According to Al Gore, the science is “absolute” and there is no doubt that Global Warming is 100% the fault of Human activity and we can reverse Global warming with various governmental policies.  To deny man-made Global Warming, says Gore, is the equivalent of saying the Earth is flat.

Mankind’s Role Not So Clear

Yet scientists as far back as 2008 reported in the London Telegraph that natural trends in global cooling are at work.

Researchers studying long-term changes in sea temperatures said they now expect a “lull” for up to a decade while natural variations in climate cancel out the increases caused by man-made greenhouse gas emissions.

IFM Geomar Research Institute reports that

With this additional information, natural decadal climate variations, which are superimposed on the long-term anthropogenic warming trend, can be predicted. The improved predictions suggest that global warming will weaken slightly during the following 10 years.

To be clear, these particular scientists are not saying there is no Global Warming, but they are suggesting that the trend will change over the next decade of cooling.  The important part of the study is that Nature, on her own, is making a way to counter the trend in warming.  Take for example this recent study by NASA.

PASADENA, Calif. — A new university-led study with NASA participation finds ancient Antarctica was much warmer and wetter than previously suspected. The climate was suitable to support substantial vegetation — including stunted trees — along the edges of the frozen continent…

By examining plant leaf wax remnants in sediment core samples taken from beneath the Ross Ice Shelf, the research team found summer temperatures along the Antarctic coast 15 to 20 million years ago were 20 degrees Fahrenheit (11 degrees Celsius) warmer than today, with temperatures reaching as high as 45 degrees Fahrenheit (7 degrees Celsius). Precipitation levels also were found to be several times higher than today.

If my math is right, there were no cars or massive Man-made CO2 emissions 15 Million years ago, so how is it that the Antarctic was so much warmer?

Recent data supports this cooling trend and creates more doubt about Mankind’s influence on climate change.  David Rose reports in the UK Online, that the cycle of Global Warming stopped almost two decades ago.

The world stopped getting warmer almost 16 years ago, according to new data released last week. The figures, which have triggered debate among climate scientists, reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012, there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures. This means that the ‘plateau’ or ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996. Before that, temperatures had been stable or declining for about 40 years…

But according to increasing numbers of serious climate scientists, it does suggest that the computer models that have for years been predicting imminent doom, such as those used by the Met Office and the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, are flawed, and that the climate is far more complex than the models assert.

So at best, the computer models used to predict Global Warming are seriously flawed and at worst, science has become politics. While Al Gore makes huge profits and politicians win elections with this fear mongering, it seems that over time real scientific debate is winning out.

Guidelines for the Upcoming Debate

Let me state once more, I do not doubt the validity of temperature changes around the Globe.  What is up for debate is the influence of technology on these changes. As we move forward as a country, and across the globe, it is important that we develop some ethical guidelines.  Certainly my list is not exhaustive, but it is a good starting place for the discussion of what values will dominate our response to the scientific exploration.

  1. Without question, some folks have a political agenda and are using fears of Global Warming to gain power and wealth.  These people should not be trusted to lead the way on this important topic.
  2. Let’s not stifle intelligent scientific discussion and remain open to reasoned disagreement on how to interpret the data.  I have noticed that many of the scientists who differ on the issue of Global Warming come from different fields of study.  Be aware of this scientific in-fighting,  and give each group fair consideration.
  3. Human life must be valued above all else.  I oppose any proposal that endangers people now living on our Earth or solutions that increase poverty and hunger.
  4. Both animals and humans are valuable and worth protecting, but human life must always be preserved above that of animal life.
  5. Even if man has 0% impact on Global Warming/Cooling, we should care for the Earth God created and leave it cleaner for the generations to come.  As God instructed us in Genesis, we need to subdue the earth and make it habitable so all people can prosper.
  6. Change for the sake of change is of no use.  Change should not be used to placate feeling or pacify alarmists.  Every change will have consequences, and we must be sure that the changes we make do not have consequences more destructive than the problem we seek to solve.

Books to Read

I have not yet read these books, but I have heard both of the authors on the radio discussing their research.  Both of these books offer any open-minded person a good counter-perspective on the science of Global Warming.  Are they right?  I cannot say, but if we only listen to the voices on one side we are going to run headlong into disaster.  Any person afraid of dissent and debate about Global Warming is not to be trusted.

Climate Confusion:How Global Warming Hysteria Leads to Bad Science, Pandering Politicians and Misguided Policies that Hurt the Poor

From the Publishers: If you listen to the media, you would think that man-made environmental catastrophe was about to engulf the world and imperil civilization. From Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth to nightly jeremiads about CO2 emissions and carbon footprints, we are bombarded around the clock with alarmist reports that disasterous global warming is on the rise and that it’s our fault. In Climate Confusion, noted climatologist Roy Spencer shows that fears about global warming are vastly exaggerated and are driven by politics, not truth. He shows that a global superstorm has already arrived-but it is a storm of hype and hysteria. Climate Confusion is a ground-breaking book that combines impeccable scientific authority with great wit and literary panache to expose the hysteria surrounding the myths of global warming and climate change. Spencer shows that the earth is far more resilient than exopessimists pretend and that increasing wealth and technology ingenuity, far from being the enemies of the environment, are the only means we possess to solve environmental problems as they arise.

From the Author: I wrote Climate Confusion for several reasons. In contrast to other works, I wanted it to be an entertaining and easily understood primer on how weather and climate works, showing why manmade global warming is unlikely to be a serious problem for humanity. Furthermore, I wanted to explore the political, philosophical, and religious underpinnings of beliefs in catastrophic global warming, helping the reader to better appreciate why scientific research in this area has become tainted and untrustworthy. Finally, and possibly most importantly, by using basic economic concepts I wanted to counter currently proposed policy “solutions” to global warming that will have devastating effects on the world’s poor. (See sample pages from the book and more on his website on Weather Questions.)

The Deniers: The World Renowned Scientists Who Stood Up Against Global Warming Hysteria, Political Persecution, and Fraud–And those who are too fearful to do so” by Lawrence Solomon

From the Publisher: This is the one book that PROVES the science is NOT settled. The scientists profiled are too eminent and their research too devastating to allow simplistic views of global warming–like Al Gore’s–to survive. Al Gore says any scientist who disagrees with him on Global Warming is a kook, or a crook.

I guess Al Gore never met these people…

  • Dr. Edward Wegman--former chairman of the Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics of the National Academy of Sciences–demolishes the famous “hockey stick” graph that launched the global warming panic.
  • Dr. David Bromwich–president of the International Commission on Polar Meteorology–says “it’s hard to see a global warming signal from the mainland of Antarctica right now.”
  • Prof. Paul Reiter--Chief of Insects and Infectious Diseases at the famed Pasteur Institute–says “no major scientist with any long record in this field” accepts Al Gore’s claim that global warming spreads mosquito-borne diseases.
  • Prof. Hendrik Tennekes–director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute–states “there exists no sound theoretical framework for climate predictability studies” used for global warming forecasts.
  • Dr. Christopher Landsea–past chairman of the American Meteorological Society’s Committee on Tropical Meteorology and Tropical Cyclones–says “there are no known scientific studies that show a conclusive physical link between global warming and observed hurricane frequency and intensity.”
  • Dr. Antonino Zichichi–one of the world’s foremost physicists, former president of the European Physical Society, who discovered nuclear antimatter–calls global warming models “incoherent and invalid.”
  • Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski–world-renowned expert on the ancient ice cores used in climate research–says the U.N. “based its global-warming hypothesis on arbitrary assumptions and these assumptions, it is now clear, are false.”
  • Prof. Tom V. Segalstad–head of the Geological Museum, University of Oslo–says “most leading geologists” know the U.N.’s views “of Earth processes are implausible.”
  • Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu–founding director of the International Arctic Research Center, twice named one of the “1,000 Most Cited Scientists,” says much “Arctic warming during the last half of the last century is due to natural change.”
  • Dr. Claude Allegre–member, U.S. National Academy of Sciences and French Academy of Science, he was among the first to sound the alarm on the dangers of global warming. His view now: “The cause of this climate change is unknown.”
  • Dr. Richard Lindzen–Professor of Meteorology at M.I.T., member, the National Research Council Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, says global warming alarmists “are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn’t happen even if the models were right.”
  • Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov–head of the space research laboratory of the Russian Academy of Science’s Pulkovo Observatory and of the International Space Station’s Astrometria project says “the common view that man’s industrial activity is a deciding factor in global warming has emerged from a misinterpretation of cause and effect relations.”
  • Dr. Richard Tol–Principal researcher at the Institute for Environmental Studies at Vrije Universiteit, and Adjunct Professor at the Center for Integrated Study of the Human Dimensions of Global Change, at Carnegie Mellon University, calls the most influential global warming report of all time “preposterous . . . alarmist and incompetent.”
  • Dr. Sami Solanki–director and scientific member at the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Germany, who argues that changes in the Sun’s state, not human activity, may be the principal cause of global warming: “The sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures.”
  • Prof. Freeman Dyson–one of the world’s most eminent physicists says the models used to justify global warming alarmism are “full of fudge factors” and “do not begin to describe the real world.”
  • Dr. Eigils Friis-Christensen–director of the Danish National Space Centre, vice-president of the International Association of Geomagnetism and Aeronomy, who argues that changes in the Sun’s behavior could account for most of the warming attributed by the UN to man-made CO2.

And many more, all in Lawrence Solomon’s book, The Deniers.

Benefits of Global Warming

As a final note, I would personally like to see more discussion about the potential value of Global Warming.  Yes, that is right… what are the possible benefits of Global Warming! As our earth changes, animal life will continue to adapt and evolve. Even our efforts to clean the earth will have consequences for human and animal life alike.  Take for example the case of “reverse-evolution” in Washington state.

SEATTLE– Evolution is supposed to inch forward over eons, but sometimes, at least in the case of a little fish called the three spined stickleback, the process can go in relative warp-speed reverse, according to a study led by researchers at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center and published online ahead of print in the May 20 issue of Current Biology (Cell Press)“There are not many documented examples of reverse evolution in nature,” said senior author Catherine “Katie” Peichel, Ph.D., “but perhaps that’s just because people haven’t really looked.” Peichel and colleagues turned their gaze to the sticklebacks that live in Lake Washington, the largest of three major lakes in the Seattle area. Five decades ago, the lake was, quite literally, a cesspool, murky with an overgrowth of blue-green algae that thrived on the 20 million gallons of phosphorus-rich sewage pumped into its waters each day. Thanks to a $140 million cleanup effort in the mid-‘60s – at the time considered the most costly pollution-control effort in the nation – today the lake and its waterfront are a pristine playground for boaters and billionaires. It’s precisely that cleanup effort that sparked the reverse evolution, Peichel and colleagues surmise. Back when the lake was polluted, the transparency of its water was low, affording a range of vision only about 30 inches deep. The tainted, mucky water provided the sticklebacks with an opaque blanket of security against predators such as cutthroat trout, and so the fish needed little bony armor to keep them from being eaten by the trout. In 1968, after the cleanup was complete, the lake’s transparency reached a depth of 10 feet. Today, the water’s clarity approaches 25 feet. Lacking the cover of darkness they once enjoyed, over the past 40 years about half of Lake Washington sticklebacks have evolved to become fully armored, with bony plates protecting their bodies from head to tail. For example, in the late ‘60s, only 6 percent of sticklebacks in Lake Washington were completely plated. Today, 49 percent are fully plated and 35 percent are partially plated, with about half of their bodies shielded in bony armor. This rapid, dramatic adaptation is actually an example of evolution in reverse, because the normal evolutionary tendency for freshwater sticklebacks runs toward less armor plating, not more. “We propose that the most likely cause of this reverse evolution in the sticklebacks is from the higher levels of trout predation after the sudden increase in water transparency,” said Peichel, whose Hutchinson Center lab has established the stickleback as a new model for studying complex genetic traits. By examining multifaceted traits in the fish, such as body type and behavior, Peichel and colleagues shed light on the genetic networks at play in other complex traits, such as cancer and other common human diseases.

What then is the potential of such rapid adaptation (reverse evolution) to help us find cures to diseases such as cancer?

No matter what Mankind does to pollute or clean up, some animals may die out, but others will also grow stronger.  Is that not part of the natural life-cycle; the adaptation of nature?

As we examine the scientific viability of Global Warming,  increased growth of plant life in some regions may be a benefit to a warmer Earth.  Larger and more abundant plant life could mean more food for starving people and larger feeding grounds for some animals. Global Warming could be of benefit to our earth and these consequences should also be weighted in whatever actions we take.

Dr. J.R. Miller is a Professor of Applied Theology and Leadership & Dean of Online Learning at Southern California Seminary. Outside work, he is a church planter. Dr. Miller has a diverse educational background and authored multiple books on church history, biblical theology, and Leadership. Joe and his wife Suzanne enjoy the sun and surf with their 3 sons in San Diego, CA.

Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Google+ YouTube 

Related Post

Pin It on Pinterest