Ponderer has presented compelling arguments in recent commentaries about global warming and the impacts of carbon dioxide emissions from man’s activities. We have had a frequent back and forth discussion on the subject, and Ponderer has provided data-based responses to my skepticism. I trust Ponderer’s integrity and intellect (both scientific and personal) completely, so why do I continue to cling to my “denier” status (although with less conviction than before)?
I’ll begin by explaining that Dr. Petr Beckmann was a patient of the medical practice where my wife worked as a nurse, and she told him I worked at the Rocky Flats plant that manufactured parts for nuclear weapons. He agreed to meet me and a colleague to discuss his pro-nuclear energy views, and I found him to be a fascinating man. I signed up for his “Access to Energy” newsletter and became more impressed with his brilliance the more I read.
Dr. Beckmann fervently believed in free enterprise and the role of plentiful energy in supporting that enterprise. He and his family fled from Czechoslovakia from the Nazis when he was 14 in 1939, and he served in a Czech squadron of the Royal Air Force during World War II. He defected to the United States in 1963 and became a Professor (later Emeritus) of electrical engineering at the University of Colorado. He published many books, including one I reviewed on this web site titled “The Health Hazards of NOT Going Nuclear.”
A reader might be asking why any of this is important to the global warming debate. Dr. Beckmann was encouraged to use the “consensus” that carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of coal, oil, and natural gas would create a disastrous environmental disaster to support his advocacy of nuclear power. He responded that he had evaluated the models and predictions, and that he did not see that the predictions were scientifically sound. He told his readers something such as, “Don’t use flawed science, even if it supports your ideas.” I continue to be heavily influenced by the ethics of that statement.
I’ve been working on this posting for what seems to be weeks, and find myself frustrated. The primary purpose of the posting is to explain why I continue to be a “denier” despite all the evidence presented by Ponderer. Each time I read something that refutes the global warming theory there is a learned advocate who explains why that doesn’t matter. The fact that Arctic sea ice levels have stopped declining is unimportant because most of the ice is “young and thin.” It apparently isn’t completely true that historical data indicate that temperatures have increased before the levels of carbon dioxide increase, which would mean that temperature is the cause of higher carbon dioxide. Higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has few if any positive implications despite the fact that plant growth is dependent on carbon dioxide and sunlight. Global warming advocates seem to find no possible positive effects from warming temperatures, and that serves to reinforce my skepticism.
Where does that leave us in this debate? I do not dispute there has been a small increase in temperature. A recent NASA and NOAH paper documents there has been a global temperature increase of about 0.6 degrees Centigrade since the late 1970s. I can’t find myself to be terribly worried about that much warning. I suspect the people who went through historical cold times would have welcomed some more warmth.
There is a reference that better explains the basis of my continued denier status. There are multiple versions of what is called “The Leipzig Declaration on Global Climate Change.” The original declaration was issued in response to calls to “…constrain energy use and mandate reductions in carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of fossil fuels” at Kyoto in the early 1990s. The original declaration was issued in 1995 and has been updated several times. An update in 2010 says, in part, “…the unsupported assumptions that catastrophic global warming follows from the burning of fossil fuels and requires immediate action. We do not agree. We believe that the dire predictions of a future warming have not been validated by the existing climate record.” The Declaration continues, “…there does not exist today a general scientific consensus about the importance of greenhouse warming from rising levels of carbon dioxide.”
A 1997 version of the Leipzig Declaration states, “…we cannot subscribe to the so-called ‘scientific consensus’ that envisages climate catastrophes and advocates hasty actions.” There are listings of the scientists who have signed various versions of the Declaration, and I’ve read that there have been 1500 signatures.
This reminds me a conversation with Dr. Beckmann in which I asked him how the people who disagreed with his ideas responded to his reasoning. He said, “They ignore me.” It must be easy to win a debate when you can dismiss ideas by pretending they do not exist. Perhaps there is a wide belief that there is a “scientific consensus” that man is causing global warming that has been accomplished by ignoring groups of scientists such as those who signed the Leipzig Declaration.
I’m hoping for all of us that my skepticism is right. A PhD friend has told me that elimination of all carbon dioxide emissions in the United States with the exception of what we exhale would reduce global temperatures by less than a degree.
The United States is producing less carbon dioxide because of the increase in natural gas supplies thanks to fracking, but the developing nations will continue to build more carbon-based plants to produce electricity. I believe the climate will continue to change as it always has. I’m hoping for warming instead of cooling, because I think that would be better for us. I’m also hoping we don’t allow politically-based “science” to push us toward policies that hurt our economy.
You should, if you are interested in the pure science of the issue instead of the ‘gut reactions” from my historical perspective, read and consider the information provided by Ponderer. I intend to keep reading, thinking, and possibly (probably) writing about the issue.