Motivations Behind and Beyond Global Warming/Climate Change.
By Rick Hayes
Changing America to save the planet is essentially what all of the Democrat Presidential candidates are urging young Americans to embrace while also actively encouraging the implementation of the proposed "Green New Deal"; a bold plan created to help them achieve that goal. The concept that climate change will destroy the earth has the support of the media and both Democrats and Republicans alike.
The global warming mantra starts with a statement agreed to by all scientists, that man burns fossil fuels which produce CO2. The rest of the doctrine is the subject of intense disagreement. Global warming promoters go on to say that CO2 is the leading cause of the greenhouse effect, which ultimately causes global temperatures to rise. And so because of man, the earth is increasingly getting warmer, more so now than at any other time in its history.
So, with all of the available data, how is it possible there exists a Grand Canyon sized divide in the disagreement of global warming between scientists?
Words and phrases are powerful, and if misunderstood or manipulated, they can unintentionally or intentionally mislead people into the wrong conclusions. For instance, the term "climate change" seems to mean many things to many people. Every climate scientist worth their salt wholeheartedly believes the climate is changing. Those who strongly disagree with today's climate change movement also believe the climate is changing because the climate does always change. Add to this that many on both sides of the fence use the terms climate change and global warming interchangeably and there you have it - confusion. According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), "Global warming" refers to the rise in global temperatures due mainly to the increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. So, by the definition offered by the USGS, it would appear that the new term "Climate Change" is used by the media as well as scientists supporting climate change to describe global warming; an old problem with a new name. Henceforth the term global warming will be used in this article to describe both global warming and climate change.
The other misunderstanding that many people have in the global warming debate has to do with falsely equating the words "carbon" and "carbon dioxide" also known as CO2 and having an inaccurate image of both. Carbon and carbon dioxide CO2 have nothing in common except for a carbon molecule. And although many people have visions of black soot or coal when they hear the word carbon, it's an element that's everywhere and in all living things. Carbon dioxide CO2, on the other hand, is viewed by some scientists as a pollutant that is dangerous to the planet and must be eliminated if the earth is to survive. Many Americans now hold that same opinion because of the constant repetition of media propaganda.
As an example, back in 2009, under President Obama, the EPA declared CO2 to be a pollutant. The importance of making such a claim was that it then gave the agency the power to regulate the gas. But regardless of the EPA or the media's relentless spin, the scientific truth is that CO2 is an invisible, odorless gas. Dust off an old high school science book and you'll see that green plants and some other organisms use sunlight to synthesize foods from carbon dioxide and water in what is known as Photosynthesis. So plants need CO2 to grow.
Putting all conspiracies and propaganda aside and using simple common sense, does it sound reasonable that something that is essential to life and helps plants to grow can be a pollutant and a danger to nature?
Historically, when CO2 has been abundant in the atmosphere, man has experienced great prosperity, health, and growth due to the greening of the planet with its increased building resources and food supplies. Climate temperature charts produced by global warming promoters show that the earth is experiencing a warming trend with some of the warmer years breaking records. But how far back do the charts go? And has the temperature been steadily rising throughout history or have there been some ups and downs?
According to NASA, "The planet's average surface temperature has risen about 1.62 degrees Fahrenheit (0.9 degrees Celsius) since the late 19th century, (1880). The article points out that most of the warming occurred in the past 35 years. And that five of the warmest years on record took place since 2010 with 2016 being the warmest year on record. Those statistics sound convincing as well as frightening.
To put those statistics in perspective, when NASA says that 2016 was the hottest year on record, the immediate assumption by many is that 2016 must have been the warmest year since the beginning of recorded time. But in fact, scientists mark 1880 as the start of modern global record-keeping, which is only 139 years ago. Not a very long time when compared to the earth and its over four billion year history. The reason that 1880 is used is that earlier available climate data didn't cover enough of the planet to get an accurate reading. So NASA could have equally said 2016 was the hottest year in 139 years but "on record" sounds much more impressive.
On the other side, many scientists argue that the current temperature trend is nowhere near the warmest. They point out data collected via ice core samples going back thousands of years that show the earth has had much warmer periods. They also show a period a thousand years ago when Vikings were colonizing Greenland, and because it was much warmer than today, they were raising barley and brewing beer. Today barley can't grow in Greenland. There is evidence that around a thousand years ago, there was no summer ice at the North Pole and 8,000-year-old tree stumps can be seen under what is now a mile deep of ice meaning that it was much warmer 8,000 years ago than it is today and man wasn't driving cars back then.
Many skeptics of global warming point to the 1970s as evidence that climate scientists have had an abysmal history regarding predictions when it comes to the future of the earth's temperature. It was at that time that climate scientists were predicting global cooling and the coming of the next Ice Age.
Nevertheless, global warming promoters not only insist that now the earth is warmer, but man causes the increase in temperature. According to a May 2018 paper published by the Union of Concerned Scientists "The primary cause of global warming is human activity that releases carbon into the atmosphere, most significantly the burning of fossil fuels to drive cars, generate electricity, and operate our homes and businesses." And an article from the Committee On Climate Change, "Global CO2 emissions from human activity have increased by over 400% since 1950. As a result, the concentration of CO2 in the air has reached more than 400 parts per million by volume (ppm), compared to about 280ppm in 1750 (around the start of the Industrial Revolution).
But many climate scientists opposed to the belief in global warming also agree that there is currently a warming trend but that it's not unusual, permanent, or harmful.
Climate analyst and authority on polar history and exploration, Dr. Fred Goldberg writes that the primary cause of global warming is not human activity. He says that CO2 from all sources comprises only about 1.5% of the greenhouse effect, while water vapor accounts for 95%. According to Goldberg, any impact that CO2 may have on the warming of the earth is "insignificant." But Goldberg goes further stating that man-made CO2 accounts for only 4% of the CO2 total. Thus if 1.5% of the total greenhouse effect amount is insignificant, how insignificant must, man's' CO2 contribution to the greenhouse effect be at just 0.06%.
Princeton's Professor William Happer who is a fellow of the American Physical Society and American Association for the Advancement of Science and a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the National Academy of Sciences, and the American Philosophical Society said, "There's very little evidence that humans are making much impact as far as CO2."
Happer, who stated that he knows more about CO2 than many climate scientists because of his work with CO2 lasers, said that the space needed for CO2 to significantly warm the planet is already saturated. "Most of what you can do with CO2 (to warm the planet) has already been done." He said that any addition of CO2 concerning warming the planet is like adding red paint to a barn after it has already been painted red. That you may get a slightly deeper red color, but the impact is nowhere near the effect that you received when you first painted the barn red. Happer said that the earth is having a CO2 famine because the CO2 levels going back 550 million years have been in the thousands of parts per million, not a few hundred like today.
When promoters of global warming say the science is settled, they make it abundantly clear that they are not interested in any discussion or debate on the methods used to arrive at their positions. Why? Perhaps the answer can be found inside Al Gore's global warming awareness film of 2006 "An Inconvenient Truth." It catapulted global warming apocalyptic images into the consciousness of millions of people. And it instantly transformed Gore into a recognizable expert on the subject.
According to a March 2008 article in the Digital Journal In 2004 Gore co-founded Generation Investment Management, (GIM) a company that invests in or buys companies looking to profit off global warming concerns. Two years later in 2006, Gore released the mother of all global warming films, "An Inconvenient Truth" where a year later he won an Oscar. In a November 2013 article in Forbes it stated that Gore stands to make a fortune on "anti-carbon investment hype." All of this as Gore enjoys his private jets and his 20-room mansion that consumes more than 21 times the kilowatt-hours of the U.S. household average.
Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez spearheaded The Green New Deal that is now accepted by all Democrat Presidental candidates. The stated goal of the plan is to meet 100 percent of the power demands of The United States through renewable sources by 2030. That would translate into eliminating the current fuel that now runs 85 percent of the U.S. economy.
According to National Review Ocasio-Cortez's chief of staff Saikat Chakrabarti, said, "The interesting thing about the Green New Deal, is it wasn't originally a climate thing at all," Chakrabarti added, "Because we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing."