Do we really cause global warming?

Photo by Billy Wilson Photography via creative commons

OCALA, Fla., May 19, 2014 — Public concern over climate change has died down over the last few years. This lack of attention on climate change offers the ability to discuss it in earnest.

“If you look at both the science and the empirical evidence, the hypothesis of man-made climate change just doesn’t add up,” Steve Goreham of the Heartland Institute, a group which opposes the idea that humans cause global warming, told me in 2012.

READ ALSO: America’s power grid at the limit: the road to electrical blackouts

He continued: “Regarding the science, theory of man-made climate change claims that man-made emissions of greenhouse gases are boosting Earth’s greenhouse effect and causing dangerous global warming. But if you break down the greenhouse effect, man’s contribution is small. First, water vapor, not carbon dioxide, is Earth’s dominant greenhouse gas. Somewhere between 75 percent and 90 percent of Earth’s greenhouse effect is due to water vapor and clouds.

“Second, of the remaining part of the greenhouse effect that is caused by CO2 and methane, about 96 percent of this is caused by natural emissions from oceans, the biosphere, and volcanoes. This means that man-made emissions are only causing about one percent of Earth’s greenhouse effect. Even if we could eliminate all industrial emissions, the change in global temperature would be too small to even detect.

“Regarding the empirical evidence, all of the climate models predict a heating of the low atmosphere in Earth’s tropical regions. This atmospheric ‘hot spot’ must be present if dangerous climate change were occurring. But thousands of temperature measurements over the last 25 years by satellites and weather balloons do not show this hot spot, powerful evidence that the climate models are wrong.

“In addition, global temperatures have not increased for at least 10 years. In 1990, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicted a global rise in temperatures of 0.3 degrees Celsius per decade. Twenty-two years later, global temperatures remain far below even the lowest IPCC estimate.”

Bob Inglis served South Carolina’s fourth congressional district for six non-consecutive terms. Based in the Greenville suburbs, he started out as a fairly routine conservative Republican. During the latter half of his tenure, however, his views moderated considerably. After Barack Obama was elected president, Inglis refused to adopt the angry temperament that became routine for many on the right.

During the 2010 primary cycle, he lost to a Tea Party-backed challenger by an almost unbelievable 42 points.

Today, Rep. Inglis devotes his career to protecting and promoting environmental interests. Unlike many environmental activists, he looks to free enterprise to find solutions for the most daunting environmental challenges.

READ ALSO: Climate Change is important: America need a paradigm shift

“The National Academy of Sciences was established a long time ago (by President Lincoln) to help Congress and the President with scientific questions,” he told me, also in 2012. “They’ve said, ‘Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for—and in many cases is already affecting—a broad range of human and natural systems.’ At the Energy and Enterprise Initiative you won’t hear us talking about apocalyptic visions. You will hear us talking about reasonable risk avoidance. The science clearly indicates a risk; let’s move to reduce that risk.”

Rep. Inglis went on to mention that “(w)e conservatives have the answer to the energy and climate challenge: it’s free enterprise in an accountable market place where there are no subsidies for any fuels and where all fuels are accountable for all of their costs—including the health costs of their emissions. Citizens making individual decisions in the liberty of enlightened self-interest will lead us to a wealth-creating/job-creating energy revolution.

“We don’t need clumsy government regulations or fickle tax incentives; we need an accountable marketplace. Of course, consumers will need some way to pay for that innovation, so we’re proposing that any new emissions tax be coupled with either a dollar-for-dollar reduction or elimination of taxes on some form of income (individual income taxes, corporate income taxes or payroll taxes) or with some form of a rebate to taxpayers. The idea is to change what we tax. What conservative wouldn’t jump at the opportunity to reduce taxes on something we want more of (income) and shift the tax onto something we want less of (emissions)?”

Regardless of whether or not one supports the position that climate change is a natural phenomenon, there can be little doubt that common ground is difficult to reach on environmental policy. Only a short while ago, finding consensus on what was best for the environment was not such a partisan debacle.

Rep. Inglis offered some words of wisdom on the matter: “The pain of the Great Recession has had us necessarily focused on this month’s mortgage payment and this month’s paycheck. But solutions are usually found on a longer time horizon than that. If we can focus on that longer time horizon, we can find American solutions. First, though, we’ve got to give up on this divisive scapegoat hunt that some partisans have led us on.”

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2014 Communities Digital News

• The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the editors or management of Communities Digital News.

This article is the copyrighted property of the writer and Communities Digital News, LLC. Written permission must be obtained before reprint in online or print media. REPRINTING CONTENT WITHOUT PERMISSION AND/OR PAYMENT IS THEFT AND PUNISHABLE BY LAW.

Correspondingly, Communities Digital News, LLC uses its best efforts to operate in accordance with the Fair Use Doctrine under US Copyright Law and always tries to provide proper attribution. If you have reason to believe that any written material or image has been innocently infringed, please bring it to the immediate attention of CDN via the e-mail address or phone number listed on the Contact page so that it can be resolved expeditiously.

  • kdk22

    Can stop reading at “Heartland Institute”. The same conservative think tank that brought us: “In the 1990s, the Heartland Institute worked with Philip Morris to question the link between secondhand smoke and health risks”

    Classy organization.

  • Michael Harlow

    In simple terms, the planet is 70% water, and on the 30% land, it is occupied by humans only 5%. There is no way man is capable of affecting the climate, even if he tried. What does affect the earth’s climate is the sun. Its a blazing hot star with dynamic activity.

    • Tom Terrific


    • Nikola Tasev

      “I don’t see a way man is capable” does not equal “there is no way…”.
      The carbon dioxide itself does not heat the atmosphere, it prevents the heat from radiating to space. What’s more, the natural carbon cycle is in ballance. Unlike it, the smaller human contribution adds up without anyting to significantly compensate for it.
      The Sun’s activity is dynamic, yet it can, and is, measured by scientists. I don’t get it how people can think scientists somehow failed to take the sun contribution into consideration.

      • Michael Harlow

        I’d suggest an additional review of their research. You will find political calculations involved, efforts to skew the data to achieve desired results. East Anglican University document dump revealed the fraud. I only ask that people get “all” relevant information. Patrick Moore, a founder of Greepeace and or the Sierra club, left because of the fraud he witnessed in the group, and he’s said the Climate Change hysteria is all a hoax. Science is not a consensus vote. Thank you.

  • MarkH

    Yes ….. because Free Enterprise in an “accountable” marketplace has been SO successful in the last 10 years …… banking (nope) ….. real estate (nope) ….. auto manufacturing (nope). Thank goodness the Federal Gov’t was there to look out for the rest of us!

    • wtfbbqsauce

      You’ve mentioned crony capitalism. Let a true free market actually do its thing.

      Banking, government regulated. Real estate, government forced banks to give mortgages to people who had no chance of repaying the loan. Auto manufacturing, the only American manufacturer that read the market trend and adapted was Ford; the others should not have gotten any form of bailout and should have failed. Yep, everything you stated is crony capitalism.

      • MarkH

        I agree that special interests should not be involved at the levels they currently are. My point was that companies involved in “pure capitalism” rarely show social responsibility when measured against profits. Regulation from the Federal Government has been imposed after it has been demonstrated that self-governance failed in a particular industry.

        I would love to see a true “Free Enterprise” at work – but alas, this is much like pure capitalism or pure communism – great ideas in principle – but impossible to implement in the real world.

  • Michael_Shores

    Mr. Cotto:

    You have demonstrated your ignorance of systems thinking. I agree with your assertion that our impact on climate is small. It is when compared with many other factors. But those factors had settled into a long period of general stability until we began to make our contribution. But our insignificant contribution may have been and probably was the straw that broke the camel’s back. Like many other systems disturbed from stasis, feedback loops were spawned which in this case have been overwhelmingly positive. Too bad that those who benefit from the status quo have spawned a conspiracy of inaction that threatens to lead to social collapse.

  • Gele Eerie

    One of the defining dogmas in today’s temple of man-made global warming is the notion that the future can somehow magically be predicted.

    • Nikola Tasev

      I don’t know about magic, but the future can be scientifically predicted with varying degrees of certainty.
      Of course, if you prefer to believe the people that told you tobacco and leaded gasoline are healthy, instead of the scientists of every national scientific organization of the world, well that’s your problem.