RSS
The Man-Made Myth
By Matt Cook and Dakin Sloss — November 6, 2009 — Opinion — Volume XLIII, Issue 4
Figure 1 (http://web.me.com/uriarte/Earths_Climate/Role_of_greenhouse_gases_files/co2_ch4_ciclos_glaciales.jpg)
Every week, a new green initiative arrives at Stanford, from “meatless Mondays” to compact fluorescent light bulbs to Stanford commute club—all of which assume our normal activities damage the environment. Concerns about climate change as a consequence of human activity are particularly relevant now. People who challenge the global warming coalition face ridicule as ‘climate skeptics.’ But is the alleged science behind this issue so clear?
The linchpin of the argument behind anthropogenic climate change—the idea of man-made global warming—is the relationship between carbon dioxide levels and temperature. Typical climate history accounts depict global temperature averages vs. atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration over the last 600,000 years. The two variables appear perfectly correlated. Naturally, we conclude that changes in carbon dioxide drive temperature changes, as Al Gore indicated in An Inconvenient Truth.
But, wait . . . how do we know whether changes in carbon dioxide concentration affect temperature averages, or the reverse? Without further analysis, we don’t.
To address this issue, climate scientists have repeatedly studied periods over which carbon dioxide and temperature dramatically shift—namely, the beginnings and endings of Ice Ages. They have discovered global temperature increases eight hundred years before carbon dioxide concentrations rise, and temperature decreases eight hundred years before carbon dioxide concentrations fall. See papers from any of the following authors to investigate this claim: Petit (1999), Fischer (1999), Indermuhle (2000), Monnin (2001), Yokoyama (2000).
Figure 1 models the correlation between CO2 concentration and global temperature, as typically seen on a 600,000 year scale. Figure 2 represents a similar comparison but is a more useful depiction for understanding causal relationships, as it focuses in on a narrower time scale to portray the repeated lags between temperature changes and CO2 concentration changes.
Believers in man-made climate change tend to provide the 600,000 year diagram but rarely offer the same graph under a smaller time scale. Their portrayal distorts the relationship between temperature and CO2 concentration, hiding evidence to support the reverse conclusion: temperature trends drive CO2 levels. Reported accurately, the data invalidates anthropogenic climate change theory.
In addition to relying on the historical correlation of CO2 concentration and temperature, climate scientists frequently cite computer models as evidence for the causal role of carbon dioxide in the warming trend. The problem with this approach lies in the imprecise nature of climate models. Such models have multiple free parameters which researchers can adjust to skew predictions toward a desired result. It’s possible to aggressively tweak inputs to amplify the role of CO2 in temperature trends.
Models attributing CO2 levels to climate change have yielded miserable predictions over the last two decades, significantly overestimating warming effects. Furthermore, these models contradict solid evidence over the past 600,000 years, particularly most relevant studies of starts and ends of glacial periods. By contrast, models that do not emphasize carbon’s role in driving temperature change agree with historical data and predict warming trends as effectively or better.
Furthermore, when examining temperature change, we must ask: Compared to what? Global warming believers often cite temperature changes from the last 200–1,000 years to the present. But most any time within these centuries represents an abnormally low starting point with respect to the preceding millennia. The period from around 1200–1850 has been called the “Little Ice Age.” Our global temperature increase of about .7ºC in the last 150 years is positioned to overstate carbon effects without controlling for a “normal” starting point. On this topic, NASA Senior Research Scientist Leonard Weinstein’s 2009 article debunking the concept of CO2 feedback is particularly enlightening.
Another myth in the “science” of climate change is the claimed consensus. In response to the International Panel on Climate Control’s report (which was initiated and backed by the United Nations), independent scientists on the Non-Governmental International Panel on Climate Change created a comprehensive reply examining the errors in the IPCC’s report. This reply is called Climate Change Reconsidered, a document which garnered signatures from 31,478 American scientists supporting the statement: “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” There is not a consensus.
What does this mean for students? Any practice intended to reduce hydrocarbon fuel burning is a futile inconvenience. Email and poster bombardments encouraging students to live sustainably (with the goal of cutting CO2 emissions) are based on flawed reasoning. Stanford students are smart. They would never hassle themselves unnecessarily. Those who do change daily habits to cut carbon emissions merely subscribe to, and often propagate, popular faith.
We have grown up in a society in which the myth of man-made global warming is so thoroughly pervasive, doubt is heretical. But science proves human carbon dioxide emissions are not responsible for global warming. Understanding this fact, it is preposterous for us students to alter our lifestyles or sacrifice the wonderful benefits of technologies that rely on fossil fuels.
Tweet This
Digg This
Save to delicious
Stumble it
RSS Feed
49 Comments
There are some flaws in this article. You talk a lot about the correlations between CO2 and temperature. It is true that temperature rise has preceded CO2 rise in the past, but it is also true that the trend seems to be changing. There had never been so much ANTHROPOGENIC CO2 in the atmosphere as there is now. In other words, there is no way that temperature increase could be the cause of the CO2 increase, because the CO2 is not natural. There are graphs depicting how much the temperature should be changing in correlation with natural CO2, and it is not as drastic as what we are experiencing.
Climate change models are actually very accurate nowadays. They give good estimates of temperature rise y looking at past temperature changes and taking into account anthropogenic CO2. You cannot really say that current models overestimate climate change. Where is your proof?
CO2 in the environment is amplifying global warming. Like other greenhouse gases, it traps the sun’s heat in the atmosphere. Temperature rise, on the other hand, also amplifies CO2. In some cases, like in the oceans, global warming is causing less CO2 to be trapped in the ocean and more to be released back into the atmosphere which then contributes to trapping more heat. (CO2 release back into the atmosphere means there is less available for plant use underwater… as a side note.) If you’re concerned about how life on this planet will be altered if CO2 levels increase, then you’d be paying closer attention to the green initiatives.
I enjoyed this read a lot. It’s nice to hear from the perspective that global warming ISN’T going to be a world-ending catastrophe.
That being said, fossil fuels are still an inherently inferior fuel source of the future. Don’t get me wrong, its extremely cheap, but it WILL run out and the combustion engine has shitty efficiency – Electric engines/fuel cells, whatever are far superior in the long run.
It would be incredibly foolish to squelch any sort of movement to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and move towards technologies of the future.
Finally, why not be CO2 conscious for health’s sake? Eating beef, or meat in general is far less energy dependent than going veggie, and its also better for you. Any kind of reckless consumption that america is so well known for probably has a lot to do with our obesity and consumer whoring.
Just some thoughts.
Matt & Dakin,
You guys might want to check out the EPA’s Climate Change for Kids site, which has some basic information that clearly explains how carbon dioxide emissions contribute to increases in global temperatures:
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/kids/index.html
Cheers,
John
Like pretty much all of the pseudo-scientific arguments against anthropogenic climate change, this one has been heard, tested, and discarded time and time again. The simple reason for rejecting your claim here is that warming and higher CO2 concentrations cause one another. It’s called a feedback cycle, and feedback cycles are quite common in climate science. For example, warmer temperatures cause the oceans to release CO2. In turn, the CO2 enters the atmosphere and traps heat, warming the planet further. That means more CO2 and higher temperatures. It’s crucial that we reduce emissions to stop these sorts of feedback cycles.
I don’t always agree with articles in the Review, but even when I don’t, I find that they’re usually well-informed and represent a valid point of view. If the Review hopes to maintain any sort of relevance, please, please, please at least do a LITTLE research before publishing an article on a subject in which you clearly have little expertise.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm
http://tle.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/reprint/28/8/914.pdf
These are interesting points in the article, but the comments above seem to probably invalidate them…
The climate question aside, I often wonder what the importance of the claim that “man isn’t warming the planet up” amounts to. Even if human activities are not the root cause of the increasing temperature, perhaps a reduction of human-made emissions can curb (or at least not exacerbate) the problem. Also, the global warming issue aside, there are still obvious other health problems associated with pollution, such as ozone depletion, increased cancer rates, etc.
The question about climate change is tricky, but the constant raving about infringements to our liberty is childish. If our actions are in fact causing other people harm, we should take responsibility for them. I have a hard time taking these arguments seriously because they seem to genuinely believe that even IF we were causing environmental problems that hurt other people, it would not be our responsibility to deal with them since everything is subordinate to our ability to do whatever we want to.
“Any practice intended to reduce hydrocarbon fuel burning is a futile inconvenience. Email and poster bombardments encouraging students to live sustainably (with the goal of cutting CO2 emissions) are based on flawed reasoning. Stanford students are smart. They would never hassle themselves unnecessarily.”
I find it troubling that you think that the ideal life for a student is a life free of such hassles. Living in college is about taking on new beliefs and habits that better your understanding of the world and your attitude towards the world’s people and resources. Stanford in particular places strong emphasis on exposing people to different cultures and lifestyles through ResEd programs and the freshman roommate policy. Like most of these situations, students don’t see working towards green initiatives as a “hassle”, they see it as a way to acknowledge the consequences of their habits and to realize their ability to create change in their lives and others.
The commonly-heard excuse that there is no scientific consensus that global warming is anthropogenic overlooks several key facts. First, no scientist should ever be sure of a conclusion, which is a fundamental aspect of a scientific worldview. Second, saying that 35,000 scientists uses a number to overlook the fact that the overwhelming majority of U.S. scientific communities endorse the general findings of the IPCC report, not the conclusions drawn by the Heritage Foundation-sponsored NIPCC report. Furthermore, your argument relies heavily upon the idea that there is no scientific consensus, and that therefore climate change is not anthropogenic. Not only does this sloppy logic leap to an unsupported conclusion, but it ignores any subtlety in the scientific discourse, writing off disagreements over models and probabilities as broad controversy.
Since you spammed my email list with a condescending note, I’ll respond in kind: I suggest that you examine whether you refuse to “alter your lifestyles” because of a selfish and dangerous lack of responsibility for the diffuse consequences of your actions or whether you have legitimately examined the issues surrounding global warming with an open mind.
(infinite consequences) * (finite probability) is still an infinite risk.
Dear Drs. (if I may) Cook and Sloss,
Not only is this report rife with logical fallacies instead of
science, but it is inappropriate carpet spam.
Please remove me from this list. And don’t send such opinionated
emails to people who do not subscribe to your list in the future.
We’ve already read some of your messages this summer, and they’re
quite annoying and poorly argued.
Perhaps try taking a few chemistry classes. If those are too
advanced, EARTHSYS 10 may be a good bet if you want to learn the
basics of how certain gasses interact with different frequencies of
radiation.
Good luck with you studies,
Eric
Glad to find that the comments are more solid than the review itself…
I have no time to research, yet I do look up the Monnin 2001 et al. Science report, where Fig. 2 is from. Two points: 1. their estimation of the “lagging” is 800+-600 years, which is not as impressive as a neat 800; 2. they got their estimation by taking “crossing points of linear fits”, but deciding the number of segments for linear fits is more or less subjective.
Even if the “lagging” in ice age is proved true with later findings, I second Isabella’s point that this can not argue against the effect of man-made CO2 on global warming. And thanks Chris, for your comment on the “liberty” issue.
This article should rather be entitled – “A Conspiracy Theory Against Modern Science”.
You simply cannot argue science against values. You try to back your values with a pissing contest in the form of a number of signatures, but this only aides to belittle your arguments validity on scientific merit. The fact remains that science in any form relies on peer review and evolution of the refinement of results over time. No one piece of work will ever state a consensus. What you see in the community is recognition for the most apt work completed in any given field. The IPCC has produced multiple reviews over their lifespan. As the science got better, the confirmation the climate change was indeed anthropogenic grew. Climate change has not come out of left field with computer model wizardry and the silencing of the naysayers; it has always been there, only now we have much more information than before – and tomorrow even more. If you don’t believe in the process of science, that is fine. However, this inherently means you cannot contribute to a scientific argument.
In the interest of informed and open debate (since I hate to see one side be railed on without having a chance to defend itself) I think we should open the floor once more to the authors to rebuke the claims made in response their article. Otherwise we risk stifling the academic thought process through the liberal whitewashing this publication so often warns us about.
However, I would like to point out a compelling argument I once heard. If there was a small (say <10%) chance of our actions submerging entire metropolitan cities and thusly massively disrupting our GDP, would it still not be more economically prudent to "insure" ourselves against this outcome by taking steps now and investing in alternative technologies? Do you really expect your house to burn down or be hit by an earthquake when you buy disaster insurance?
Screw you guys for spamming my account with this drivel.
It’s the same stuff that you’d expect from any “Objectivist.” You can never get away from them telling you how brilliant they think they are despite the fact that they are entirely uneducated. Reading a few books by Rand or Peikoff does not make you an expert on philosophy, and the same problem reveals itself here: reading a few articles online that claim doesn’t make you an expert on chemistry or climatology. I was pretty amused when Dakin told everyone at the Healthcare debate that Rand’s ideas are “incredibly difficult” and too difficult to discuss with them. Instead he just make vacuous comparisons between any form of taxation and slavery. I will repeat the same suggestion another commenter made: Spend some time doing some real learning and take some chemistry classes before you get up in front of people who are actually educated and make claims like this. Making ignorant scientific claims to students at one of the leading research institutions in the world makes you look as ridiculous as your claims about philosophy.
“But science proves human carbon dioxide emissions are not responsible for global warming.” (last paragraph)
“There is not a consensus.” (paragraph about consensus)
I’m guessing this was written to get your name out to conservative think tanks.
Anyway, for true science, check this out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eScDfYzMEEw
Bravo sirs. I’m so tired of this religious, “don’t bother me with the facts” approach towards global warming. Its a delicious con cashed in on every day by companies profiteering on people’s fickle fads. Y2k, pet rocks, global warming lol…the list goes on. Except, that subscription to and subsequent actions taken to combat this mythical human-caused global warming can seriously harm the human race by limiting our energy sources, banning helpful chemicals, spending vast amounts on our money on useless “preventions” and generally inconveniencing our day to day lives.
I’m gonna enjoy living out my days the way I want to, the way I know won’t harm any one else because of my carbon output or some other crazy notion.
I find the whole thing arrogant, both in the proposal that we are to blame, and the proposal that we can arbitrarily reverse it. Imagine that.
I appreciate the discussion that has arisen from this post and hope responses will continue to bring to light legitimate evidence on either side of the global warming debate. However, this article severely misrepresents the overwhelming scientific consensus surrounding global warming and the link between CO2/GHG atmospheric concentration levels. The 2001 Monnin et al paper is certainty not conclusive evidence against a causation between CO2 and temperature, but instead simply examined the Southern Ocean’s level of CO2 regulation. From the Monnin paper: “Considering the uncertainties of the gas-ice age difference of 200 to 550 years, this lag is not significant and can also be a consequence of an overestimated gas-ice age difference”.
“Stanford students are smart. They would never hassle themselves unnecessarily. Those who do change daily habits to cut carbon emissions merely subscribe to, and often propagate, popular faith.”
Stanford students ARE smart. Changing our individual daily habits might not have much of a direct positive impact on our environment, but the authors of this paper cannot ignore the potential effects of GHG emissions. Energy consumption patterns WILL change through new technologies and efficiency gains (see link below).
I wholeheartedly endorse many objectivist theories and think the philosophy can provide valuable insight. Next time the authors want to send out a poorly-researched mass email, please do not send it out under the banner of the Stanford objectivist community. Ayn Rand may have supported pure laissez-faire capitalism, but her economic theories were shortsighted when dealing with externalities (like climate change from GHG emission) that could have very tangible economic effects.
Thanks
Economist
Monnin et al
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/291/5501/112
Energy efficiency report
http://www.mckinsey.com/mgi/publications/Curbing_Global_Energy/index.asp
Matt & Dakin,
I’m sorry to say this, but you may have just seriously damaged your careers by publishing an article that is so clearly ill-researched and aimed at sparking needless controversy on an issue of such great national and global importance.
I would think long and hard about what you’re trying to accomplish here, as well as the long-term implications for yourselves, and consider requesting a retraction of this article from the website.
William
I encourage you guys to check out some information on the Scientists that were the driving force behind the book “Climate Change Reconsidered.” Although S. Fred Singer and Craig Idso do appear to have legitimate scientific backgrounds, their scientific careers seem to have strayed into ones funded by the tobacco industries and Exxon Mobile.
Here are some sources to give you some alternate perspectives on these two and their views and scientific rigor:
I am aware that these sources do have their own agendas that they are trying to prove, but it is important to look up the context and background from where source information is gleaned.
Profiles of S. Fred Singer-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Singer
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=S._Fred_Singer
http://www.desmogblog.com/s-fred-singer
Some controversies about his misuse and non-factual reporting of information-
http://www.desmogblog.com/no-apology-is-owed-dr-s-fred-singer-and-none-will-be-forthcoming
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/GlobalWarming/Story?id=4506059&page=2
Craig Idso’s methods that twist other scientists’ results-
http://thingsbreak.wordpress.com/2009/06/03/reliable-sources-climate-realists-craig-idso-ocean-acidification-edition/
Please stop embarrassing your fellow conservatives. It IS a scientific consensus, and if you bothered to read counterarguments to stupidly simple questions dating back to the 70s, you would realize it.
realclimate.org is a decent place to start.
I swear, Stanford, we’re not all idiots.
If you guys still want to spare any reputability and credibility you had before as journalists and scholars, the best you can do is say this was merely satire. Just do it. Satire.
We all make mistakes. RIP.
I am interested in where you are coming from in making such bold statements. Is it possible prospering nations are prospering because we have found a successful way of creating imbalances (not just with other nations but for example, mining, taking elements out of the earth that natural and geological cycles have put in there)?
I also cringe at the thought that you decided to send out a mass email highlighting only negative aspects of a worldwide agreement.
You cannot believe that many anthropogenic behaviors we practice disrupt natural cycles! What would the world look like without trees? This is an exaggerated but SERIOUS question. In most developing nations, the choice comes down to “What can I make most money off of?” And usually, land owners find the answer in land use changes, whether that means agriculture, pasture land or development (all entail deforestation). With less trees come less rain and more susceptibility to disease starting a positive feedback loop that ultimately leads to more deforestation.
Please Please do more research (maybe not so political this time, how about scientific) before sending such a far reaching email.
Hi everyone. One of the authors is here. I will respond to scientific comments only, but first I want to make a few broad points about the ad hominem attacks above. I am a physics major and I do know chemistry (which is important to the evidence we present in the article because of outgassing theory that explains the lag we note). We are aware of the scientific responses that have been made to our points previously, but after researching and evaluating the evidence, we believe that we are presenting the most sensible interpretation of the available data. Now I will show the problems with the scientific claims above.
The biggest and best response on the other side is the notion of feedback. A typical argument would state: sure, the sun controls when warming and cooling cycles begin (via Milankovitch cycles), then as the temperature rises carbon dioxide begins to come out of the oceans (this is outgassing theory based on the chemical fact that solubility of gases in water changes with changing temperature). Then the environmentalist scientist makes his mistake: as C02 concentrations increase the greenhouse effect takes over causing the temperature to rise, which in turn causes more C02 to come out in a positive feedback loop.
The problem with this line of reasoning is that we all know what happens with a positive feedback loop. First off, the growth becomes exponential instead of linear. But if you look at the figure above, neither temperature nor C02 changes in an exponential fashion, but rather in a linear fashion. It is not possible to explain this with bidirectional causation (both variables affecting each other) unless one tends to decrease the other. If both variables lead to the other rising then the resulting trend cannot be linear, but must be exponential to some extent (without introducing a wide variety of confusing and nonsensical artifacts).
The second problem with a feedback theory is how does feedback stop? Why do carbon dioxide and temperature stop rising and also why does this stop follow time cycles that are explainable according to solar Milankovitch cycles? No one has a good answer on the environmentalist side to the second one (why there is a coincidence between the stop of feedback and solar cycles), but there is an answer on the first question (why it stops feeding back). They claim that C02 sources run out (it stops coming out of the ocean). This makes no sense because we know how much C02 is stored in the oceans and how much can leave the oceans, which is much greater than the amount in the atmosphere when outgassing ceases and the temperature stops rising. In general, the responses to the time lag outgassing theory using feedback explanations fail and exhibit a strong willingness to rationalize and attempt to defend greenhouse models. The evidence simply does not support this route of scientific explanation.
This article is not satire and I will not retract the science that I present. It is science that anyone who works in the field knows exists and the best they can possibly do is attempt to show how big corporations funded the research. Note that this does not invalidate the data which any serious scientist must examine and eventually accept what it means (claims about anthropogenic warming are dead-at least as science instead of blind hysteria). For further independent studies that have validated this data see the following: http://www.abd.org.uk/co2_cause_or_effect.htm. You can then google any of those studies for more research on this specific issue.
The last thing I want to say is about a great point brought up. What if we are not causing it? Can’t we still do something to stop temperature increases by decreasing carbon emissions? Well if you accept the obvious evidence we have shown you and that you can collect by continuing the same research on the web that we did, you understand that C02 concentrations have historically never driven temperature. Therefore, changing C02 now will not affect temperature. Understanding this, our best bet is not to try to change C02, but rather to try and understand why temperature is increasing and be prepared for the effects of that.
On that note, the effects are nowhere near as disastrous as portrayed. For example, the potential rise in sea level of one foot would be devastating if it happened tomorrow, but if it happens over the next 100 years (which is the projection) then people have plenty of time to deal with it. We have repeatedly adjusted to shifts in climate throughout history and we can do it again. The key to our ability to adapt is our industrialization. We have at our disposal the power to resist a wide range of natural disasters and changes in climate, but crucial to that relatively new ability is industry and thus carbon emissions. Please if you are going to continue commenting on this article, attempt to make an objection using reason and science instead of announcing how you think the authors are idiots.
According to reason and science, you guys are idiots.
While I do disagree with your science, it is not that which I will refute here; it is your logic.
Even if anthropogenic global warming does not exist, surely one can see the logic of not wanting to burden our atmosphere with pollutants as much as we can. You say that “it is preposterous for us students to alter our lifestyles or sacrifice the wonderful benefits of technologies that rely on fossil fuels.” Well, it is preposterous for us not to alter our lifestyles. Global warming aside, human activity has poisoned our air (maybe not in Palo Alto, but have you ever been to Beijing? Cairo? Los Angeles?), killed countless species, destroyed nature (the Amazon rain forest is shrinking at a rate in the hundreds of thousands of acres per year), and done irreparable harm to all parts of our biosphere. Unless you want to breath smog for the rest of your lives, why wouldn’t you want to limit carbon emissions?
Also, from a completely non-environmental point, you assert that there is no reason to limit fossil fuels. I would expect Stanford students to be slightly more observant than that. We are RUNNING OUT!! And not only that, but fossil fuels currently prop up dangerous regimes in Venezuela, Iran, and Russia, and hinder our ability to act on issues like the Darfur genocide, oppression in Burma, and more. For the sake of democracy and human rights (as well as American and Western self-interest), oil and other fossil fuels are dangerous.
Even if you don’t believe in global warming, you should still try and protect our veery precious environment. And you should recognize that inevitable need to cut our addiction to fossil fuels. Any argument to the contrary spits in the face of a very clear and very urgent reality. The “inconveniences” you cite as reasons to not be environmentally conscious are the epitome of the attitude that has brought about environmental degradation.
wow. there’s too much to respond to here.
Great article you guys. Thank God there are students here who question the mass hysteria. For a school of such analytic and intellectual individuals, there seems to be a huge proportion of mindless lemmings out there.
Well researched, well written, and way more thought provoking than the mind-numbing, feel-good dining hall drivel vomited all over campus by the environmentalists.
William: “I would think long and hard about what you’re trying to accomplish here, as well as the long-term implications for yourselves, and consider requesting a retraction of this article from the website.”
Are you serious? A scientifically backed argument against a government sanctioned social frenzy is going to be damaging to these men’s futures? Stop hugging trees and find a better cause to push.
I agree with Scott that reducing pollution/smog is a great idea! But why package it as apocalyptic global warming? Its manipulation and misrepresentation. Too many people are complacent about this.
cheers matt and dakin
Poster and email bombardments on Stanford Objectivism are based on flawed reasoning as well.
This comment thread has become a bit of a complicated mess, but a few comments again:
I would be interested in hearing a possible response from someone who has studied climate science about Dakin’s reply. The fact that there the feedback loop doesn’t continue to escalate is interesting but I’m wondering if there aren’t other factors that can come in (such as a positive feedback so that when the temperature increases, something begins to absorb more CO2 to help take the levels down). All of this would have to be put into perspective with the fact that the current CO2 problem is not naturally released, as someone else pointed out. This is a complicated issue and I doubt that it will be resolved on the comments to this article before the many professional scientists get around to figuring it all out.
Which brings me to my main point/question: What is the primary goal of this article? Obviously it is important to “think for ourselves” and not blindly accept the “liberal” view that we are causing the temperature to increase. At the same time, very few of us are likely to be in a realistic position to analyze the problem. If we all had PhD’s in chemistry, climate science, and complex systems theory, then yes, we could get together and figure it out. Dakin’s reply sounds promising, but I am wondering why he did not mention it in the actual article to begin with if his intention was to offer a scientific analysis of the problem. If the article’s argument had been something along the lines of “Look, everyone is bombarding us with these claims that we’re causing the climate change when in fact there are scientific problems with our current explanation, let’s look into it more carefully,” then it would have been a great article. Did Matt or Dakin try to talk with a professor here about these issues? If you are genuinely concerned about jumping to the conclusion that we are the cause of climate change, then try emailing a professor with your questions (“Hi, I’m concerned about this issue, but what is the evidence that we *really* have? What about these problems with the model?”) That being said, this article disregards the other issues about pollution, air quality, and energy sustainability.
A lot of Stanford’s sustainability push is towards recognizing that there is a finite supply of fresh water and renewable energy, and that even if we have a “right” to use our money to squander resources (leaving lights on unnecessarily, etc.), it is not necessarily the right thing to do. That’s where the combination with the libertarian “apocalypticism” becomes an issue: It isn’t that much of an inconvenience to be asked to not use a tray if you don’t need one, carpool, turn off lights when you don’t need them, etc. By any account, the US wastes an enormous quantity of resources. Sending out an email under the Objectivist name with its libertarian connection (“They’re our resources, so we have a right to squander them!”) further invites complication into the scientific claims of the article.
In summary: The article is about way too many things in not enough detail (unresolved scientific claims in the original article, promotion of Rand’s philosophy, disregard for pollution in general, libertarian views towards the environment, etc.) If you’re concerned, try talking to a few professors and hear what they have to say, and then write a story to let us know what the problems are in the current theory.
Here is an idea. When you all graduate with your Stanford degree’s, ask that they be e-mailed to you or made by recycling words from newspaper articles so as to not waste a piece of paper or energy for the press to print it out. Better yet, stop living in cushy dorms and sleep under a rock. You can also cut down on how much CO2 you contribute to this atmosphere buy not exhaling. Just a few thoughts…
From http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html
“In addition to changes in energy from the sun itself, the Earth’s position and orientation relative to the sun (our orbit) also varies slightly, thereby bringing us closer and further away from the sun in predictable cycles (called Milankovitch cycles). Variations in these cycles are believed to be the cause of Earth’s ice-ages (glacials). Particularly important for the development of glacials is the radiation receipt at high northern latitudes. Diminishing radiation at these latitudes during the summer months would have enabled winter snow and ice cover to persist throughout the year, eventually leading to a permanent snow- or icepack. While Milankovitch cycles have tremendous value as a theory to explain ice-ages and long-term changes in the climate, they are unlikely to have very much impact on the decade-century timescale. Over several centuries, it may be possible to observe the effect of these orbital parameters, however for the prediction of climate change in the 21st century, these changes will be far less important than radiative forcing from greenhouse gases.”
Perhaps the data you cite is showing the long term cycles, but this does not show that greenhouse gas emissions by humans is not causing a more rapid than usual growth that could dramatically affect the environment. You also imply that the only concern is land being submerged by water, which we can deal with, but what if there are problems with precipitation/hurricanes/etc. that we can’t?
For all you scientists out there I would suggest a gander at the photographic documentation of the North American Temperature Stations, mostly maintained by NOAA.
Consider the raw data for the climate modeling.
Would you consider the raw data reliable and exact?
Curious-then consider what the temperature stations might look like in third world countries.
To view the photographs of North American temperature stations-go here:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/surfacestationsreport_spring09.pdf
For infrared photography of some temperature stations go to this report.
http://gallery.surfacestations.org/main.php?g2_itemId=444
Now go to the IPCC website and read the “gold standard UN reports”
Specifically of interest: the error bars of the climate models. This information will be difficult to find in some cases as one must read deep into the reports. but some studies have 60%, 80% error bars. Some studies state that they are 100% certain that their computer modeling is 20% correct.
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.htm
Honestly, it is time to think for yourselves, people.
This is not an “climate justice” issue, nor is it an emotional issue.
I further put forth to you the actions and not words of the posterboy of “global warming”, oops, I mean “Climate Change” or “Climate Justice”.
Does Mr. Gore walk the talk? In 2006, Mr. Gore spent $30,000 in combined electricity and natural to keep his estate running.
http://wizbangblog.com/content/2007/02/26/al-gores-own-inconvenient-trut.php
Research it yourself. PLEASE!!!
Me-I plan my trips to conserve energy, I have a well insulated home, I drive a Prius, I recycle, and I have a heat pump. I also maintain several acres of trees all natural and conserve our water.
Do you walk the talk?
I strongly believe we should take care of our environment.
BUT I do not think we should put our already pained economy in peril because the UN and our federal government wish to redistribute what little funds I have in my pocket to other countries and urban areas in the name of “climate justice”.
This is a scam perpetuated by 350.org, sky1, Green the Block, Green For All, ruckus Society, Earth First, WWF etc and ad infinitum.
Hypocrisy in the name of the almighty dollar?
Matt and Dakin
I applaud your courage in questioning the science used to shore up the concept of man-made global warming. While there have been some thoughtful responses, most have been the knee-jerk replies that come from accepting popular, politically correct propaganda. One does have to congratulate the global warming movement for their choice of advertising agencies–they sold the concept to a gullible public with an Al Gore movie and a lot of still-disputed assertions.
It is strange that we question the validity of research paid for by an entity that plans to market a product or a medicine, but we are never allowed to question the pronouncements of an academic or scientist who has a vested interest in the outcome of a debate. Do we really expect professors of climate science or businesses and governmental organizations whose missions are to expose and fight global warming to concede the point and look for other employment? Is there not a significant temptation to slant the data to their advantage?
Do not let the vitrol in many of the responses quell your efforts to provide unpopular, but thoughtful and well-substantiated analysis. Despite the warnings of Chicken Little, the sky is not falling(or at least we are not warming the earth) and the attempts of populists to further hamstring our economy, confiscate our earnings, and make us feel guilty in the bargain must be resisted
Matt, Dakin,
Please do your research next time:
I typed in “does global warming really exist scientific consensus”
Result:
National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed the current scientific opinion, in particular on recent global warming. These assessments have largely followed or endorsed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) position of January 2001 that states:
An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system… There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.[1]
Since 2007, no scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion. A few organisations hold non-committal positions.
Hmmmm…. so who should I trust? you or the entire community of academic scholars?
I just don’t understand why people write articles like these… it’s like you want to believe that Global warming doesn’t exist just because you have some mental personal conflict people who want to take actions against it.
Someone above brought up the point that my mention of Milankovitch cycles is relevant on the long-term scale, but not related to the short-term trend we are seeing now. This argument misunderstands the context of the global warming debate. Scientists claim that human beings current C02 emissions are causing temperatures to rise. The alleged evidence for this is the fact that historically changes in C02 concentrations have caused the temperature to change. What the time lag shows is that this historical claim is incorrect. C02 has not driven temperature change during the last 600,000 years. Therefore the claim that C02 is driving temperature change now is not scientific (but based on faith and ignoring the evidence). At best, you could claim we do not know either way, but you would also have to acknowledge that unless the way that the climate functions has fundamentally suddenly changed, C02 does not drive temperature, instead temperature drives C02. Basically, in order for C02 to be causing warming now, the mechanisms of climate change must now be different than how they were for the last 600,000 years. It is not enough of a change to simply add the amounts of C02 we are adding, but rather you also have to change the laws of how C02 interacts with the rest of the climate and relates to temperature. There is no scientific basis for concluding that the laws have arbitrarily changed now.
Also, we constantly deal with problems with precipitation and hurricanes because of the benefits of modern industrialization just as we deal with changing sea levels. Another comment above makes the mistake of package dealing different types of pollution. C02 emissions are not responsible for smog in LA. Our fossil fuel use is not the source of those smog emissions. That is a different form of pollution. I think that we should conserve in cases where we are legitimately damaging the environment (but I think you have to make that decisions personally and the government has no right to force you to do so). I do not think that C02 emissions are causing the problems people claim they are, so it is a waste to cut back. In terms of the fact we are running out, if you are worried about that then start buying other energy sources, do not force other people to do so.
One other person questions our intentions. Our intentions were to encourage people to question climate dogma. I have spoken to professors, researchers, environmentalists… and read lots of their websites/propaganda/research. I have also read a lot of the arguments on the other side. I have spent a lot of time thinking about this issue and trying to understand it. I have used my critical faculties to the best of my ability to reach a conclusion and I have concluded that scientific evidence does not show human beings are causing global warming, and even stronger than that evidence seems to show that we are not doing it. I appreciate the comments being made at the end of this thread, but I do not understand why most people above assume that I have done no research. I have spent a lot of time reading and thinking about this issue before presenting my opinion and as you can see I welcome criticism of the opinion and I have answers to your objections to my scientific claims. The best suggestion above was about some complicated form of feedback that allows us to claim C02 as cause. The problem is feedback would manifest itself as exponential growth in those warming periods on the graphs above and it is not, it is linear. This eliminates the possibility of a feedback theory (not to mention the problem brought up above of how on earth would the feedback stop). In general, if you do spend the time looking at this issue in detail, the evidence is clearly against the hypothesis that human beings emissions of C02 cause global warming.
C02 emissions are not responsible for smog in LA. Our fossil fuel use is not the source of those smog emissions.
====
Whaaa??
I thought you went to Stanford, bud.
I refuse to take this article seriously, like much journalism nowadays, because it fails to offer a balanced and unbiased account of all facts and all data.
Instead of presenting the truth, the authors have shamelessly hand-picked information that they believe debunks global warming, they have mindlessly rejected facts and data that strongly support global warming, and sadly, they have failed to make the slightest effort of appearing scientific, truthful, and scholarly by choosing such a patently biased title.
On all accounts this article is a failure. As far as presenting all facts and data scientifically and truthfully– you have failed. As far as changing another person’s mind– you have failed. As far as appearing remotely scholarly– you have also failed.
I wonder who moderates these comments (?).
For all we know, Dakin and Matt could be filtering as they please, hand-picking comments like they hand-picked their facts.
Btw…your article is nonsensical bull. People are entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts.
I don’t know who moderates these comments either, but I found it pretty funny that two comments from earlier in this thread have disappeared. Matt (the co-author) posted a couple days ago, declining to answer any questions or comments and instead directing people to his self-published book on Amazon, which he assured us would contain the answer to this problem (climate change) as well as “all of life’s problems.” I posted afterward gently mocking Matt’s attempt to use this shoddy article to promote his book. Both of those comments have now been deleted. Who on the Review staff makes these decisions to selectively delete critical comments?
This is the real Matt here answering your question. The post made several days ago was someone posing as me. This is a criminal act and will be pursued if it happens again. The university has been notified of the impostor and will take action if he/she resurfaces. Only two comments have been removed: The impostor’s, and the one in response to it.
Please keep all comments relevant to the article with no personal attacks to either author or anyone in the Review staff.
Criminal act? And spamming all of Stanford with e-mails isn’t a violation of policy?
No, it is not, while posing as another person is fraudulent. If anyone wishes to discuss this further, email me. This forum is intended for academic discussion. Let’s keep it that way.
In response to an earlier post, I’d like to direct any interested readers toward Lord Monckton and encourage you to hear what he has to say. His talks are available on YouTube. Here’s a relevant conclusion to one of his speeches dealing directly with the Copenhagen protocol. I’ll copy and paste:
At [the 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference in] Copenhagen, this December, weeks away, a treaty will be signed. Your president will sign it. Most of the third world countries will sign it, because they think they’re going to get money out of it. Most of the left-wing regime from the European Union will rubber stamp it. Virtually nobody won’t sign it.
I read that treaty. And what it says is this, that a world government is going to be created. The word “government” actually appears as the first of three purposes of the new entity. The second purpose is the transfer of wealth from the countries of the West to third world countries, in satisfication of what is called, coyly, “climate debt” – because we’ve been burning CO2 and they haven’t. We’ve been screwing up the climate and they haven’t. And the third purpose of this new entity, this government, is enforcement.
How many of you think that the word “election” or “democracy” or “vote” or “ballot” occurs anywhere in the 200 pages of that treaty? Quite right, it doesn’t appear once. So, at last, the communists who piled out of the Berlin Wall and into the environmental movement, who took over Greenpeace so that my friends who funded it left within a year, because [the communists] captured it – Now the apotheosis as at hand. They are about to impose a communist world government on the world. You have a president who has very strong sympathies with that point of view. He’s going to sign it. He’ll sign anything. He’s a Nobel Peace Prize [winner]; of course he’ll sign it.
[laughter]
And the trouble is this; if that treaty is signed, if your Constitution says that it takes precedence over your Constitution (sic), and you can’t resign from that treaty unless you get agreement from all the other state parties – And because you’ll be the biggest paying country, they’re not going to let you out of it.
So, thank you, America. You were the beacon of freedom to the world. It is a privilege merely to stand on this soil of freedom while it is still free. But, in the next few weeks, unless you stop it, your president will sign your freedom, your democracy, and your humanity away forever. And neither you nor any subsequent government you may elect will have any power whatsoever to take it back. That is how serious it is. I’ve read the treaty. I’ve seen this stuff about [world] government and climate debt and enforcement. They are going to do this to you whether you like it or not.
But I think it is here, here in your great nation, which I so love and I so admire – it is here that perhaps, at this eleventh hour, at the fifty-ninth minute and fifty-ninth second, you will rise up and you will stop your president from signing that dreadful treaty, that purposeless treaty. For there is no problem with climate and, even if there were, an economic treaty does nothing to [help] it.
So I end by saying to you the words that Winston Churchill addressed to your president in the darkest hour before the dawn of freedom in the Second World War. He quoted from your great poet Longfellow:
Sail on, O Ship of State!
Sail on, O Union, strong and great!
Humanity with all its fears,
With all the hopes of future years,
Is hanging breathless on thy fate!
Alright, I’m gonna go ahead and say that whatever credibility Dakin might have built up in this thread, Matt squandered it all with that last post.
“So, thank you, America. You were the beacon of freedom to the world. It is a privilege merely to stand on this soil of freedom while it is still free. But, in the next few weeks, unless you stop it, your president will sign your freedom, your democracy, and your humanity away forever.”
This guy sounds like a true intellectual, indeed. Why don’t you just post a rant from Glenn Beck?
For those interested, here are a couple good dismantling of Monckton’s main argument (about climate sensitivity and feedback):
http://duoquartuncia.blogspot.com/2008/07/aps-and-global-warming-what-were-they.html
and
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/07/moncktons_triple_counting.php
And another link about how the claims that American freedom at stake are ridiculous:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/oct/20/christopher-monckton/british-climate-skeptic-says-copenhagen-treaty-thr/
You’re deliberately misleading and confusing people by suggesting that, maybe, increases in temperature cause increases in C02 concentration.
But 100% of the increase in atmospheric CO2 in the last few hundred years can be clearly explained by the effects of humans burning fossil fuels, not some secondary effect of warming–the most extreme warming has clearly followed increases in atmospheric CO2.
Also, this has the traditional accusation that warming trends are supported only by speculative computer models of liberal environmentalist scientists. Actually, carbon dioxide and methane are undeniably heat-trapping gasses. It is pure physical chemistry discovered by Fourier and Arrhenius that without greenhouse gases, the planet would be a 0 degree F black body, and that our greenhouse gases trap heat and allow the temperature to average in the 50’s F.
So to deny global warming, you either have to deny that there is an increase in greenhouse gases, or deny the basic physical chemistry of heat trapping.
By far my favorite comment so far, the “EPA for Kids” website suggestion.
Beyond the fact that you are phenomenally unqualified to write anything about the science of global warming, your concluding remark accurately sums up just how foolish you really are:
“But science proves human carbon dioxide emissions are not responsible for global warming. Understanding this fact, it is preposterous for us students to alter our lifestyles or sacrifice the wonderful benefits of technologies that rely on fossil fuels.”
1. Sorry, science does prove human CO2 is causing global warming.
2. Wonderful benefits of technologies that rely on fossil fuels? Did you mean… the benefits of technology that rely on ENERGY? Such as electricity? Cars? Planes? Computers? Yes, these rely on ENERGY. And there’s more than one source of ENERGY in the world.
Embarrassing, boys.
Dakin and Matt,
Although I disagree with your conclusions, I respect your efforts to make an argument that is well-researched and stays on point.
On that note, I would like to suggest you remove the portion about the 31,000 “scientists” and their petition in the interest of keeping your piece responsible. These so-called experts are everything from dentists to mathematicians to medical doctors, trained in fields irrelevant to climate science and the majority of whom with nothing more than bachelor’s degrees. Keeping this misleading fact in your argument violates the principles you guys are trying to keep and does a disservice to your readers and yourselves.
I feel kinda sorry for the Stanford Review. They had the choice between coming off as intellectual invalids or suppressing free speech. They went with the former approach and have suffered dearly.
I can only hope that people realize that guest columnists don’t necessarily represent the full views of a magazine. The Stanford Review has some quality articles scattered about which may be ignored if everyone focuses on the utter drek spewed by some fanatics.
An update on the current state of the global warming myth:
http://www.ecowho.com/articles/42/Climategate,_what_is_going_on?.html
Given the recent revelations concerning the “science” behind the myth of man made global warming are any of the above posters willing to recant their posts? Let’s see who’s a scientist and who’s merely a political pawn.