By Steve Weismantel
Weismantel is a retired engineer and now an independent climate researcher, not funded by any organization or special interest.
We all want clean water and air, and toxic dumps cleaned up. That’s where our environmental resources should be spent, not chasing the false narrative of climate catastrophe from man-made carbon dioxide (CO2). Contrary to unsubstantiated statements, seemingly popping up everywhere, CO2 is NOT a pollutant and will not drive future global warming. These words are considered heresy in many circles, but they are scientifically sound. Whoever agrees is often demonized.
The so-called “greenhouse effect” is a theory developed 120 years ago in Sweden by Svante Arrhenius, who suggested that atmospheric CO2 drives temperature. While never scientifically proven, it’s been taken as gospel by the global warming community. It is used to fearmonger.
Science advances, however, as it always does with knowledge. Science does not freeze motionless in outdated beliefs and dogma. We’re learning that climate mechanisms are much more complex than the original simplistic theory of Arrhenius, yet many of today’s so-called climate scientists ignore the advancing knowledge.
Unfortunately, climate science has become highly politicized. Witness the proposed Green New Deal, where suggested climate solutions are actually entry doors into excessive government control and socialism (throughout history, never a wise move). It may be human nature to control things, but it is arrogant to believe we can control anything as hugely dynamic and elusive as global climate. Heck, we can’t even predict next week’s weather!
Having the U.S. eliminate CO2-generated electricity is a charade that uses emotional arguments depicting catastrophe. Even if the U.S. could cut ALL CO2 production, global temperatures would hardly be affected. That’s because China, India and Russia are the major CO2 emitters and they aren’t going to do anything (other than increase their own emissions). Policies that eliminate CO2 would, in effect, help China and Russia to ruin our and Europe’s economies, and would keep developing nations poor.
Scientifically, it is true that the greenhouse effect is one reason why the earth has a moderate temperature that averages 58 degrees Fahrenheit (versus zero if there were no CO2). But CO2 warming works only to a point. Its effect becomes limited as its concentration increases, and is now rather small. Its contribution is further overshadowed by atmospheric water vapor, which is also a greenhouse gas and 50 times more prevalent.
We’ve learned that many other uncontrollable variables influence the earth’s warming (and cooling), from cloud cover to ocean currents to solar and cosmic radiation effects. That’s why ice ages have cyclically occurred, followed by intermittent warming periods, all independent of CO2 levels. More recently, it is why global temps in the 1920s/30s exceeded today’s temperatures (even as today’s CO2 is 40% higher than back then). And then temperatures decreased in the 1940s to ’70s (remember the ice age scare?) even as CO2 was rising. There’s no correlation driving temperature.
Truth be told: rather than being a pollutant, CO2 is actually essential to human life. It’s the primary building block for all living organisms. In fact, more CO2 would help grow more food by effectively “fertilizing” the atmosphere (just like it’s purposely injected into greenhouses to help plant growth). The proof can be seen from satellites showing the “greening” of earth over the past 40 years as CO2 has increased. This development is a real tangible benefit for humanity that the media ignores.
The most alarming truth, however, is that the descriptions of climate catastrophe are solely based on computer models that predict out another 50 to 100 years, conveniently when the programmers won’t be around to explain why they were so far off.
But we already know the models have failed by comparing their past predictions of today’s global temps, made 30 years ago, with the actual record of today. Turns out, the temperature change we’ve experienced is only 1/4th of the predicted change – a huge discrepancy that grows even greater into the future. Again, this is ignored.
By now the arctic ice was supposed to be gone (but it isn’t) and polar bears extinct (they’re much more abundant today). The only thing that’s occurred in the last 30 years is the alarmists are now even more shrill in forecasting ever worsening catastrophe. Today’s spate of hurricanes isn’t as severe as the onslaught of storms in the 1930s before CO2 had risen. The public must not be duped by emotional scenarios based on incorrect over-predicting computer models.
We must all preserve and protect the environment, but let’s not go down a hypothetical, irreversible and very expensive path to economic ruin.