April 22, 2025
The debate about global warming — or climate change, as some prefer to call it — goes on. There are essentially two sides to this debate, those who believe the environment is under attack by carbon dioxide (CO2), and those who think CO2 is not really a problem. There are regular people on both sides of the debate, and there are also scientists on both sides of it.
One scientist with significant credentials divides those who are pro and con on the global warming/climate change debate into three groups. Two of those groups are scientists, and group three, he says, are mostly politicians, environmentalists and the media.
The authority cited is Richard Lindzen, who was professor of atmospheric sciences at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) for 30 years, who wrote an article for Prager University. During his professional life, Lindzen has published more than 200 scientific papers. He notes that in his 30 years at MIT, “the climate has changed remarkably little.”
He says that during that time, “the cry of ‘global warming’ has grown ever more shrill. In fact, it seems that the less the climate changes, the louder the voices of the climate alarmists get. So, let’s clear the air and create a more accurate picture of where we really stand on the issue of global warming.”
He begins by describing the three groups involved in the debate: “Group one is associated with the scientific part of the United Nation’s International Panel on Climate Change or IPCC (Working Group 1). These are scientists who mostly believe that recent climate change is primarily due to man’s burning of fossil fuels — oil, coal and natural gas. This releases C02, carbon dioxide, into the atmosphere and, they believe, this might eventually dangerously heat the planet.
“Group two is made up of scientists who don’t see this as an especially serious problem. This is the group I belong to. We’re usually referred to as skeptics.”
He notes that there are many reasons why the climate changes, including “the sun, clouds, oceans, the orbital variations of the earth, as well as a myriad of other inputs. None of these is fully understood, and there is no evidence that CO2 emissions are the dominant factor.”
He then lists five things that the two groups generally agree on:
1. The climate is always changing.
2. CO2 is a greenhouse gas without which life on earth is not possible, but adding it to the atmosphere should lead to some warming.
3. Atmospheric levels of CO2 have been increasing since the end of the Little Ice Age in the 19th century.
4. Over this period (the past two centuries), the global mean temperature has increased slightly and erratically by about 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit or one degree Celsius; but only since the 1960’s have man’s greenhouse emissions been sufficient to play a role.
5. Given the complexity of climate, no confident prediction about future global mean temperature or its impact can be made. The IPCC acknowledged in its own 2007 report that, “The long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”
So, where does the heated discussion come from? He explains that, “Most importantly, the scenario that the burning of fossil fuel leads to catastrophe isn’t part of what either group asserts. So why are so many people worried, indeed, panic stricken about this issue. Here’s where Group Three comes in — the politicians, environmentalists, and media.
“Global warming alarmism provides them, more than any other issue, with the things they most want: For politicians it’s money and power. For environmentalists it’s money for their organizations and confirmation of their near religious devotion to the idea that man is a destructive force acting upon nature. And for the media it’s ideology, money, and headlines. Doomsday scenarios sell.”
He adds that over recent years scientists who are not directly involved in climate science have joined the crowd that believes that CO2 will destroy the Earth. They are “publishing papers blaming global warming for everything from acne to the Syrian civil war,” and others, whom he calls “crony capitalists,” are after the abundant and easily procured government subsidies.
Group three has taken the lead in the public argument, having out-shouted the other side, replacing what ought to be serious debate with organized, but inaccurate noise.
Lindzen concludes his article with this: “But while politicians, environmentalists and media types can waste a lot of money and scare a lot of people, they won’t be able to bury the truth. The climate will have the final word on that.”
We need to understand that quite a few scientists support the idea that we actually need more CO2 in the atmosphere, not less. They say plant life, hence humans, would benefit from twice the CO2, given that plants produce and release oxygen. There is also the fact that global temperatures have been higher several times in the past than they are now.
The scare tactics that the climate change faction is pumping out have done damage to the country and the people. Things such as lost jobs, economic problems, unnecessary changes to what we are allowed to purchase and how we are allowed to live our lives are not justified.
No comments:
Post a Comment