slide show.  The science on this is still young, and we don't know everything.  Mistakes have been made in expectation of warming.

2. The strongest evidence was the ice cores, but newer, more detailed data turned the theory inside out.

Look at the charts of the Vostok Ice Cores from 150,000 years ago.  The CO2 from the atmosphere is measured in trapped air bubbles.  It turns out that the temperature increased about 800 years before CO2 increased.  Think of how a warm bottle of soda will explode when you open it.  The oceans give off more trapped CO2 when they warm.  El Nino events can do the same thing. 

If you look at the charts more closely, I have identified times when CO2 went up but temperature went down.  Some other force must have been involved in climate change and may very well be governing it today.

3. Temperature is not rising.

The year 1998 was the second warmest on record.  In fact, 1934 still ranks as the hottest (in the US.  Global records are not reliable that far back). High temperatures must have been due to factors other than rising CO2 since 64 years span between the two warmest years with many cool spells. The chart of temperature and CO2 in recent years shows that since 2001, both satellite and surface data do not indicate warming.  In fact, since 2003, temperatures have actually gotten cooler on average.

There is also a flaw among the reporting stations.  Many NOAA weather stations do not comply with their own standards.  The well- know phenomenon of the urban heat island does much more than keep the cities warmer at night.  The same conditions of concrete, asphalt, and brick buildings that hold in heat are too close to these weather stations. In some cases, official weather stations have been moved next to exhaust fans of buildings.  That hardly seems accurate and legitimate when they should be in open fields, away from tall objects and raised six feet off the ground!

4. Carbon Dioxide is already doing almost all of the warming it can do.

 The influence of CO2 has peaked out.  Adding more will not necessarily produce more heat.  It's like adding too much sugar to your coffee. At some point, the sugar will just collect on the bottom.  The sweetness has been maxed out.  It should also be noted that CO2 is found in soda, and it makes up the gas we exhale.  Will these sources be subject to cap and trade?  That is a fiscally conservative question, but it does apply for all.  The war declared on carbon dioxide does not have the best science to support it.  Perhaps war should be declared on methane.  It has 20 times the capacity to absorb heat per molecule; therefore, taxing flatulence seems much more appropriate.  It could be linked in with a smoking tax and considered second hand smoke.

Clean Energy vs. Cap and Trade

When the Heritage Foundation did its analysis of Waxman-Markey, it broadly compared the economy with and without the carbon tax. Under this more comprehensive scenario, it found Waxman-Markey would cost the economy $161 billion by the year 2020, which is $1,870 for a family of four. As the bill's restrictions kick in, that number rises to $6,800 for a family of four by 2035

I support clean energy.  I support solar panels that are more efficient than those that are on the market today.  I support off-shore wind turbines, but these are opposed by NIMBY activists on many coastal areas.  There is no clear plan to make a transition to alternative energy.  Look how corn for ethanol turned out.  It's better that we figure out a proper way to progress rather than make a rushed judgment on poorly explained science.