Contributed by “The Ed”
Al Gore, in his documentary “An Inconvenient Truth”, said this: “The debate is over! There’s no longer any debate in the scientific community about this. But the political systems around the world have held this at arm’s length because it’s an inconvenient truth.”
In that documentary, there is a graph that shows the relationship between carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and the earth’s temperature. The graph is compelling. You can see how temperature and CO2 correlate.
Gore’s argument is that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. More CO2 in the atmosphere means that the earth will hold its heat better. His solution is to cut down on the production of CO2. CO2 is produced when making energy. Our economy is built on the use of energy for transport, for production, for electricity, for communication and for living. That certainly would make the greenhouse argument “An Inconvenient Truth”, but is it true?
If I look at the graph, I see the CO2 shooting way up (red line). So why isn’t the temperature following it (light blue line)?
There are lots of inconvenient truths out there. If I want to find them, all I have to do is listen for the person shouting “The debate is over” on ANY controversial issue. Al Gore ignores a lot of inconvenient truths.
He claimed in front of Congress that the science is settled. If that is true, then skeptics should be hard to find. But when Forbes did a survey of geoscientists and engineers they found only 36% felt that the globe is warming due to man’s activity. The rest put the blame on nature.
I recently got into a debate with a researcher whose research grants – his livelihood – often depend on the greenhouse gas theory of climate change. He has a lot of investment in the theory. I’m not invested in it, other than to say that I don’t want to give up my transportation, the goods I can purchase, my electrical conveniences, my ability to communicate and my ability to make a living. All this would happen if we shut off our use of energy. That would be an extreme case. My investment was for the distant future. The researcher’s investment was for his here and now.
His argument was that so many prominent scientists agree that we are causing our earth to warm up because of the carbon we burn. He said they have done the scientific models and they all prove that global warming is real. I countered with the fact that when they are all similar models they will all get similar results. That makes them all wrong if one is wrong. I could see I was not getting anywhere so I added, “Besides, it doesn’t explain the Coca-Cola problem.”
My statement was such a surprise, it almost seemed to be a non-sequitur for him. But curiosity got the better of him so I got a chance to explain: The problem is that if Coca-Cola is warm it rapidly loses its CO2 fizz. But if it is cold it holds CO2 better. Before he could interrupt I went on. The solubility of CO2 in water falls as temperature rises. When it warms up, CO2 will come out of the water.
We have millions of square miles of ocean surface area with billions of tons of CO2 dissolved in its waters. If the ocean surface warms it will release CO2. Did CO2 cause higher temperatures (as Gore wants us to believe), or did global warming cause higher levels of CO2 by forcing CO2 out of the oceans’ surface layers (as fizz is forced out of warm Coca-Cola)? Which is the cause, and which is the effect?
He knew the chemistry and physics of solubility better than I do. It flummoxed him. The global warming argument goes to pieces if warming temperatures cause higher levels of CO2 and cooling temperatures cause lower levels of CO2. It puts their effect before their cause, turning their theory on its head.
Look again at the graph at the top of this article, while I reiterate a point I’ve already made: The CO2 (red line) is shooting way up. If CO2 causes warming, why isn’t the temperature (light blue line) following the temperature upward? Answer: because Gore has it backwards…the higher temperature causes the increased CO2. Coca-Cola proves it.
It was an alternative explanation that he had not looked at. So, logically, the debate really should not be over.
“Well I am sure that they have incorporated that into their models,” he said. Then he showed me how smart he was by finding more ways to call me an idiot than I could possibly remember. I won’t belabor this article by trying to list them. For him, logical or not, the debate is over.
His statement about CO2 coming out of ocean water when the air warms already being accounted for in the models was not one of science but of blind faith. Faith is a good thing but it does not belong in the realm of science except when the rules laid out make the world predictable because they have been proven. I have faith that when I drop a pencil it will fall to the floor. The laws of gravity have been proven. They are constantly tested with predictions followed by measurement. So far, the temperature measurements do not follow the global warming predictions. Indeed, the predicted warming has not shown up in the last ten years.
Just ask Al Gore’s least favorite polar bear:
The accuracy of forecasts that extend beyond 5 days is shaky. I would not have wanted my name on anything that predicts a rise or a fall in the global temperature. I do not share the faith that CO2 causes global warming. Given what would happen to our way of life if we gave up carbon based fuels, I do not think we should base public policy on it – especially policies with extreme economic consequences.