Right Minded Online

You probably haven’t heard much about it lately, yet it’s a topic we have all heard repeatedly. Chances are, though, you’ve only heard one side of the debate. It’s global warming, and it’s not the open-and-shut, slam-dunk case you’ve been led to believe.

To review, the earth is supposed to be growing warmer due to additional greenhouse gases being introduced into the atmosphere, most commonly in the form of carbon dioxide resulting from fossil fuel emissions. Of course, these greenhouse gases, in theory, trap more heat in the lower atmosphere, causing temperatures to increase.

A few years ago, we would hear from various “scientists” regarding the state of this phenomenon, that the previous month was the second warmest on record, or that the current year was on pace to break last year’s record for warmest global temperature, etc. And, of course, you could count on the media to regurgitate these “facts” verbatim. Such revelations would then be followed by demands the U.S. sign onto the Kyoto Treaty, that we need to expedite the development of electric cars and alternative energy, ad nauseum.

Of course, with temperatures down for the last three years or so, global warming is not the “hot” topic it was during the late 1990’s. There’s a reason for this. Global warming is not occurring. Let’s explore the flip side of the most common arguments made by global warming scientists.

First, the computation of the global average temperature itself is questionable, for many reasons. Many of the weather stations from which the data are gathered are located at airports, which are usually found in urban areas. In large cities, the temperatures have indeed risen due to the enormous quantities of concrete and asphalt, which trap and retain heat more effectively than unpaved soil. This is called the “heat island effect.”

If you watch the weather on television, you will find that Nashville typically reports a greater overnight low temperature than surrounding towns, especially on clear nights. This is because the pavement retains more heat at night. But the heat island effect only impacts a relatively small quantity of the world’s land mass, which is one reason the global averages we hear may be erroneously skewed.

Second, changes in instrumentation can also affect the continuity of weather records. The once-relied-upon mercurial thermometers gave way to electrical devices a few decades ago, which then gave way to digital thermometers during the 1990’s. Although each of these sensors measures air temperature roughly the same, a difference of just a few tenths of a degree from one thermometer to the other can have a huge impact on the global average temperature, which is usually reported to the nearest hundredth of a degree.

Third, since land comprises approximately one-fourth of the earth’s surface, and since weather stations aren’t found in large quantity across the world’s oceans (ships and buoys provide only a meager sampling), the global average temperature, which is supposed to be a representation of the temperature across the entire earth’s surface, really isn’t. More than 70% of the surface is not represented in the global average temperature.

Fourth, what you will never hear from global warming scientists is the admission that the world’s climate is a hugely complicated puzzle, of which we have connected only a few pieces. Why? We have, at best, perhaps a hundred years of reliable temperature records — less than that in some of the world’s underdeveloped regions. Long-term climate patterns and changes have therefore never been observed. One method scientists have used to attempt to connect a few dots is the use of tree rings to back-date our temperature records.

There is some question as to the validity in applying tree rings to “pre-cast” temperature records, though. True, one can glean knowledge about past droughts and wet spells from the spacing of tree rings, but implied in this methodology is the assumption that temperatures and precipitation are directly correlated, and there is virtually no statistical correlation between the two variables. In other words, warm years aren’t necessarily dry, and cool years aren’t necessarily wet. So the use of tree rings to construct temperature records several centuries before our first thermometer measurements is simply not good science, and provides a rather flimsy base for balancing an issue as far-sweeping as climate change and emissions reduction.

Fifth, there are counter-theories to global warming which never seem to get addressed. One such counter-theory goes something like this. If the global temperature did rise, it is likely that evaporation rates would also increase, thereby adding moisture to the atmosphere, which could then be converted to more clouds and precipitation. More clouds would reflect more sunlight to space, thereby decreasing the amount of solar energy reaching the surface. And more precipitation would also provide a cooling effect. This impact would greatly offset any warming.

Another area in which the public is being duped pertains to the supposed sea level rises that would occur with global warming. We have been told by global warming scientists that an increase of just a few degrees in global temperature would translate into partial melting of the polar ice caps, which would then cause sea levels to rise a few feet. This would turn New Orleans and New York into New Venices, and Venice and Amsterdam into modern Atlantises.

There’s only one problem, though. Ice displaces more water than water. Ever set a glass of ice water out overnight to melt? Did the water overflow? No. In fact, the actual volume shrank. This is why your pipes can burst during winter. The process of freezing causes water to expand. This is also why sea levels would not rise, but would instead drop if global warming ever became reality.

You won’t likely hear the above arguments recounted in the media, though. Global warming is profitable for “scientists” because most of their funding comes either through university grants or tax dollars. And environmentalists have such a strangle-hold on both that only one side (theirs) ever gets out.

Therefore, global warming science really isn’t science. True science (i.e., man’s understanding of the physical world) can only flourish when there is healthy debate and counter-debate. By this methodology, theories can only be proven when the data which support them stand the test of scrutiny by skeptics. Real scientists often find themselves going “back to the drawing board” when their cases whither under scrutiny.

This is why many scientists find it difficult to take global warming seriously, especially when one side gets shoved through scientific channels with debate shut off under political pressure. If anything good can result from global warming, it would be to illustrate the fallacy of politicizing science.