Apocalypse Canceled: Proponents Now Say There Is No Evidence

In a stunning reversal of what many presumed to be the “consensus,” the most prominent of Global Warming proponents who are scientists now say that the scientific literature does not support the popular belief that the Earth is headed for Armageddon if we do not repent our sins and stop buying Exxon gasoline. That moves the scientific side of the Global Warming debate much closer to what skeptics have said all along: there is no scientific support for the notion that we are destroying the Earth with man-made carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide is beneficial.

Warmers have certainly not given up their claim that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will cause noticeable warming, but their continuing dispute with skeptics centers around “How Much?” Skeptics maintain that there will be little or no observable warming, while “alarmists” (if we can still call them that) now see significant but not catastrophic warming.

Writing in The New Criterion, MIT Professor of Meteorology Richard Lindzen quotes a number of famous climate alarmists including the founding director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research at the University of East Anglia, Mike Hulme. Hulme said: “To state that climate change will be ‘catastrophic’ hides a cascade of value-laden assumptions which do not emerge from empirical or theoretical science.”

In an interview conducted by John Humphrys of BBC4 television in 2012, well-known alarmist Ralph Cicerone, President of the US National Academy of Sciences, revealed his split with extremists:

John Humphrys: You don’t sound, if I can use this word, apocalyptic. I mean, you’re not saying “If we don’t do these things, we’re going to hell in a hand-basket, we’re going to fry, in a few years.”

Ralph Cicerone: Well there are people who are saying those things, John. Humphrys: But not you.

Ralph Cicerone: No, I don’t think it’s useful, I don’t think it gets us anywhere, and we don’t have that kind of evidence.

Perhaps most remarkable, Gavin Schmidt, who replaced James Hansen at the Goddard Institute of Space Studies and is especially known for his climate advocacy said: “General statements about extremes are almost nowhere to be found in the literature but seem to abound in the popular media….It’s this popular perception that global warming means all extremes have to increase all the time, even though if anyone thinks about that for ten seconds they realize that’s nonsense.”

All of this stands in stark contrast to President Obama’s statement made in 2008 and frequently repeated since then: “Few challenges facing America and the world are more urgent than fighting climate change. The science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear.” He has many fellow travelers, from Al Gore and John Kerry, to Pope Francis and French President Hollande, to Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton.

Secretary of State Kerry seems to speak for the political class when he says: “First and foremost, we should not allow a tiny minority of shoddy scientists and science and extreme ideologues to compete with scientific fact. This is not opinion. This is about facts. This is about science. The science is unequivocal. And those who refuse to believe it are simply burying their heads in the sand. President Obama and I believe very deeply that we do not have time for a meeting anywhere of the Flat Earth Society.”

With prominent scientists now converging on a defensible conclusion and disowning the radicals who still promote “unprecedented” disasters of all kinds, perhaps Kerry will have to finally consider some of the science he tellingly condemns as “ideology.” The ‘debate’ that the political class sees as completely one sided and ‘settled’ in their favor has dramatically split into three camps, leaving them isolated on the fanatical side, devoid of the scientific support they claim.

Meanwhile, scientists debate the issue of ‘significant versus insignificant’ global warming. Alarmist scientists generally claim that the Earth will warm two or three degrees Celsius for a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide, while skeptics see one degree or less. Since atmospheric CO2 is rising at about 2 ppmv per year, it will take about 200 years to double. This assumes that we recover the roughly 1,600 Gt of fossil carbon necessary to do so. Some estimates of in-ground fossil fuel do not run that high. And should our climate cool in concert with the substantial decrease in solar activity so far this century and the demise of this inter-glacial period we call the Holocene Climate Optimum, we may never see any of the theoretical warming from CO2. We certainly have not so far.

Beyond the warming issue, are there other effects of rising atmospheric carbon dioxide that we should consider? YES, and they are very positive. Carbon dioxide is responsible for life on this planet, and at present levels, near the minimum to sustain life, NOT near the maximum. Recent increases have already contributed to a greening of the planet and allowed us to feed the seven billion people who call this place home. Fifty years ago, we were wondering how we would feed everyone. Now we know: hybridized crops and enhanced atmospheric CO2.

Of course, even the little net warming observed since the Great Pacific Climate Shift of 1977, has helped crops too. In large areas of Canada where a change of one degree Celsius can mean the difference between a good crop and none at all, warming is a godsend.

John Kerry might go stark raving mad, if he knew that Professor Lindzen is even challenging the concept that greenhouse warming is important to climate change. Most of us (including Lindzen) have supported the basic tenets of modern climate science that greenhouse gases (water vapor and CO2) play a significant role in climate change. Now Lindzen is pointing out that past climate changes into and out of ice ages were primarily characterized by dramatic warming or cooling in the polar regions, with little change at the equator. This suggests that the important mechanisms are orbital changes (Milankovitch Cycles) and solar changes, accompanied by changes in ocean and atmospheric circulation.

For instance, slowing down of the Gulf Stream in the Atlantic Ocean would keep some equatorial warmth from reaching Western Europe. Similarly, shutting home heating vents to outlying rooms will allow some rooms to cool considerably in the winter, even if the thermostat for the core of the house remains at 72 F.

Science is always infinitely more challenging and interesting than those with only political credentials believe. It is heartening that ‘alarmist’ scientists who have enjoyed a ten-fold increase in their funding as a result of the climate scare are finally willing to say a few things that clearly separate them from the vast amount of what Gavin Schmidt calls “nonsense.”

Gordon J. Fulks lives in Corbett and can be reached atgordonfidks@hotmail.com. He holds a doctorate in physics from the University of Chicago’s Laboratory for.Astrophysics and Space Research and has no conflicts of interest on this subject.

(Unless otherwise noted, the opinions expressed are the author’s and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Northwest Connection.)