I have struggled for many hours to write an essay intended to provide a better understanding of the arguments regarding anthropogenic global warming (AGW). Having failed to achieve much more than a basic understanding of the issues, I have concluded: 1) global warming is a natural phenomena and 2) assertions that man is responsible for global warming are intentional distortions and misrepresentations of information, concocted to achieve a nefarious desired result.
I have concluded that assertions regarding AGW are an integral aspect of a strategy to establish an authoritarian form of governance with a core principle of centralized national management. That government would have the authority to determine the distribution of resources “from each according to his ability, for each according to his need.” (Karl Marx, 1875)
AGW is a significant aspect of an overall strategy to establish a socialist government. Socialists have recognized and seized upon an opportunity to employ a variety of tactics to manipulate the phenomenon of global warming and elevated carbon dioxide (CO2) levels to develop a problem, and then to proffer that government is the only competent institution available to solve the problem.
The socialists cleverly manipulate and distort the issues by initially misstating the facts. They identify a phenomenon, global warming, as a problem. Then they assert that an increase carbon dioxide (CO2) level causes global warming, and since man is responsible for the increase of CO2, man is responsible for global warming. Thus, any solution has to be based on the assumptions that 1) man is responsible for elevated CO2, 2) elevated CO2 is responsible for global warming and 3) man is responsible for global warming. The socialists conveniently package this as AGW and skillfully use it to achieve their objective.
Contrary to the socialist definition however, global warming is a phenomenon and elevated atmospheric CO2 is also a phenomenon. Assertions that elevated atmospheric CO2 causes global warming are disputable, so any assertion that man is resonsible for global warming is also disputable. Moreover, although the United States is unilaterally capable of achieving dramatic reductions in the quantity of CO2 it might produce, at significant cost, America has little ability to measurably influence countries such as China and India to do so as well. Therefore, what sacrifice is a nation willing or expected to make to unilaterally limit its CO2 production, and as a result its gross domestic output, if it is disputable whether CO2 does cause global warming, or if its unilateral reductions would measurably effect the global CO2 output, or global warming?
Having reviewed a substantial amount of literature to develop the aforementioned conclusions, it was clearly evident that global warming exists. So does global cooling. The following quote is offered for the single purpose, at this point, of documenting that global cooling and warming exists; not necessarily for the data regarding CO2 variations and global temperatures associated with those variations, although the confusion elicited is evident: “…measurements indicate that, at the beginning of the deglaciations, the CO2 increase either was in phase or lagged by less than ~1000 years with respect to the Antarctic temperature, whereas it clearly lagged behind the temperature at the onset of the glaciations.” http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/vostok.htm. Note the terms glaciations and deglaciations are plural, strongly suggesting multiple naturally occurring cycles.
The underlined information above confirms the earth has naturally undergone cycles of cooling and warming for tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands, of years. Since man did not influence any of the aforementioned cycles, it is logical to conclude man is not necessarily responsible for the current cycle, at whatever point it may be, whether it is presently at a high and going higher, at a high and stabilized, or at a high and soon to begin a transition into a cooling period.
Socialists defy this logic. They are enabled to defy it by sympathizers, such as academics and journalists, lawyers and judges, many who are also true socialists and others who are simply susceptible to manipulation and exploitation. Thus, instead of a rational concern for elevated CO2 as individual phenomena requiring attention for myriad of reasons (i.e. smog), the socialists sound an alarm that travesty is upon us requiring immediate and drastic government interventions.
To defy logic, socialists have successfully confused the issue of global warming with CO2 measurements, as depicted in the above reference to glaciations and deglaciations. Hence, CO2 is used as a tool to explain, and to confuse, the phenomena of global warming. Having correctly identified industrialization as the primary source of elevated levels of CO2, socialists then succeeded to identify CO2 as a “greenhouse gas,” thus defining it as the source of global warming and ascribing to it a profoundly negative identity. With the successful linkage of man to global warming, government is then in a position to be the solution to the problem.
Again, if the global warming phenomena and the elevated CO2 phenomena are considered independent events, there are no anthropogenic aspects to the issue, and thus dramatic governmental intervention is unnecessary.
It was mentioned above that industrialization is a primary source of elevated CO2. As a matter of fact, CO2 measurements have been objectively documented to have increased from ~315 parts per million (ppm) to ~335 ppm during the period from ~1955 to ~1985, http://www.biologie.uni-hamburg.de/b-online/e54/9.htm, and measurements in 2004 document 377 ppm. http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/pns/current_ghg.html. “Preindustrial CO2 mixing ratios were in the range 275-284 ppm, with the lower levels during 1550-1800 A.D., probably as a result of colder global climate (Etheridge et al. 1996). The Law Dome ice core CO2 records show major growth in atmospheric CO2 levels over the industrial period, except during 1935-1945 A.D. when levels stabilized or decreased slightly.” http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/lawdome.html.
Thus, the baseline CO2 level appears to be ~280 ppm. From 1850 to 1955 there was an increase from ~280 to 315 ppm, from 1955 to 1985 it increased to 335 ppm, and in 2004 CO2 level had increased to 377 ppm.
An April 28, 1975 Newsweek article was titled “The Cooling World.” http://www.denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm. The article is of little value to the global warming/CO2 argument, other than to demonstrate that it was not so long ago when the fear was the tragedy of global cooling. Now, a few decades later, we are being alarmed by the tragedy of global warming. Ironically, when statements made in 1975, such as “a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968,” are compared to recently published information, such as “during 1935-1945 when (CO2) levels stabilized or decreased slightly,” do CO2 and its anthropogenic effects come in to question. A conclusion can be drawn that in the time period from 1935-1945, during which the author claims CO2 stabilized or slightly decreased, CO2 was higher than it was in 1900. It would have measured somewhere between 280 and 315 ppm, (presumably closer to the latter than the former), since the recorded CO2 level in 1950 was ~315 ppm. Yet, the article described the disastrous effects of two decades of cooling, which incidentally was commensurate with an increasing CO2 level; a level that is dramatically excessive when compared to claims of cooling associated with very small variations in the 18th century (275-284ppm). Furthermore, as previously cited, “at the beginning of the deglaciations, the CO2 increase either was in phase or lagged by less than ~1000 years with respect to the Antarctic temperature, whereas it clearly lagged behind the temperature at the onset of the glaciations.” The scientists are clearly discussing long time frames here, not decades or years.
Thus, socialists would have us believe there is a more immediate cause and effect relationship between CO2 and global warming, contrary to the ~1000 year time frames mentioned above, hence describing otherwise natural cycles of warming as “in phase with” increasing levels of CO2. Otherwise, it is weather. Weather, retrospectively, has observable patterns, whereas predictions of future weather patterns are extremely unreliable. On the other hand, climate is relatively stable, with cooling and warming trends over very long periods, thus enabling general predictions that next winter will be cold and this summer will be warm. Predictions that future winter and summer seasons will be progressively warmer, when associated with elevated CO2, is not supported by the historical record or by the facts.
The period between 1350 and 1850 has been termed a Little Ice Age (LIA), a point where glaciations were at a modern maximum. During that period, CO2 levels are stated to have varied by single digits (275-284 ppm) preceding and following the event (there is some information indicating levels may have been as low as 180 ppm in earlier millennia). It is a leap of faith to conclude that it was elevated CO2 levels that ended the LIA, any more than it was elevated CO2 levels that ended any preceding cold periods. Furthermore, it is also a leap of faith to conclude that the period from 1800 to the present, with its concurrent increase in CO2 levels, portends an environmental disaster is forthcoming due to CO2. There is no evidence the end of the LIA was any more than a continuation of natural events, or that the climate change we now see is anything other than a continuation of those natural cycles that have been normal events long before man, and his CO2 production, could have been factors influencing the events.
Evaluation of data from the retreat of Exit Glacier in Alaska over the last 100 years
http://www.nps.gov/archive/kefj/documents/The%20Retreat%20of%20Exit%20Glacier. pdf demonstrates a general correlation of elevated CO2 with the glacier’s retreat in the last century, although the correlation is extremely inconsistent if evaluated in context with CO2 levels. As of ~1996 the glacier’s total retreat has been ~6500 feet from its maximum in 1815, and at the same time CO2 increased from ~280 ppm to ~360 ppm. Between 1815 and 1890 the glacier’s retreat was relatively insignificant, and CO2 was considered at a baseline of ~280 ppm. From 1890 to 1950 however (industrialization period), the glacier’s retreat was more than 4400 feet, while the CO2 level increased from ~280 to ~315 ppm. From 1950 to ~1996 however, the glacier retreated about 1600 feet while CO2 levels increased from 315 to ~360 ppm.
I hesitated to discuss specific information cited, for example “lower levels during 1550-1800 A.D., probably as a result of colder global climate” and “during 1935-1945 when (CO2) levels stabilized or decreased slightly.” It may be too critical an observation, but in the former quote the author is discussing levels from 275 to 284 ppm in relation to a cooling period where 275 ppm is linked with cooling, and 284 ppm with warming. The latter quote implies stable or decreasing CO2 from 1935 to 1945 associated with that relatively short cooling period, yet the 1950 measurement of 315 ppp is significantly higher than 275 ppm. It is assumptive to conclude a cold period was associated with stabilized or slightly decreased CO2 when the levels at that time were approaching 315 ppm, particularly when a previous cooling period was associated with 275 ppm.
Any discussion of cause and effect in regard to global warming and CO2 levels, therefore, must be defined as to whether it is somewhat immediate, lagging or proceeding in relatively short time frames, or in long time frames.
The confusion associated with CO2 levels, when they are linked to AGW, is beneficial to the socialist agenda. Again, elevated CO2 levels are phenomena. Global warming is a phenomenon. Linkage of the two is a disservice to America’s remarkable achievements in managing air pollutions in general when air pollution is a rapidly growing problem in China, India and many other emerging industrial markets such as Brazil and Indonesia.
To better understand CO2, let us compare it to another well known element, oxygen (O2). The normal concentration of (O2) in the air is a constant 21%. The normal concentration of CO2 is not measured in percentage, however, but in ppm. It is ~300 ppm, and is therefore ~0.03 % of the air around us. Thus, O2 would be ~210,000 ppm if measured using the same scale. Coincidentally, CO2 measurements are variable. They are slightly lower or higher depending on whether measurements are done during the day or during the night; or in winter or summer. http://www.biologie.uni-hamburg.de/b-online/e54/54d.htm. Sunlight, a vital component of photosynthesis, has a measurable impact on plant life’s consumption of CO2. In comparison, since CO2 is but a small fraction of the air, variances of plus 10 or minus 10 ppm are relatively significant, while the concurrent O2 variances of plus or minus 10 ppm are not. Plus or minus 10 ppm, or 1000 ppm, does not alter the O2 constant measure of 21%.
As has been stated, the first objective CO2 measurements were made in the 1950’s. Although CO2, as measured in the last 60 years, has increased measurably compared to 100 years ago, it is none the less relatively unchanged. It has increased from 0.030% to 0.0377%, a total increase of 0.0077%. Unless one is discussing polonium 210, the unnatural element used to kill the Russian in England (0.001mg lethal), or arsenic, a naturally occurring element often found in well water and deemed safe when under 10 parts per billion (ppb), alarms just aren’t going to be sounded due to an increase of a vital and naturally occurring substance such as CO2. I find it hard to become alarmed over a 70% increase of an element that is at a low level to begin with, and is still at a low level over the course of 100 years. Put another way, if I had 3 cents, and over 100 years it increased 70%, I would then have slightly more than a nickel. Regarding arsenic, a 70% increase of 10 ppb would equal 17 ppb, and chronic consumption of water containing 10 to 1820 ppb has been linked to various pathologies such as “blackfoot” and cancers. http://www.manbir-online.com/diseases/arsenic.htm. Do I dare say that the likelihood of “blackfoot” is probably much more significant at 1800 ppb than at 17 ppb? Do I dare say as well that infants and children would be more likely affected by a level of 17 ppb than adults, due to significant differences in their body mass? By the way, 1800 ppb is ~18,800% higher than 10 ppb, and arsenic is not a vital element to life, as compared with CO2. CO2 is vital to plant life and animal life as well, since plants use CO2 and in the process produce O2.
The information I have provided serves to demonstrate a linkage of the socialist agenda, as it regards AGW, to the socialist agenda regarding national energy production and consumption. Socialists seized the opportunity, long before global warming and CO2 elements entered the picture, to partner with environmentalism to limit national energy production. That partnership has denied the country access to resources in many federally managed inland areas, such as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, as well as most of the off shore coastal opportunities. Furthermore, it has successfully denied construction of new oil refineries, thereby limiting the supply of gasoline, even if oil supplies are adequate. Finally, the partnership has effectively denied any responsible development of coal and nuclear energy, thus crippling the nation to the point where today the economy is on the verge of economic recession due to high global energy demand and inadequate national energy supply.
The concept of AGW has strengthened the socialist grip on the control of national energy policy. For decades they have limited energy supplies, and now AGW provides them the opportunity to control national energy consumption as well. It may seem unbelievable that any group of Americans would choose to create economic chaos, for the sake of power, but that is exactly what is happening.
The end justifies the means.
(all bolded author’s emphasis)