Global Warming, the real deal, or propaganda? Options

[kimmytree]

With our nation's politics so split, it seems like just as many people that believe in Global Warming think its a lie. What are your views on it? Are we really damaging our Environment with our huge production of carbon dioxide? Or are scientists and enviromentalists simply exaggerating?

I was flipping through my Chemistry book today in class, and found a very interesting section on Global Warming. It's an A Beka Book, published by a Christian college... last updated in 2000. I completely disagree with what the book says, but I thought it'd be interesting to share and debate on.

Global Warming
Recently, some scientists have speculated that mankind's production of CO2 (from fossil fuel combustion, agriculture, and cement manufacturing) may significantly enhance the greenhouse effect, causing average global temperatures to rise. Although man's annual contribution of CO2ot the environment is far smaller than nature's (roughly 7 billion tons vs. 200 billion tons), these scientists worry that this small increase may cause unpredictable changes in the global climate. Environmental activists have gone much further, predicting global flooding, disease epidemics, mass famine, and even the extinction of the human race if drastic action is not taken to slash CO2 emissions.

Earth's climate history
Actually, mankind's effects on the global climate are probably far smaller than some would like to think. Although the earth's climate is not well understood, the science of climatology has shown that the earth's climate tends to fluctuate over long term cycles. For example, between AD 900 and AD 1100, a period climatologists call the Medieval Climate Optimum or Medieval Warm Period, global temperatures are thought to have been significantly warmer than at present. The weather was so mild that grapes and citrus fruits were grown in England; the Vikings established successful farms and colonies in Greenland; and the Anasazi Indians built a large agriculture-based civilization on the Colorado Plateau (which was then characterized by a warm, moist climate). By the 1300's, however, global temperatures dropped sharply, plunging the world into a period called the Little Ice Age. The Vikings' crops and livestock in Greenland began to fail, the colonists died, and the island became covered with ice. Widespread exhaustion and malnutrition due to poor weather and crop failures left Europe vulnerable to huge plague epidemics that killed millions of people. Cooler, drier weather on the Colorado Plateau spelled the end of the Anasazi civilization in America, while at the same time the Thames River near London froze over in the winter with ice thick enough to support annual "ice fairs." In the years to come, the unusually cold winters would cause great hardship for early American colonists. About 1850, the climate began to warm once again, gradually ending the Little Ice Age; by the early 20th century, citrus fruits were being grown in the United States as far north as the Carolinas. This warming continued until 1938 or so, when temperatures leveled off and began to drop once again (probably related to ta decline in solar output). As late as the 1970's, unusually cold winters prompted environmental activists to call for drastic government action to save the planet from "global cooling" and an imminent Ice Age. In the late 1980'sand 1990's, temperatures once again began to climb (corresponding to an increase in solar output), prompting renewed calls to save the planet - this time for global warming.

The Kyoto Protocol
The United Nations responded to fears of global warming by convening a 1992 "Earth Summit" in Rio de Janiero, Brazil. Under the direction of radical environmentalist Maurice Strong, leaders of 150 nations drafted the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which called for nations to "voluntarily" clash CO2 emissions, at great cost, to 1990 levels. In 1995, at a second UN conference in Berlin, developing nations voted to exempt themselves from any restrictions while approving mandatory CO2 cutbacks for developed nations such as the United States. These mandatory cutbacks were later incorporated into an amendment to the Freamework Convention called the Kyoto Protocol, drafted in Kyoto, Japan, in December 1998.

The Kyoto Protocol demands that the United States reduce its CO2 emissions to 7% below 1990 levels by the year 2010 (a 30-40% reduction below estimated 2010 levels). It also calls for restrictions on hydrofluorocarbons and perfluorocarbons, methane, nitrous oxide, and sulfur hexafluoride.

Interestingly, most other nations fare far better under the treaty than the United States. China, Singapore, Mexico, and many other rapidly industrializing nations are specifically exempted from the Protocol, while the nations of Western Europe are allowed to count the shutdown of pullution-emitting Communist factories in Eastern Europe in the early 1990's as if they were cutbacks in their own CO2 production.

Costs of Kyoto
Proponents of the Kyoto Protocol have argued that slashing CO2 emissions by as much as 40% below estimated 2010 levels will have little if any economic cost. The Clinton Administration estimated that the only noticeable effect would be an increase in gasoline prices of 6-8 cents per gallon, while some environmentalists have even argued that the treaty will save money and jobs. However, since the treaty lays heavy burdens on U.S. industries while copletely exempting most overseas industries, it is likely that it will only accelerate the flight of energy-intensive U.S. industries to other nations, with the inevitable loss of American jobs. Some critics predict that by 2010, the Kyoto Protocol could result in the loss of 2.4 million U.S. jobs and cost the average family as much as $2700 per year in price increases and losti ncome. Energy shortages like those of the 1970s may once again become commonplace, particularly if environmentalists continue to obstruct the construction of new nuclear plants.

Possible benefits of rising CO2
These huge costs are particularly ironic in the light of the fact that increased CO2 levels (and even global warming, should it occur) would likely be a net benefit to mankind. It is a known fact that plants grow much more efficiently at higher CO2 concentrations; if the CO2 content of the air is experimentally doubled, crop yields increase up to 50% while requiring much less water and fertilizer. In addition, history reveals that periods of warmer average global temperatures tend to be associated with better living conditions for humanity as a whole. During the medieval Climate Optimum (when average global temperatures were 6-9 degrees warmer than at present), average life expectancies increased significantly due to reduced disease, higher crop yields, and better nutrition. The global cooling that ended this period (the Little Ice Age), by contrast, was associated with a 10-year drop in average life expectancies.

Looking ahead
Unfortunately, the Kyoto Protocol seems to reflect a "ready-fire-aim" approach that characterizes many environmental issues. Although the fate of the treaty is not yet certain, it is likely that the global warming debated will continue for some time to come. As Christians, however, we can be certain that "while the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and sumer and winter, and day and night shall not cease" (Genesis 8:22). Although we should do all within our power to protect the world God has given us, we must always remember that the fate of the earth rests in the hands of its Creator.

That last paragraph scares me the most... the idea that the earth will only cease to exist when God's ready for it to. The first few paragraphs just lead up to global warming... most of the bizzare content is in the last two paragraphs.

Agree, or disagree on the book's claims? Discuss.

[kimmytree]

^ Well, I dont know if the temperature you say is accurate... but if it is, two degrees is a big deal. Enviromentalists arent saying it's going to be an immediate thing - it'll be gradual. You and I wont be effected by it, but our children and grandchildren will. We're creating more pollution now than we were fifty or a hundred years ago, so we really dont know the full effects yet, or how much we're actually changing temperatures.

Even if it really is two degrees every hundred years, and we create the same amount of pollution we are now or have in the past, after five hundred years thats TEN DEGREES. That's major. That would cause the ice caps to melt even more than they are now, and raise our water levels. Freaking Orlando would be like Tampa is now. And that's just water. What about Hurricanes? The warmer the water, the more intense they are. And what about animals living in places like Anartica, Alaska, and other frigid places? It wont be cold enough for them to survive.

Even if you decide not to believe anything I just said, which is what many scientists believe, pollution still has to have some type of negative effect. I dont think anyone can deny that.

We have the technology to slow it down, so why not? How hard is it for someone to drive even just a more fuel efficient vehicle? And with everything going on with the Middle East, relying on more nuclear power instead of oil would be a win-win situation. No more having to depend on other countries, who hate us to begin with, for oil. What if they decided to cut us off all of a sudden? Our nation would completely shut down. But with nuclear power, we wouldnt really have to worry about it. Sure, we'd still need some oil, but we'd be able to eliminate alot of it. And, nuclear power plants dont pollute.