Do you remember when you were in elementary school and you learned that plants had some mysterious process that involved a substance called chlorophyll and energy from sunlight and it made them grow? Do you remember learning that plants emit oxygen and take in carbon dioxide, which is opposite of animal life like humans (we emit carbon dioxide and take in oxygen)?
If carbon dioxide is fuel for plants, having an increase of it in the ecosystem could result in more plant growth, you might think. I'd never heard anything reported about that until a couple days ago. I was listening to Glenn Beck's radio show and was talking to a scientist named Arthur Robinson who said, yes, several studies have shown a correlation between increased carbon dioxide and increased plant growth.
In addition, the conversation between Beck and Robinson touched on the Oregon Petition, another thing I had never heard of. The Oregon Petition is a petition signed by over 30,000 scientists, 9,000 or so of which hold doctorate degrees, which says, in a nutshell, "Global warming is a myth, a fraud, a lie, etc. and should not be the basis for government policy."
Considering that all of the three frontrunning candidates for the US presidency are in favor of sweeping policy changes in the name of global warming, it would appear to be up to us, as citizens, to raise awareness of these issues. "Cap and trade" policy is nothing more than hefty taxes on businesses which do nothing but funnel money into the government. On a global scale, these policies will seriously stifle technological development in less-developed countries and could result in widespread preventable loss of life!
Nice idea, but I'm not sure that I'm buying it.
Let's look at this the other way and see if your argument still makes sense.
Humans and other animals require oxygen to metabolize their food and survive. Currently, the oxygen concentration of the earth's atmosphere is around 21%. Does it follow, then, that if the oxygen concentration were increased somehow, we could expect to see more animals and people running around?
No. Because there's more to biological proliferation than air; animals need food, water and habitat to survive. Populations are limited by any one of these constraints, and increasing the availablility of any of these factors that isn't the limiting factor will have no effect.
Back to your photosynthesis argument: for Arthur Robinson's argument to work, we'd have to believe that the primary thing keeping more plants from growing is a lack of breathable air. Not a lack of water, nor arable land.
However, many places in the world are experiencing the worst droughts in recorded history (granted, we haven't been keeping records for that long). Arable land is quickly being diminished through increased human development and poor farming practices.
At any rate, whether you believe in global climate change or not, it is the 21st century already. We ought to be more interested in developing energy sources that don't rely on the consumption of a resource that will eventually run out. Or for that matter, energy sources that come from countries that don't like us very much.
Erik, thanks for your comment. Very good points.
I agree with you about developing energy sources. We need to discover, develop, and begin using new sources of energy, ideally, like you said, sources that are are not running out. Over the next 10-20 years, we're going to see an era of energy scarcity. This isn't just a reason to start drilling for oil in ANWR- This is a compelling argument to start doing EVERYTHING and ANYTHING we can think of. Solar, wind, oil, coal, hydroelectric, nuclear, hydrogen, natural gas, sugar-based biofuels, algae farms... we're going to need it ALL and we should do it all in the most environmentally considerate ways possible because we need to use these forms of energy in the most efficient ways possible to avoid wasting any of it.
I have always figured that the earth is self-regulating. A rising climate and increased CO2 promotes plant growth which brings the climate back down ultimately. Seems like that should work.
There's a lot more going on than just the greenhouse effect though. There's also global dimming, for instance, which is caused in part by contrails from airliners. Evaporation, it turns out, is caused more by light than by heat so the reduced light on the surface of the earth reduces evaporation which messes up the hydrologic cycle and is partly to blame for droughts in some places and worse storms in others. Dimming also masks the effects of warming and dampens the increase in growing that you mention. Less light means less CO2 being consumed (all else being equal).
Add to that the fact that people die because of pollution every day. Studies show a clear correlation between inversions and numbers of respiratory-related deaths (especially in older people) in hospitals. This, for me, is the main reason to tax polluters. I don't know if the cap and trade system is a good way to do it but companies that pollute need to feel that there is a cost associated with that pollution. In the past society payed that cost. In the future we'd like polluters to pay it themselves.
I'm puzzled by your closing statement. It sounds sensationalist. How does cap and trade stifle development and kill people? I'm not saying it doesn't but you didn't say how it does.
Andrew, thank you for your comments.
To clarify, I didn't say specifically that cap and trade stifle development and kill people. I was talking generally about the "sweeping policy changes" favored by the candidates.
Global warming alarmists believe the cause of all our problems is development using cheap (dirty) energy. They want countries and companies who use cheap/dirty energy to pay a hefty price (tax) to do so or use expensive/clean energy. That may be possible for more well-to-do companies and countries, but in areas which are much less developed, the people have no means to do either pay the tax or pay the premium for cleaner energy. As a result, they are forced to try to survive without the benefits of modern technology.
Technology saves lives. The lack thereof may result in people dying completely preventable deaths from conditions such as unsanitary water supplies and lack of access to medical supplies and/or technology. See: http://www.sitewave.net/news/s49p1534.htm
Ugh. I typed a comment, but it was eaten up.
Quick recap:
The Oregon study is composed with poor methedology and is impossible to verify. If you wouldn't want an IT professional to do heart surgery on you or if you'd be hesitant to have your doctor work on your computer, then you shouldn't care much what 30,000 random scientists think about global warming.
What's important is what the climate scientists have to say and there are very very few of them represented by this study, a few dozen at most, and even that information is impossible to verify because of the lack of information on titles and affiliations provided by the report's authors.
Thanks for your comments Matt. This is a good point. I understand the Oregon Petition has been plagued with some certification issues in the past, but it is my understanding most of these issues have been ironed out. I would like those behind the Oregon Petition to fully disclose information about who has signed the petition and what credentials they have. It is my understanding that you are wrong about the low number of climate-related scientists who have signed the petition.
Often times when criticism of global warming theory comes up, someone will retort with the IPCC report which was issued by the United Nations. There are many, many impressive and credential-laden names on that report, but if you look deeper you discover none of them participated in what was actually written in the final report. Many of the scientists named as authors of the IPCC report have gone to painstaking lengths to have their names removed from the report because they vehemently disagree with what appeared in the final report despite the fact they participated on the scientific panel that supposedly collaborated on the report. The truth is, the IPCC report was written by marketing folks who wanted to say that Global Warming is a real threat to humanity and to the planet. They needed it to look legitimate, so the panel of scientists were brought in.
But, backing up... There are just SO many reasons to question global warming theory. In an otherwise "normal" period of time on the planet, you would expect that the climate would be experiencing warming, cooling, or relatively no change in temperature across various locations. We've been watching the planet under a microscope for 20 years now and that's exactly what we're seeing. Temperatures peaked in North America in 1998 and have been falling since. Sea ice has been increasing in the southern hemisphere. But, I'm sure in other areas of the world there can be shown to be warming trends. This all seems normal to me and not the result of man or man-made climate affectors.
The hype over global warming and its skeptics proves one thing: We care about our planet and we care about what we do to it. Humans, as a race, are beginning to accept that we are in a position to be caretakers and not just "users" and that's a noble and landmark realization.
That being said, we still don't know enough to make any kind of sweeping policy changes in the name of environmental stewardship. We should proceed with caution- don't do anything really stupid (that we already know would be stupid) and continue to monitor things carefully.
More importantly, we shouldn't go around saying there's a scientific consensus about something when there clearly is NOT. The science is NOT settled! The science... isn't there! Real scientists are skeptics and question everything. They're not prone to jump on bandwagons.