[Previous entry: "For The Nature-Computer Game Lover"] [Next entry: "Lecture: “Cancer and Our Environment.”"]

04/22/2007: "Guest Editorial"

Another View on Global Warming

Another View on Global Warming
by Charlie Bodenstab

The global warming debate has given rise to two camps; One denies human activity as a significant factor in the current warming cycle. The other camp dogmatically says that we have mega problems directly due to human activity via CO2 emissions that will have catastrophic consequences unless we take drastic action now. I have a serious problem with both groups.

There is little doubt that the globe is in a significant warming trend, but the relative contribution of human activity vs. natural cycles is far from fully understood. Moreover, many of the “true believers” in both camps have disseminated false or misleading information coupled with an attitude of smug certainty in their frantic efforts to convince the public to their view.


For example, the “natural cause” folks trumpet volcanic emissions as playing a far larger role in CO2 contributions than all of human activity. From what I understand, this is not so. But note again, the certitude of the proclamations. Actually, we have only a rough approximation of how much CO2 is contributed to the problem since most of volcanic activity is taking place unobserved in the ocean depths.

Al Gore’s film, “An Inconvenient Truth,” typifies hype from the other camp. When the film came out I was intrigued by the opportunity to acquire some hard facts. Yet, the only really fascinating part was his display of a graph of earth’s temperature and the CO2 levels over a 450,000-year period as recorded in arctic ice cores.

This was impressive! As presented, there was no question about the correlation of the two plots. They tracked each other very closely with numerous turning points and Gore made a big issue of it. There was a continuous implication that CO2 levels drove the earth’s temperature throughout this awesomely long period. Moreover, CO2 levels were rising at an unprecedented rate, and were forecasted to rise even further and faster. He then left the clear impression that temperature would eventually follow this upward trend with disastrous consequences. As Gore put it, “human creation of CO2 is causing global warming, and it will get a lot worse.” He has also, on more than one occasion, declared the global warming debate closed.

Shortly thereafter however, I came across a well-respected 1999 scientific paper that points out, yes CO2 and temperature are highly correlated, but temperature is leading CO2 levels! Temperature is going up or down independently, and then later the CO2 levels follow. Gore was telling us that wet streets create rain. He had his cause and effect backwards.

Al Gore had to be aware of this fact. To display a graph in such a way that the “inconvenient” opposite reverse correlation is obscured and then to publicize his pre-held judgment is appalling.

As I pursued my quest for enlightenment I keep running into references of “scientific studies” regarding climate predictions. I agree that there can be scientific studies on specific elements of climate and weather, but how can there be such studies as it relates to the infinitely complex system of the globe’s climate?

For something to qualify as a “scientific conclusion” it must pass four absolute criteria. It must explain a phenomenon, be validated via a prediction process, be independently repeatable, and must pass peer review. Anything else is conjecture, hypothesis, or unconfirmed theory. Maybe provocative and interesting theory, but still theory.

Mathematical models of large complex systems in general have come a long way and are powerful tools in many areas. In the climate area however, they are they are far from that. They try to explain an infinitely complex system with no mechanism for validation. And since they can’t be validated, they do not pass one of the most important tests to qualify as scientific. You cannot go back a thousand years, put in the necessary values that existed then and then run the model to see if it predicts conditions into the future. The measurements aren’t available for the full array of variables.

So what are my conclusions?

● We are in a warming period. Relevant data are measurable. Moreover, the consequences could, and most likely will be, quite significant.

● Since the globe is ether warming up or cooling down at any point in time (it’s practically never static), it’s safe to say that the globe must be in a natural warming period. It’s hard to imagine that we are in a natural cooling period and human activity is actually counteracting it to the point of creating a warming trend. Besides, the start of the trend predated the current level of industrial activity.

● Human activity does pump significant CO2 into the atmosphere. Do understand however, that our current “alarming” level is at .038% concentration (that’s less than four one hundredths of a percent) and it has the lowest molecular impact of any of the greenhouse gasses. For example, moisture is 100 times more prevalent and has three times the greenhouse effect.

● The current clamor to get on the “CO2 produced by humans bandwagon” strikes me as having become a political movement rather than a scientific one. Where is the scientific validation of these models that supposedly supports these conclusions? This idea that “the scientists have spoken” and it’s not for us mere mortals to question, is not acceptable. CO2 is no doubt contributing to the problem but it’s far from clear by how much, and relative to what else.

The stakes on this issue are too high however to rule out any possibility, and it also makes sense to move forward on aggressive, but sensible conservation programs. What is sensible? Something like a carbon tax that will place the financial burden where it belongs, thereby harnessing the free market system to powerfully and methodically sort out which actions will be effective and which will not be effective. What does not make sense? Sweeping government regulations that have unintended consequences and in the end fail to achieve their objectives. (Ethanol from corn – anyone?)

In my opinion, it is absolutely crucial that we should continue and expand our efforts to reduce the negative impact of human beings on the natural world. However, the consequences of plunging headlong into a frenzy of misdirected, and in the end blundering government micromanagement could be dire for both the developed and undeveloped world.


(Charlie Bodenstab lives on San Juan Island, is a Fortune 500 executive, an owner of a distribution company, a consultant, software producer, and author of Information Breakthrough (Oasis Press) “Information should impart knowledge and direction - and ultimately trigger positive action”.))