Recently I read a very interesting book regarding Global Warming entitled, “Unstoppable Global Warming” by S. Fred Singer and Dennis T. Avery ((Singer is a climate physicist and is internationally known for his work on climate, energy, and environmental issues. He is Distinguished Research Professor at George Mason University. He is also president of The Science & Environmental Policy Project. Avery is a senior fellow of the Hudson Institute and prior to that he was a senior analyst in the U.S. Department of State (1980-1988), where he won the National Intelligence Medal of Achievement 1983.)) The general premise of the book is that climate change is basically cyclical. Of course that is in stark contrast to the contemporary media mantra that there is a “consensus” that “Global Warming is humanly induced”, which according to these authors is both untrue and irrelevant.
They say, “There is no ‘scientific consensus,’ as global warming advocates often claim. Nor is consensus important to science…Science is the process of developing theories and testing them against observations until they are proven true or false.” ((S. Fred Singer and Dennis T. Avery, Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1,500 Years (Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2007) p 6)) For example, Einstein’s theory of relativity was not the “consensus” when it was introduced.
Recently I have noticed that many of even the most ardent supporters of man-made global warming have changed their rhetoric to “climate change”, which is in fact a much better and more accurate term, and one I have been using for years. That the climate is changing is true, but the proposition that it is going to warm to dangerous levels because of man is still an unproven idea, global warming alarmist vociferous claims notwithstanding ((see my two other articles regarding global warming)).
Many interesting insights are put forth by the authors, which you may not have considered. For example, historically, warming periods have actually been helpful since it is easier to grow food in a warmer climate.
Their conclusion is this: “Human society should attempt to put binding constraints on human emissions of greenhouse gases only if the advocates of man-made warming can demonstrate three things:
1. That the greenhouse gases are certain to raise global temperatures significantly higher than they rose during previous natural climate warming cycles;
2. That the warming would severely harm human welfare and the ecology;
3. That rational human actions could actually forestall such overheating.
To date, the advocates of man-made warming have not been able to meet any of these minimum requirements.” ((p228-229))
While I found the book to be very helpful in sorting through some of the global warming rhetoric, I must admit that some of the scientific details being debated were quite beyond my ability to grasp.
Consequently, I asked a couple of men in the church, Richard Carpenter and Jerry Brotzge, to read the book and give me their opinions. Each of these men have a PhD in Meteorology. I have included Jerry’s summary of the book for those of you who would like to read a succinct evaluation by someone who does understand the science behind the debate.
Concerning whether or not global warming is causing an increase in severe weather, he notes, “There is absolutely no evidence from observations that severe weather has increased due to global warming, and any insinuation that a link exists is outright fraud. This is one of Al Gore’s greatest lies.” ((p 5 in Jerry’s Review))
