http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008597

EARTH IN THE BALANCE

Don't Believe the Hype
Al Gore is wrong. There's no "consensus" on global warming.

BY RICHARD S. LINDZEN
Sunday, July 2, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT

According to Al Gore's new film "An Inconvenient Truth," we're in for "a planetary emergency": melting ice sheets, huge increases in sea levels, more and stronger hurricanes, and invasions of tropical disease, among other cataclysms--unless we change the way we live now.

Bill Clinton has become the latest evangelist for Mr. Gore's gospel, proclaiming that current weather events show that he and Mr. Gore were right about global warming, and we are all suffering the consequences of President Bush's obtuseness on the matter. And why not? Mr. Gore assures us that "the debate in the scientific community is over."

That statement, which Mr. Gore made in an interview with George Stephanopoulos on ABC, ought to have been followed by an asterisk. What exactly is this debate that Mr. Gore is referring to? Is there really a scientific community that is debating all these issues and then somehow agreeing in unison? Far from such a thing being over, it has never been clear to me what this "debate" actually is in the first place.

The media rarely help, of course. When Newsweek featured global warming in a 1988 issue, it was claimed that all scientists agreed. Periodically thereafter it was revealed that although there had been lingering doubts beforehand, now all scientists did indeed agree. Even Mr. Gore qualified his statement on ABC only a few minutes after he made it, clarifying things in an important way. When Mr. Stephanopoulos confronted Mr. Gore with the fact that the best estimates of rising sea levels are far less dire than he suggests in his movie, Mr. Gore defended his claims by noting that scientists "don't have any models that give them a high level of confidence" one way or the other and went on to claim--in his defense--that scientists "don't know. . . . They just don't know."

So, presumably, those scientists do not belong to the "consensus." Yet their research is forced, whether the evidence supports it or not, into Mr. Gore's preferred global-warming template--namely, shrill alarmism. To believe it requires that one ignore the truly inconvenient facts. To take the issue of rising sea levels, these include: that the Arctic was as warm or warmer in 1940; that icebergs have been known since time immemorial; that the evidence so far suggests that the Greenland ice sheet is actually growing on average. A likely result of all this is increased pressure pushing ice off the coastal perimeter of that country, which is depicted so ominously in Mr. Gore's movie. In the absence of factual context, these images are perhaps dire or alarming.

They are less so otherwise. Alpine glaciers have been retreating since the early 19th century, and were advancing for several centuries before that. Since about 1970, many of the glaciers have stopped retreating and some are now advancing again. And, frankly, we don't know why.

The other elements of the global-warming scare scenario are predicated on similar oversights. Malaria, claimed as a byproduct of warming, was once common in Michigan and Siberia and remains common in Siberia--mosquitoes don't require tropical warmth. Hurricanes, too, vary on multidecadal time scales; sea-surface temperature is likely to be an important factor. This temperature, itself, varies on multidecadal time scales. However, questions concerning the origin of the relevant sea-surface temperatures and the nature of trends in hurricane intensity are being hotly argued within the profession.

Even among those arguing, there is general agreement that we can't attribute any particular hurricane to global warming. To be sure, there is one exception, Greg Holland of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., who argues that it must be global warming because he can't think of anything else. While arguments like these, based on lassitude, are becoming rather common in climate assessments, such claims, given the primitive state of weather and climate science, are hardly compelling.

A general characteristic of Mr. Gore's approach is to assiduously ignore the fact that the earth and its climate are dynamic; they are always changing even without any external forcing. To treat all change as something to fear is bad enough; to do so in order to exploit that fear is much worse. Regardless, these items are clearly not issues over which debate is ended--at least not in terms of the actual science.

A clearer claim as to what debate has ended is provided by the environmental journalist Gregg Easterbrook. He concludes that the scientific community now agrees that significant warming is occurring, and that there is clear evidence of human influences on the climate system. This is still a most peculiar claim. At some level, it has never been widely contested. Most of the climate community has agreed since 1988 that global mean temperatures have increased on the order of one degree Fahrenheit over the past century, having risen significantly from about 1919 to 1940, decreased between 1940 and the early '70s, increased again until the '90s, and remaining essentially flat since 1998.

There is also little disagreement that levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have risen from about 280 parts per million by volume in the 19th century to about 387 ppmv today. Finally, there has been no question whatever that carbon dioxide is an infrared absorber (i.e., a greenhouse gas--albeit a minor one), and its increase should theoretically contribute to warming. Indeed, if all else were kept equal, the increase in carbon dioxide should have led to somewhat more warming than has been observed, assuming that the small observed increase was in fact due to increasing carbon dioxide rather than a natural fluctuation in the climate system. Although no cause for alarm rests on this issue, there has been an intense effort to claim that the theoretically expected contribution from additional carbon dioxide has actually been detected.

Given that we do not understand the natural internal variability of climate change, this task is currently impossible. Nevertheless there has been a persistent effort to suggest otherwise, and with surprising impact. Thus, although the conflicted state of the affair was accurately presented in the 1996 text of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the infamous "summary for policy makers" reported ambiguously that "The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate." This sufficed as the smoking gun for Kyoto.

The next IPCC report again described the problems surrounding what has become known as the attribution issue: that is, to explain what mechanisms are responsible for observed changes in climate. Some deployed the lassitude argument--e.g., we can't think of an alternative--to support human attribution. But the "summary for policy makers" claimed in a manner largely unrelated to the actual text of the report that "In the light of new evidence and taking into account the remaining uncertainties, most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations."

In a similar vein, the National Academy of Sciences issued a brief (15-page) report responding to questions from the White House. It again enumerated the difficulties with attribution, but again the report was preceded by a front end that ambiguously claimed that "The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability." This was sufficient for CNN's Michelle Mitchell to presciently declare that the report represented a "unanimous decision that global warming is real, is getting worse and is due to man. There is no wiggle room." Well, no.

More recently, a study in the journal Science by the social scientist Nancy Oreskes claimed that a search of the ISI Web of Knowledge Database for the years 1993 to 2003 under the key words "global climate change" produced 928 articles, all of whose abstracts supported what she referred to as the consensus view. A British social scientist, Benny Peiser, checked her procedure and found that only 913 of the 928 articles had abstracts at all, and that only 13 of the remaining 913 explicitly endorsed the so-called consensus view. Several actually opposed it.

Even more recently, the Climate Change Science Program, the Bush administration's coordinating agency for global-warming research, declared it had found "clear evidence of human influences on the climate system." This, for Mr. Easterbrook, meant: "Case closed." What exactly was this evidence? The models imply that greenhouse warming should impact atmospheric temperatures more than surface temperatures, and yet satellite data showed no warming in the atmosphere since 1979. The report showed that selective corrections to the atmospheric data could lead to some warming, thus reducing the conflict between observations and models descriptions of what greenhouse warming should look like. That, to me, means the case is still very much open.

So what, then, is one to make of this alleged debate? I would suggest at least three points.

First, nonscientists generally do not want to bother with understanding the science. Claims of consensus relieve policy types, environmental advocates and politicians of any need to do so. Such claims also serve to intimidate the public and even scientists--especially those outside the area of climate dynamics. Secondly, given that the question of human attribution largely cannot be resolved, its use in promoting visions of disaster constitutes nothing so much as a bait-and-switch scam. That is an inauspicious beginning to what Mr. Gore claims is not a political issue but a "moral" crusade.

Lastly, there is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition. An earlier attempt at this was accompanied by tragedy. Perhaps Marx was right. This time around we may have farce--if we're lucky.

Mr. Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT.

I haven't seen Gore's film, but while actual global warming may or may not be a certainty, human impact on the planet and on our own locations is damn clear to anybody who has ever been in China's industrial belt.

Scientists say he got it right in this AP article

Lindzen is what you'd call a "go to" contrarian.
He published some seminal papers on climate in his prime...but lately he's been wrong on the science too many times.
That article also contains (at least) one glaring error.

It seems like humanity's ability to create environmental impact, as an overall concept, is pretty indisputable...but global warming as a notion is a standout debatable topic because of the evidence that each side can muster. So this one ends up being the big newsworthy topic (since it gets people worked up and arguing) and the world goes on getting shit on while we argue about one aspect of the whole damn thing.

I would honestly be really surprised if humanity doesn't Easter Island itself, in the end, because we're really not genetically set to think in such long-term, abstract ways. I worry about my son, though.

Basically everything that Lindzen brings up in the article is addressed by Gore in the film, with a hell of a lot more compelling evidence to back it up. The people who are trying to keep this debate open obviously have a lot to loose by any change brought on to fight it. For regular people like most of us here, we have basically nothing to lose from the changes needed to reverse the effect we're having on our environment.

I'm not a huge fan of Gore's by any stretch, but the fact that you're even seeing an article like the first one posted means that the film is having an impact and they're concerned about losing the ground they've held for so long. Good job I say, they're talking for a reason.

See, there's something that gets me about this whole global warming and humans causing it debate. How can this be, I mean, look at, just ONE volcano can produce, and has produced, more greenhouse emissions than ALL of humanity in its entire existance. And this runs the gammit on greenhouse gases. How on earth can our beloved planet adjust, and adapt to such cataclysmic events, but not adapt to humanity. It just doesn't make sense to me. The other problem I have is that we're not measuring the output of the sun in any of these models.

I haven't even seen the film

As someone who came into this debate as a 100% contrarian, I can tell you that "fact" is one of those "arguments" that contrarians recycle on a regular basis. It also happens to be completely false.
While volcanoes do emit a neglible amount of gh gases, in general large eruptions have a *cooling* effect on the planet.

Yeah, but that's not really my point. I didn't say, "volcanoes make us hotter." I just said they blow unimaginable, almost unquantifiable amounts of shit in the air. Really bad shit. My point is simply that earth adjusts to it.

I don't think there's any debate that the Earth can survive and adjust to whatever we do to it, what I see as the problem is whether or not we can adjust to the changes we will see because of the effect we're having on the environment.

What people don't understand is that the world will adapt and adjust itself - it's just that in the process of doing this, humans and many other animals/plants will DIE. That is part of the adaptation part. Those concerned about climate change aren't concerned that the actual Earth will be harmed... it is the things living on the Earth that are going to be harmed. The Earth will be here for a long time to come, regardless of what we do to it. But that isn't what is important. We want to live on the Earth.

Also, it is so ridiculous how some people like to claim that there is some sort of controversy going on. Within the community of scientists and others who actually know what is going on, there is NO controversy or debate - the debate is happening from the wackos who do not think it is happening. It is sort of like the laws of evolution. There absolutely NO debate within the biological/science community whether or not it exists - it is basically a proven fact. The debates that are taking place within the science comunity, however, have to do with the mechanisms of evolution - but the actual existance of evolution of it is not being debated. It is the religious psychos who are debating the facts and are saying that there is some sort of debate within the scientific community. It is the same with the climate change "debate"

I get your analogy, but let's please try to keep evolution out of this, it'll just take the debate in a completely different direction that has nothing to do with global warming.

Your first paragraph is great though, pretty much what I was trying to say.

Ya, sometimes I get a little wound-up about the evolution thing

But I really can't stand the critics of climate change... they say things like "the Earth will adapt because it always has" and "climate change is a natural phenomenon". Yes, it is a natural phenomenon, but not at the rate it is going at now. And yes, the earth will adapt. But YOU won't.

Um, yes, solar radiation IS taken into account in the models. That is one of the fundamental aspects of climate science.

And yes the Earth will adapt to civilization, but that will most likely include ENDING civilization (as well as many other living things along the way). Such a rapid climate change will cause a rapid stress on living organisms genes, so quickly that it will be hard to adapt. The Earth will adapt, yes, but we won't.

Lefty, that link has been trashed all over the web.


I still think there is a legitmate scientific debate about humanity's effect on global warming, though I don't think there is a debate that the earth is slightly warmer than we believe it was in the past. Those who think the debate is over need some refreshing on the priniciples of science. Science is not a democracy and since global warming can't be tested in a lab, it's a theory that's open to disucssion.

But I wonder, what is it that humanity cannot withstand about global warming? We may have less beach houses, but that's about it. We can construct sea walls and desalinzation plants. We can build underground infrastructure. I really don't forsee that much change for first world nations.

Ya, good luck with that. It's been working great for humanity so far. And why solve the problem when you can just patch it up with unrealistic goals? Let me know when you get back from la-la land.

Well argued point cheif.

What challenge of nature has the human race not overcome? Plus lets be honest, when it comes to global warming, regardless of the source, it's too late. The ice caps are melting. No reduction is CO2 emissions is going to change that. The damage is done. I may live in la-la land, but I am advocating a realistic approach, that we prepare for the inevitable. What's your oh-so more intelligent approach?

How does "constructing sea walls and desalination plants" solve anything? Why aren't desalination plants being used on a wide scale now if you think they are such a great solution. Plus, that only solves ONE of the MANY problems we are to face. It isn't too late to change the way we live. Even if global warming is irreversible, it doesn't hurt to be better to the environment and more respectful to other people and animals. It is a win-win situation to change our habits. Right now we are in a lose-lose situation. What would you like : win-win or lose-lose? Pretty much a no brainer.

And just because humans have survived for so long doesn't mean we are invincible. We are just like other animals in our need to adapt to the environment (only we can use artificial means to do it). Remember, we haven't been a species for long... it doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that we can't survive everything nature throws at us because we haven't been exposed to everything that nature can throw at us.

If the greenhouse effect is occuring, which scientists seem to confirm on a monthly basis for the past 2 decades, then the damage would be far greater than just less beach homes. It would have a massive effect on the earth's resources and how we use and distribute those resources. Glacier National Park in Montana had over a hundred glaciers a hundred years ago; today it has 35. I may be a little off on that statistic but it is still staggering, nonetheless. Once ice on mountains starts to disappear then irrigating and maintaining farmland will become significantly more difficult. There would be food shortages all over the globe.

I'm currently reading "Collapse" by Jared Diamond and while he does take a pro-environmental stance, his position has been completely moderate. He examines a dozen or so different cultures that have failed and provides overwhelming amounts of evidence of environmental carelessness or destruction - Easter Island, the Mayans.

He also gives some contemporary examples (hence the Montana example I used). Montanans' mismanagement has resulted in a surprising amount of destruction which in turn has resulted in less jobs and more poverty than any time in the last cenutry. For example, businesses have to answer to their investors. People are involved and very affected in how a business makes a profit. But government regulations are a necessity because businesses are naturally inclined to make that profit, which in turn leads to a great amount of irresponsibility in the business world's handling of the environment. Which also means that we are going to have to compromise some of our values in order to maintain the land and it's resources which could conceivably support life on earth for thousands of more years.

Which actually has me thinking and I know this is completely ridiculous, but why not consider placing limits on the number of children a family could have? It could initially be set high - maybe six or so. I'm baffled by people - most of them religious fanatics - who think having 15-20 children is part of God's plan. It's totally irresponsible, and if humanity is ever brought to the brink of catastrophe then population control is going to have to be implemented.