By Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R.
The New York Times has published an incredibly dishonest article about global warming.
“Industry ignored its own scientists on climate,” says the headline on the article, by Andrew C. Revkin. It alleges that behind the scenes, fossil fuel producing companies admitted the accuracy of global warming theory, while publicly denying it.
That claim is wholly founded on one passage in a primer on climate change distributed by the Global Climate Coalition. Here is how it appears in the NYT article:
“The scientific basis for the Greenhouse Effect and the potential impact of human emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2 on climate is well established and cannot be denied,” the experts wrote in an internal report compiled for the coalition in 1995.
Download the PDF document here.
Sounds pretty damning, doesn’t it? However, the primer distinguishes the potential for human effects on climate from the actual evidence, and highlights uncertainties in what we know.
This primer addresses the following questions concerning climate change:
I) Can human activities affect climate?
The scientific basis for the Greenhouse Effect and the potential impact of human emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2 on climate is well established and cannot be denied.
2) Can future climate be accurately predicted?
The climate models which are being used to predict the increases in temperature which might occur with increased atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases are limited at present both by incomplete scientific understanding ofthe factors which affect climate and by inadequate computational power. Improvements in both are likely, and in the next decade it may be possible to make fairly accurate statements about the impact that increased greenhouse gas concentrations could have on climate. However, these improvements may still not translate into an ability to predict future climate for at least two reasons:
— limited understanding of the natural variability of climate, and
–inability to predict future atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases.
The smaller the geographic area considered, the poorer the quality of climate prediction. This is a critical limitation in our ability to predict the impacts of climate change, most of which would result from changes in a local or regional area.
The point is that the potential of human-caused climate change rests on good scientific theory, but has not been demonstrated as actually taking place.
This distinction between theory and hard evidence pervades the document, which I encourage you to read. It’s not at all different from a press backgrounder on the subject, which is also included in the PDF. Here is an excerpt from the backgrounder:
Are increases of man-made greenhouse gases contributing to global warming?
Scientists agree that the greenhouse effect is a real. naturally occurring phenomenon, Greenhouse gases trap the sun’s warmth in the lowest layers of the atmosphere, keeping Earth warm enough to sustain life. Without the natural greenhouse effect. The average surface temperature on Earth would fall below zero Fahrenheit, Indeed. in the natural greenhouse effect, atmospheric water vapor and clouds play a far greater role than other greenhouse gases, To put this in perspective, even if all other greenhouse gases were to disappear. water vapor and clouds would still leave us with 98 percent of the current greenhouse effect.
Scientists also agree that atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases (such as C02) are increasing as a result of human activity, But scientists differ on whether the increase in the concentrations of these gases will cause an “enhanced greenhouse effect,” or warming of the planet. because the role of greenhouse gases in climate change is not well understood.
This is precisely the same distinction between theory and what we actually know made in the primer. If Revkin doesn’t understand this, he missed the whole point of the primer. If he does understand the difference, Revkin is intentionally misrepresenting the facts.
Disclaimer: As with everything I write here, this viewpoint is my own, and does not necessarily reflect the views of my employer, the North County Times.
You’d think if the AGW proponents were so confident they were right, they would have allowed Lord Monckton to testify. Now the left thinks he has no credentials so why not let him testify and then allow Nobel Prize winning scientist Al Gore demolish his argument with scientific facts ?
Bradley, I would nod off in those meetings with Obama going um, uh hmm, uh, while waiting for someone to tell him what to do.
Mike K., that photo was taken when Summers met with credit card company CEOs. Using Volcker to his full extent would allow Summers to get some much-needed sleep. Alas, Summers is trying to minimize Volcker’s role out of turf jealousy.
Summers is nothing but a suit…standard issue, at that. This situation is crying for a man that probably doesn’t exist in DC. There’s plenty in the hinterlands, but that doesn’t do anyone a damn bit of good.