Climate Change
Global Warming Is Natural, Not Man-Made by Anthony Lupo
(NAPSA)—One of the fundamental tenets of our justice system is one is innocent until proven guilty. While that doesn’t apply to scientific discovery, in the global warming debate the prevailing attitude is that human induced global warming is already a fact of life and it is
The
up to d o u b t e r s t o
Global p r o v e otherwise.
To complete the
Warming
Debate analogy, I’ll add that to date, there is no credible evidence to demonstrate that the climatological changes we’ve seen since the mid-1800’s are outside the bounds of natural variability inherent in the earth’s climate system.
Thus, any impartial jury should not come back with a
“guilty” verdict convicting humanity of forcing recent climatological changes. Even the most ardent supporters of global warming will not argue this point. Instead, they argue that humans are only partially responsible for the observed climate change. If one takes a hard look at the science involved, their assertions appear to be groundless. First, carbon dioxide is not a pollutant as many claim. Carbon dioxide is good for plant life and is a natural constituent of the atmosphere. During Earth’s long history there has been more and less carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than we see today.
Second, they claim that climate is stable and slow to change, and we are accelerating climate change beyond natural variability.
That is also not true.
Climate change is generally a regional phenomenon and not a global one. Regionally, climate has been shown to change rapidly in the past and will continue to do so in the future. Life on earth will adapt as it has always done. Life on earth has been shown to thrive when planetary temperatures are warmer as opposed to colder.
Third, they point to recent model projections that have shown that the earth will warm as much as 11 degrees Fahrenheit over the next century.
One should be careful when looking at model projections. After all, these models
(NAPSA)—One of the fundamental tenets of our justice system is one is innocent until proven guilty. While that doesn’t apply to scientific discovery, in the global warming debate the prevailing attitude is that human induced global warming is already a fact of life and it is
The
up to d o u b t e r s t o
Global p r o v e otherwise.
To complete the
Warming
Debate analogy, I’ll add that to date, there is no credible evidence to demonstrate that the climatological changes we’ve seen since the mid-1800’s are outside the bounds of natural variability inherent in the earth’s climate system.
Thus, any impartial jury should not come back with a
“guilty” verdict convicting humanity of forcing recent climatological changes. Even the most ardent supporters of global warming will not argue this point. Instead, they argue that humans are only partially responsible for the observed climate change. If one takes a hard look at the science involved, their assertions appear to be groundless. First, carbon dioxide is not a pollutant as many claim. Carbon dioxide is good for plant life and is a natural constituent of the atmosphere. During Earth’s long history there has been more and less carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than we see today.
Second, they claim that climate is stable and slow to change, and we are accelerating climate change beyond natural variability.
That is also not true.
Climate change is generally a regional phenomenon and not a global one. Regionally, climate has been shown to change rapidly in the past and will continue to do so in the future. Life on earth will adapt as it has always done. Life on earth has been shown to thrive when planetary temperatures are warmer as opposed to colder.
Third, they point to recent model projections that have shown that the earth will warm as much as 11 degrees Fahrenheit over the next century.
One should be careful when looking at model projections. After all, these models