For Anna, on Global Warming

I wrote a long response on your blog the other night, Anna, then something strange happened, and I lost it -- too late to start over.

The biggest problem I have with the global warming debate is that the "facts" seem to depend on the who's writing. The stuff I read tells me that:

1. The majority of the relatively modest increase in temperatures last century took place during the first half -- when we were dumping relatively less CO2 in the atmosphere.

2. The temperatures since 2000 have actually declined about 1 degree Celsius -- most of the last century's increase -- and this last winter has been one of the coldest in years.

3. The Antarctic ice mass has thickened over the past few years.

4. There is clear evidence that the earth was warmer in times past -- Greenland was much "greener" when discovered by the Vikings; receding glaciers in the Alps are nothing new.

5. Global warming will bring benefits, as well as problems. The benefits are ignored in the hysterical concerns.

6. Mars is warming, too -- apparently without man and SUVs.

7. The scientific debate is alive and well.

There is clear evidence of cyclical climate change before humans became a factor, and I doubt we are playing a major role in the current changes. I remember the concern a few decades ago that we were on the verge of a new ice age.

I believe we all tend to sift the things we read/hear through a filter of our personal view of the way the world works. I don't believe the world ecology is in a fragile balance, and that we can easily throw it onto an irreversable, disastrous course. I believe, rather, that mother nature is incredibly resilient. Rivers and lakes that were thought to be beyond hope have been cleaned up and restored more quickly than most thought possible. The fires in Yellowstone were thought to be a horrible disaster. Within a season, it was evident that the area was experiencing an amazing recovery. Through my filter, anyone positing crisis has the burden of proof.

Some of the most radical activists believe that man is the major problem of the planet, that the world would be better off without us. I believe the world exists for our use and benefit; that animals don't have equal rights; that we need to be good stewards for our own sakes and that of our posterity -- but not for the benefit of any other species.

Financial resources are limited. Funds spent on reducing carbon footprints, for example, are funds that will not available for other purposes -- whether for research, adaptation to changing climate conditions, or unrelated matters like improving living conditions in third world countries or simply leaving the taxpaying public with more in its pocket. It is, therefore, important that vast sums not be committed until the reality of the problem is established beyond a doubt and the benefit has been determined to worth the cost. The true cost, Sowell would say, is the alternative use to which the funds might have been put. I remember Rachel Carson's Silent Spring that led to the ban on DDT. One result was millions of deaths from Malaria. Subsequent research, however, pretty well confirmed that the threats to the world's birds and people were way overstated.

While it is tempting to suppose that those crying, "The sky is falling," are disinterested and that the doubters are trying to preserve their corporate profits, fearmongering pays off quite well, in fundraising and research grants -- and the motivations of those so engaged are just as legitimately questioned as are those of the skeptics. (How much money would EDF raise if their letter stated: "We are concerned about the possible damage that might be caused to the world's ecosystems by our increasing use of fossil fuels. Please send us money so that we can do further research and seek to confirm whether or not this is a problem.") Dismissing, out-of-hand, science funded by corporate interests is no more valid than dismissing that funded by environmental groups. Both have self-interests that may bias the research or cause them to seek evidence supporting their points of view. In the end, business must convince the consumer to be successful. The environmental group only has to convince the politicians.