Savas Publishing & Consulting Group

Global Warming: A Dozen Questions from a Non-Scientist that Deserve Direct Answers

6. Viking explorer Erik the Red sailed to and settled southern Greenland about 982 A.D. At that time, the southern fjords were rich with greenery and the climate was much warmer than it is now. It was so hospitable that his people dressed in what we might today call “mini-skirts,” farmed the land, and lived there for more than four centuries. Over the course of those centuries, however, the mean temperature of the region slowly declined and glaciers spread. This eventually made it too difficult to farm and the Viking settlers abandoned Greenland. Question 6: Was the “normal” or “right” temperature range for southern Greenland the climate Erik the Red found in 982 A.D., or the much colder temperature that grips Greenland today? (Given how old the earth is and for how short a time we have been accurately measuring temperatures, how do you know what is “normal” or “right” for Greenland, or for anywhere?)

7. Speaking of Greenland (and with a hat tip to Patrick J. Michaels, senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato Institute and author of Meltdown: The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians, and the Media): In late 2005, the journal Science ran a study showing that satellite data confirmed Erik the Red’s former domicile was shedding roughly 25 cubic miles of ice each year. Media reports to this effect, offered without context, have alarmed many people. (One of my students brought this to my attention and exclaimed, “Miles of ice are breaking off and melting each year? My God, we need to do something!”) However, taking into consideration the size of Greenland’s ice mass, the continent was losing (are you ready?) 0.4 percent (that is POINT FOUR PERCENT) of its ice mass per century. As Dr. Michaels pointed out recently, “was” is the operative word in the Science article. The distinguished publication noted in a subsequent piece that the recent (and statistically puny) acceleration of Greenland’s ice loss from its huge glaciers has . . . suddenly reversed itself. Question 7: If losing roughly 0.4 percent of its mass per century is proof of manmade global warming, then the sudden reversal of this trend is proof of global cooling, right?

8. Legitimate scientists never, ever, claim they possess absolute knowledge of either nature or of the behavior of the subject of the field of study. Here is an example why. In the 18th and 19th centuries, Isaac Newton's Newtonian law of gravitation was considered to be a universal truth—an established scientific fact beyond debate. (This is what some are saying on the news channels today about global warming, i.e., “The debate is over.”) In the early 1900s, however, Albert Einstein’s Theory of Relativity proved that Newton’s theory was not universally true (it does not stand up in experiments involving motion at speeds approaching the speed of light or in close proximity of strong gravitational fields). What had long been considered “established scientific fact” was overturned by decades of rigorous scientific debate and intense arguments. Today, some people call the manmade global warming thesis “established fact” and that those who take issue with it are in the same camp as “holocaust deniers.” Let’s assume for the sake of discussion that the earth’s mean temperature has in fact increased slightly over the past century. Question 8: Is rigorous scientific debate about the cause of the planet’s warming (manmade or a natural cyclical event) more likely to establish the reason for the warming, or less likely to establish that reason?

9. The “Little Ice Age” was a significant centuries-long cooling period stretching from approximately the 13th Century AD to the early 19th Century AD. (Scientists agree the period was substantially cooler, but are unsure exactly when it began.) The earth’s climate began to warm again in the middle of the 1800s. At that time, manmade “greenhouse” gases were but a fraction of what they are today. Question 9: What triggered the dramatic cooling in the 13th Century, allowed it to maintain itself for six hundred years, and then ended it with the beginning of a new warming period if it was not manmade “greenhouse” gases?

10. According to NASA, the southern polar ice cap on Mars is melting rapidly, uncovering mountains and other never-before-seen geologic formations. Scientists believe the reason why is that carbon dioxide is filling the atmosphere, which is thickening. Question 10: Since Martian SUVs, industrial plants, and flatuous cattle are not driving, polluting, or passing methane gas across the Martian landscape, how can we account for the dramatic change in temperature on Mars? If natural forces can trigger massive climate changes on another planet in our solar system, why can't those same forces do the same thing on Earth?

11. After Hurricane Katrina struck in 2005, media outlets quoted “credible scientists” that it was the result of global warming, and that the 2006 hurricane season would be one of the worst on record because of man’s disrespect for Mother Earth. In fact, 2006 was almost “hurricane free” and one of the mildest on record. Question 11: Why did the media claim an intense hurricane season would be “proof” of the effects of global warming, but then fail to mention that the weak hurricane season must mean the exact opposite—that it is evidence there is no manmade global warming?

And so we return where we began, with the nearly always fallible media. The last fact pattern-question is a bit longer than the first eleven, but it is perhaps the most important of them all. Hopefully, it will trigger the light-bulb-over-the-head phenomenon for those among us who still possess the ability to reason.

12. Read this slowly and carefully. THINK about what it is telling you. Since 1895, there have been four different “cycles” during which major print (and now radio, TV, and internet) media predicted a looming climate “crisis.” Claims ranged from the “wiping out” of Canada to famines in which “billions will die.” In the 1950s, media claimed that the Man vs. Nature “war” was direr than the possibility of nuclear destruction. Global cooling—“the coming ice age”—was all the rage in the mid-1970s. In fact, the claim that we would all be living in a deep freeze by the year 2000 if we did not change the way we consumed oil and conducted our lives made the front pages of every major newspaper and news magazine (including Newsweek in 1975). “Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects,” warned the 1975 Newsweek article. “But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies,” Newsweek continued. “The longer the planners delay the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.”

Sounds familiar, doesn’t it?

Like today, some people demanded thirty years ago that we must take dramatic steps to halt the inevitable expansion of ice and save mankind. Suggestions three decades ago included melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers to melt the ice. (Yes, you read that right.) Today’s suggestions are no less loony, and include Al Gore’s idea of eliminating the combustion engine (that means taking away your cars) to stuffing corks into cows’ behinds because they produce methane (a “greenhouse” gas).

Here is the final question. You are betting your future that your politicians and fellow citizens get this one right: Given the diametrically opposed shrill (and always dead wrong) declarations of doom that have saturated our news outlets for more than 100 years, can we trust what the media tells us about the “science” of global warming?

When I was a youngster in northern Iowa, my dad used to throw salt onto the driveway ice to melt it. The next time you hear someone feeding you a line about how man is driving global warming and we must radically change the way we live—take it with a grain of salt. And ask him to answer some of these questions. I guarantee you that the look on his face will be priceless.

Theodore P. Savas is an attorney, college instructor, and the director of Savas Beatie, a history-related publishing house (www.savasbeatie.com). He is the author, co-author, or editor of 15 books, including Never For Want of Powder: The Confederate Powder Works in Augusta, Georgia (University of South Carolina Press, May 2007), A Guide to the Battles of the American Revolution (Spellmount, 2006), Silent Hunters: German U-boat Commanders of World War II (Naval Institute Press, 2004), and Hunt and Kill: U-505 and the U-boat War in the Atlantic (Spellmount, 2004). Email him by clicking here.



			My Quasi- Blog Home
		Global Warming: A Dozen Questions from a Non-Scientist that Deserve Direct Answers Page 1 \|Page 2 6. Viking explorer Erik the Red sailed to and settled southern Greenland about 982 A.D. At that time, the southern fjords were rich with greenery and the climate was much warmer than it is now. It was so hospitable that his people dressed in what we might today call “mini-skirts,” farmed the land, and lived there for more than four centuries. Over the course of those centuries, however, the mean temperature of the region slowly declined and glaciers spread. This eventually made it too difficult to farm and the Viking settlers abandoned Greenland. Question 6: Was the “normal” or “right” temperature range for southern Greenland the climate Erik the Red found in 982 A.D., or the much colder temperature that grips Greenland today? (Given how old the earth is and for how short a time we have been accurately measuring temperatures, how do you know what is “normal” or “right” for Greenland, or for anywhere?) 7. Speaking of Greenland (and with a hat tip to Patrick J. Michaels, senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato Institute and author of Meltdown: The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians, and the Media): In late 2005, the journal Science ran a study showing that satellite data confirmed Erik the Red’s former domicile was shedding roughly 25 cubic miles of ice each year. Media reports to this effect, offered without context, have alarmed many people. (One of my students brought this to my attention and exclaimed, “Miles of ice are breaking off and melting each year? My God, we need to do something!”) However, taking into consideration the size of Greenland’s ice mass, the continent was losing (are you ready?) 0.4 percent (that is POINT FOUR PERCENT) of its ice mass per century. As Dr. Michaels pointed out recently, “was” is the operative word in the Science article. The distinguished publication noted in a subsequent piece that the recent (and statistically puny) acceleration of Greenland’s ice loss from its huge glaciers has . . . suddenly reversed itself. Question 7: If losing roughly 0.4 percent of its mass per century is proof of manmade global warming, then the sudden reversal of this trend is proof of global cooling, right? 8. Legitimate scientists never, ever, claim they possess absolute knowledge of either nature or of the behavior of the subject of the field of study. Here is an example why. In the 18th and 19th centuries, Isaac Newton's Newtonian law of gravitation was considered to be a universal truth—an established scientific fact beyond debate. (This is what some are saying on the news channels today about global warming, i.e., “The debate is over.”) In the early 1900s, however, Albert Einstein’s Theory of Relativity proved that Newton’s theory was not universally true (it does not stand up in experiments involving motion at speeds approaching the speed of light or in close proximity of strong gravitational fields). What had long been considered “established scientific fact” was overturned by decades of rigorous scientific debate and intense arguments. Today, some people call the manmade global warming thesis “established fact” and that those who take issue with it are in the same camp as “holocaust deniers.” Let’s assume for the sake of discussion that the earth’s mean temperature has in fact increased slightly over the past century. Question 8: Is rigorous scientific debate about the cause of the planet’s warming (manmade or a natural cyclical event) more likely to establish the reason for the warming, or less likely to establish that reason? 9. The “Little Ice Age” was a significant centuries-long cooling period stretching from approximately the 13th Century AD to the early 19th Century AD. (Scientists agree the period was substantially cooler, but are unsure exactly when it began.) The earth’s climate began to warm again in the middle of the 1800s. At that time, manmade “greenhouse” gases were but a fraction of what they are today. Question 9: What triggered the dramatic cooling in the 13th Century, allowed it to maintain itself for six hundred years, and then ended it with the beginning of a new warming period if it was not manmade “greenhouse” gases? 10. According to NASA, the southern polar ice cap on Mars is melting rapidly, uncovering mountains and other never-before-seen geologic formations. Scientists believe the reason why is that carbon dioxide is filling the atmosphere, which is thickening. Question 10: Since Martian SUVs, industrial plants, and flatuous cattle are not driving, polluting, or passing methane gas across the Martian landscape, how can we account for the dramatic change in temperature on Mars? If natural forces can trigger massive climate changes on another planet in our solar system, why can't those same forces do the same thing on Earth? 11. After Hurricane Katrina struck in 2005, media outlets quoted “credible scientists” that it was the result of global warming, and that the 2006 hurricane season would be one of the worst on record because of man’s disrespect for Mother Earth. In fact, 2006 was almost “hurricane free” and one of the mildest on record. Question 11: Why did the media claim an intense hurricane season would be “proof” of the effects of global warming, but then fail to mention that the weak hurricane season must mean the exact opposite—that it is evidence there is no manmade global warming? And so we return where we began, with the nearly always fallible media. The last fact pattern-question is a bit longer than the first eleven, but it is perhaps the most important of them all. Hopefully, it will trigger the light-bulb-over-the-head phenomenon for those among us who still possess the ability to reason. 12. Read this slowly and carefully. THINK about what it is telling you. Since 1895, there have been four different “cycles” during which major print (and now radio, TV, and internet) media predicted a looming climate “crisis.” Claims ranged from the “wiping out” of Canada to famines in which “billions will die.” In the 1950s, media claimed that the Man vs. Nature “war” was direr than the possibility of nuclear destruction. Global cooling—“the coming ice age”—was all the rage in the mid-1970s. In fact, the claim that we would all be living in a deep freeze by the year 2000 if we did not change the way we consumed oil and conducted our lives made the front pages of every major newspaper and news magazine (including Newsweek in 1975). “Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects,” warned the 1975 Newsweek article. “But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies,” Newsweek continued. “The longer the planners delay the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.” Sounds familiar, doesn’t it? Like today, some people demanded thirty years ago that we must take dramatic steps to halt the inevitable expansion of ice and save mankind. Suggestions three decades ago included melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers to melt the ice. (Yes, you read that right.) Today’s suggestions are no less loony, and include Al Gore’s idea of eliminating the combustion engine (that means taking away your cars) to stuffing corks into cows’ behinds because they produce methane (a “greenhouse” gas). Here is the final question. You are betting your future that your politicians and fellow citizens get this one right: Given the diametrically opposed shrill (and always dead wrong) declarations of doom that have saturated our news outlets for more than 100 years, can we trust what the media tells us about the “science” of global warming? When I was a youngster in northern Iowa, my dad used to throw salt onto the driveway ice to melt it. The next time you hear someone feeding you a line about how man is driving global warming and we must radically change the way we live—take it with a grain of salt. And ask him to answer some of these questions. I guarantee you that the look on his face will be priceless. Theodore P. Savas is an attorney, college instructor, and the director of Savas Beatie, a history-related publishing house (www.savasbeatie.com). He is the author, co-author, or editor of 15 books, including Never For Want of Powder: The Confederate Powder Works in Augusta, Georgia (University of South Carolina Press, May 2007), A Guide to the Battles of the American Revolution (Spellmount, 2006), Silent Hunters: German U-boat Commanders of World War II (Naval Institute Press, 2004), and Hunt and Kill: U-505 and the U-boat War in the Atlantic (Spellmount, 2004). Email him by clicking here.