1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/8228/the-vicious-lie-behind-the-global-warming-scare/

The vicious lie behind the global warming scare

June 25, 2008 by

The environmentalist movement believes that unless immediate and drastic measures are taken to combat global warming, “disease, desolation and famine” are “inevitable” on a scale that might spell the end of life on earth, making earth “as hot as Venus.” Surely, such an apocalyptic threat demands immediate action. Given the resistance to curtailing industrial production (not to mention the economic destruction and mass death that such a curtailment would entail), environmentalists should eagerly supports experiments that attempt to compensate rather than eliminate the impact of industry on the environment.

In fact, a number of relatively simple, low-cost measures have been proposed by scientists and entrepreneurs, one of which is documented in the June 2008 issue of Popular Science (PDF). As early as 1988, oceanographers proposed seeding the oceans with iron, which would cause an algae bloom that could rapidly compensate for the entire effect of industrial civilization for far less money that it would cost to eliminate CO2 emissions. Seeding experiments by the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution have demonstrated that the technique works, although further experimentation is required. A number of entrepreneurs, such as Russ George of Planktos Corp (TED video) stepped forward to carry out the required work.

How would you expect environmental groups to react to such an opportunity? If you guessed outright or even cautious optimism, you would be dead wrong. “I don’t think any quick geo-engineering fixes are going to work,” said one Greenpeace scientist. “There are only two ways that we’re going to solve climate change: reduce the amount of energy that we use and dramatically change the methods we use to generate it.” According to Scientific American, environmental groups were essentially united in the belief that “if society relies on quick techno-fixes to ameliorate global warming … people will stop putting in the hard work necessary to cut carbon emissions.”

Think about what that statement means. “Hard work” means government coercion to destroy the industrial production that feeds (sometimes barely) a rapidly growing human population. “Quick engineering fix” means a fast, cheap, technological solution that allows us to have our cake (the wealthy, healthy life that industry makes possible) and eat it too (literally, algae eating CO2). Notice that their objection is not that iron seeding won’t work, but that it eliminates the incentive to destroy industrial civilization.

As the article make clear, environmentalists are violently opposed to even exploring any measure that attempts to neutralize the “threat” of global warming rather than deal with the cause. Lies and intimidation are integral to the movement: the terrorist group Sea Shepherd, which has sunk nine ships since 1979, threatened any future seeding experiments, their PR machine used fear of nanotechnology to claim that iron ore (plain rust) is “engineered nanoparticles,” while their political branch got the Spanish government to ban seeding on the grounds that it constitutes “toxic waste” dumping.

As should be clear by now, environmentalism is not actually opposed to global warming – ending the “threat” posed by global warming is the last thing on their agenda. Their real goal is to use the global warming scare to bully the developed world into reverting into the pre-industrial, pre-civilized age. They oppose viable alternative energy sources for the same reason that they oppose viable fixes to the crises they invent – they oppose nuclear energy, hydro power, and they are organizing to oppose wind power just as it has become viable. If solar panels ever become viable, they will certainly invent reasons to oppose them too.

(Note that I am not actually advocating iron ore seeding. I am not convinced that the climate is warming as rapidly as claimed, or that CO2 is the cause, and even it is, it is likely that higher CO2 levels and a warmer climate offer tremendous benefits to both plant and animal life. If anything, we should be encouraging measures that make our world greener and more comfortable.)

{ 153 comments }

Walt D. September 13, 2008 at 12:13 pm

John
Sorry it took me so long to get back to you. Here is the NASA article I was referring to. Note that this was done on a previous solar cycle. You will note that the solar flux is lower than in was in the current cycle.
Title:
Solar flux and its variations
Authors:
Smith, E. V. P.; Gottlieb, D. M.
Affiliation:
AA(Maryland, University, College Park, Md.), AB(Maryland, University, College Park, Md.)
Publication:
Space Science Reviews, vol. 16, Nov.-Dec. 1974, p. 771-802. (SSRv Homepage)
Publication Date:
12/1974
Category:
Solar Physics
Origin:
STI
NASA/STI Keywords:
PERIODIC VARIATIONS, SOLAR ACTIVITY EFFECTS, SOLAR CONSTANT, SOLAR FLUX, ATMOSPHERIC EFFECTS, FAR ULTRAVIOLET RADIATION, IRRADIANCE, SOLAR CYCLES, SOLAR FLARES, SOLAR ROTATION, SOLAR X-RAYS, TABLES (DATA)
Comment:
A&AA ID. AAA012.080.042
Bibliographic Code:
1974SSRv…16..771S
Abstract
Data on the solar irradiance as derived from a number of sources are presented. An attempt was made to bring these data onto a uniform scale. Summation of fluxes at all wavelengths yields a figure of 1357.826 per sq m for the solar constant. Estimates are made of the solar flux variations due to flares, active regions (slowly varying component), solar rotation and the 11-year cycle. Solar activity does not produce a significant variation in the value of the solar constant. Nevertheless, variations in the X-ray and extreme ultraviolet portions of the solar flux may be several orders of magnitude during solar activity, especially at times of major flares. It is well established that these short wavelength flux enhancements cause significant changes in the terrestrial ionosphere.
Regards, Walt

Walt D. September 13, 2008 at 12:45 pm

TokyoTom
Based on your last post, I thought you might find this article interesting. I have included the abstract. You will probably want to read the full article in Japanese!
GLOBAL BIOGEOCHEMICAL CYCLES, VOL. 19, GB4013, doi:10.1029/2004GB002257, 2005

Interannual and decadal changes in the sea-air CO2 flux from atmospheric CO2 inverse modeling

Prabir K. Patra

Frontier Research Center for Global Change/Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology, Yokohama, Japan

Shamil Maksyutov

Frontier Research Center for Global Change/Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology, Yokohama, Japan

Misa Ishizawa

Frontier Research Center for Global Change/Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology, Yokohama, Japan

Takakiyo Nakazawa

Center for Atmospheric and Oceanic Studies, Tohoku University, Sendai, Japan

Taro Takahashi

Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University, Palisades, New York, USA

Jinro Ukita

Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University, Palisades, New York, USA

Abstract

The atmosphere-land-ocean fluxes of CO2 were derived for 64 partitioned areas of the globe (22 over the ocean and 42 over the land) using a time-dependent inverse (TDI) model for the period of January 1988 to December 2001. The model calculation partially follow the TransCom-3 protocol, and is constrained by atmospheric CO2 concentration data from 87 stations and fully time-dependent atmospheric transport model simulations. The air-to-land and air-to-sea fluxes averaged over the 1990s are estimated at 1.15 ± 0.74 and 1.88 ± 0.53 Pg-C yr−1, respectively. These estimates, however, remain uncertain owing to sampling biases arising from the sparse distribution of atmospheric CO2 data, are compared with other estimates by various methods. The sensitivity analysis indicates that the differences in fluxes and flux variability caused by the choices of initial conditions for the TDI model are smaller compared to those due to the selection of measurement networks. Our model results capture interannual variations in global and regional CO2 fluxes realistically. The estimated oceanic CO2 flux anomalies appear to be closely related to prominent climate modes such as El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO), the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO), and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO). The results from the correlation analyses show that the oceanic CO2 flux in the tropics is strongly influenced by the ENSO dynamical cycle, and that in the sub-polar regions by upwelling of sub-surface waters in the winter and plankton blooms in the spring.

Received 14 March 2004; accepted 26 August 2005; published 15 November 2005.
I enjoy reading your interesting posts, even if I don’t necessarily agree with all your points of view -Walt

John P. Reisman (The Centrist Party) September 20, 2008 at 8:06 am

Walt D.

I’ve examined the concepts from “European Geophysical Society 2003 VARIATIONS OF COMPOSITION AND TEMPERATURE OF THE STRATOSPHERE CAUSED BY SOLAR UV RADIATION’

I find no relevance however, pertaining to this global warming event. It would be helpful if you are going to offer up random papers that don’t seem to be relevant, if you could explain the scientific basis for the reason you are presenting the information. Otherwise it becomes less meaningful to respond to you.

I’ve said this ad infinitum in this blog, context and relevance is key.

The other paper you presented from 1974 “Solar flux and its variations” is outdated. We have much better data now.

The abstract you presented on
GLOBAL BIOGEOCHEMICAL CYCLES, VOL. 19, GB4013, doi:10.1029/2004GB002257, 2005
is a study between 1988 – 2001 (13 years) does not qualify as a long term climate study as it is not mature enough. It is mostly studying the NAO, PDO and ENSO. That does not mean that it does not add to the aggregate knowledge pertaining to NAO, PDO and ENSO as it does, but again ‘relevance’ and ‘context’ are critical. It is not germane to the AGW argument.

You are not presenting any relevant information and you are still apparently taking things out of context. If you can’t bring relevant information to the argument, or proper context, then your argument and perspective is or should be considered irrelevant, ie.e not germane to the present knowledge and understanding of AGW.

Comments on this entry are closed.

{ 1 trackback }

Previous post:

Next post: