... some environmentalists with neo-pagan
worldviews (e.g., Al Gore) have posited the “truth” of CO2-induced
global warming, defined the production of CO2 as
“sin” and thereby made all humans guilty of a holocaust-like
assault on planet earth. I concluded that even if CO2
is doing what this group says it is, there is no way to
repent of this “sin” because human beings cannot live
without putting more of it into the atmosphere. Essex and
McKitrick’s book (both are Canadian college professors)
confirms my conclusion that the global warming scare is more
religion than science. The book begins and ends with
chapters about what the authors call “The Doctrine of
Certainty.” We shall begin by examining this “Doctrine.”
The Doctrine of Certainty
Taken By Storm3
will not be easy reading for those who have not studied math
and science at a college level. But it would be worth
obtaining a copy just to read chapters 2 and 10 entitled
“The Convection of Certainty” and “After Doctrine.” These
chapters contain their thesis statements. The intervening
chapters contain the scientific arguments to prove what they
say in those chapters.
The Doctrine of Certainty is explained by nine points: 1)
The Earth is warming. 2) Warming has already been observed.
3) Humans are causing it. 4) All but a handful of scientists
on the fringe believe it. 5) Warming is bad. 6) Action is
required immediately. 7) Any action is better than none. 8)
Claims of uncertainty cover only the ulterior motives of
individuals aiming to stop needed action. 9) Those who
defend uncertainty are bad people. (Storm: 23) The
title of the book is based on a thunderstorm analogy: “The
Doctrine is the product of a sociopolitical thunderstorm.
The differences between the parties are the pressure
gradients that set up the flow, and the warm, moist air that
feeds it is the ambient fear that we all can have about an
unknown future.” (Storm: 24) The authors’ thesis is
that the Doctrine is false.
Essex and McKitrick show that they are savvy not just
about science, but about human nature, contemporary culture,
and how people make decisions, including political
decisions. When it comes to a complex issue like climate
change over time, people who are required to make decisions
do not have the ability to examine the issues carefully for
themselves. This includes politicians who have to rely on
others. They point out that many people, even those in
important positions, lack the required knowledge of science
and mathematics: “Even many educated people are
scientifically and mathematically illiterate, because
science and mathematics have all but disappeared from the
core of a well-rounded education in many places of the
world. Many sophisticated and influential people today have
a level of scientific and mathematical knowledge that would
not stand up to that of a monk from the Middle Ages.” (Storm:
28) (I believe another reason for this is the fact that
people are being asked to specialize in a field of knowledge
earlier in life.) Whatever the cause, people are making
momentous policy decisions that will affect the world
population’s well-being based on science that they cannot
personally understand. This would not be so bad if the
process included a reasonable system of adjudication of
ideas. But it does not.
Man-caused climate change has become a Doctrine
supposedly only denied by skeptics who are thereby “sinners”
because what the authors call “Official Science” has so
declared it. Science is not an “official” enterprise; it is
individuals who study and hope to understand various aspects
of general revelation in their fields of endeavor. When
non-scientists need to decide something that requires
expertise, authorities are called in to testify to their
views. In a scientific world, ideas are debated and put
through rigorous peer review. Theories are tested as to
their “fit” with the “real world.” But Official Science is
another matter. Essex and McKitrick say, “If an authority
makes a pronouncement, doubting it or suggesting
alternatives is not necessarily viewed as just seeking the
truth; sometimes it is taken as a challenge to power. . . .
So a political struggle replaces testing an idea.” This is
precisely what has happened with global warming. They
explain further:
Governments consult and employ people to act as science
authorities, as do other institutions such as the media.
The collective voice of these authorities makes up
Official Science. . . . Official Science may serve many
functions, but it is most important to understand that
Official Science is not science. Moreover, those
involved with it represent only a minority of people
involved with science, and they are not appointed by
scientists to speak on their behalf. (Storm: 36)
I saw a case of “Official Science” in the local newspaper the other
day. A meteorologist is hired by the paper to write a daily
weather column. He often uses this to promote his belief in
global warming. But what is amazingly ironic is that he
readily admits that when it comes to local weather, the
“models” have improved but are very uncertain more than a
few days out. So he admits that it is very difficult to
predict local weather even in the short term. But when it
comes to something exponentially more complex, future global
climate as it changes over years, this same man claims to
have near utter certainty! He, like most of our citizens,
has become mesmerized by the religion of global warming so
much that he has lost all scientific common sense.
This case in our local paper illustrates something that
Essex and McKitrick point out:
No one expects computer models of the weather to be that
certain. Yet many have come to expect climate models,
which treat a far more difficult scientific problem, to
be so certain that a gap between predictions and reality
over a small region of the world [that in 2002 it was
getting colder in Antarctica] is a worldwide news event.
The truth is we have much less reason to ascribe
certainty to climate models than we do to weather
models. So why the headlines? . . . It is among other
things, the Doctrine at work. (Storm: 70)
A Doctrine, which is not based on truth, revealed or otherwise, causes
many to think they know what they do not know.
Essex and McKitrick explain that because Official Science
must deal with social realities that have nothing to do with
science, it is a different entity than science: “So while
scientists are skeptical of their own work and that of
others, Official Science speaks with the simple confidence
that good politics and journalism demands, but which science
abhors.” (Storm: 36) My weatherman was “doing”
Official Science and thus displayed confidence in what he as
a scientist cannot be confident about: the future climate of
earth and that it can be driven in a certain way by only one
of the nearly infinite influences on it (man made CO2).
Official Science “knows” with near certainty what scientists
readily admit they cannot know.
The Doctrine claims that there are no credible
dissenters. Essex and McKitrick (and the Cornwall Alliance)
disprove this. They are deemed “not credible” not on the
grounds that they lack credentials or evidence, but rather
on the simple basis that they are called “dissenters” who
dare question the Doctrine. (see Storm: 50, 51). They
claim that because of how “dissenters” are treated, regular
scientists drop out of the debate: “Soon it is open season
on scientific dissent by a mob of activist journalists,
activist environmentalists, and self-appointed
“straighteners” who feel a dose of vigilantism is their
personal contribution to making a better world.” (Storm:
52) They even cite a case of a Danish government tribunal
putting a man on trial for writing a skeptical book on this
topic: “Yes, in Denmark, in 2003, a man was put on trial for
writing a science book. You can take the people out of the
Middle Ages, but you can’t take the Middle Ages out of the
people.” (Storm: 54)
Theories and Models
Essex and McKitrick state there is no theory of climate. (Storm:
71) Why? Simply because of how differential equations work.4
These equations concern variables and how they change in
various dynamic relationships. The authors explain the
basics of such equations on page 72 of the book. They state,
“The theories of basic science are written in differential
equations.” They further explain, “A solution of a
differential equation is not a number or a few numbers; it
is a function. A function is a rule between variables.” With
a valid equation one can predict the status of certain
variables in their relationship to one another over time
(just as one example). Such mathematics is used to predict
where planets will be in relationship to one another at a
certain future time.
This needs to be understood in order to understand why
there can be no theory of climate. Chapter 3 of Taken by
Storm takes us through the world of linear equations,
nonlinear equations that apply to fluid dynamics, chaos
theory, kinetic theory, turbulence, and ultimately face to
face with the impossible complexity of climate. They
describe the complexity of fluid dynamics that, unlike
climate, can be put to controlled experiment: “The
experiments are bedeviled by the fact that a turbulent fluid
is active on scales smaller than the size of the finest
experimental probes. Thus, the measurements themselves are
not of the actual variables but of some kind of unspecified,
instrument-dependent average of the variables, in only one
small region of the fluid.” (Storm: 78) Fluid
dynamics and turbulence are only a small part of everything
that makes up global climate and these cannot be perfectly
understood even in a controlled setting.
Another problem is called “sensitivity of the initial
conditions” which simply means that something apparently
small and insignificant can have a major significant result.
This is known as “the butterfly effect.” A flap of a
butterfly’s wings might throw off a weather forecast. This
means that in dynamic systems some tiny variation in an
initial condition may create an enormous change in outcome.
As Essex and McKitrick explain, “there was no level of
detail that can be safely ignored.” This is also known as
chaos theory.
What this all means is that there can be no theory of
climate. The authors claim that even if we had what they
call an “Enchanted Computing Machine” (ECM) (“that can
magically cope with all of the details needed to compute all
of the theory while securing all the necessary initial data
to implement it”) we still could not get firm answers to
climate. (Storm: 86) They say, “The dream of the
strong ECM, wherein perfect predictability is achieved
through computation in complete detail, died with the chaos
revolution.” (Storm: 87) The tiniest change could
throw everything we thought we knew out the window. So we
cannot compute climate based on any known theory.
Those interested can read the details of their arguments
in their book. Here is a nice summary of the issue:
We could talk about how the oceans interact with the
land, the exotic thermodynamic property of ice compared
to other solids that makes it possible to skate and ski,
and also for glaciers to flow, making them the subject
of wonderful mystery and unpredictability. We could talk
about the land-surface-air interactions, and how we not
only have to think about flow over land of different
heights, but around buildings, through forests, past
every leaf. We could talk about the ever so important
first kilometer of air above the ground and ocean, and
all of the rich chemistry that goes on in the air and
ground; the gases emitted by the soil and volcanoes; the
gases absorbed and lost; the chemicals that the rain
cleans out of the air; the fluid-solid interactions of
rivers. And we have not even arrived at butterflies or
seagulls, or the family dog for that matter. (Storm:
95)
So we do not know and cannot know by theory or computer prediction the
future of climate. It is unknowable.
In modeling, detail is thrown away because there are far
too many details to process. (Storm: 96, 97) But
models are “something between science and art. Some are more
science while others are more art, and there is everything
in between.” (Storm: 100). Meteorological models are
examples of modeling. But they are based on repeated
experiences that are observable over time. Climate is
different: “Unlike meteorological models, climate model
parameterizations have not been tuned after repeated
experience with climate change. Moreover, unlike
meteorologists, no climatologist has lived through repeated
events in his or her field so as to acquire a personal sense
of experience of what to forecast.” (Storm: 101) The
modeler cannot forecast climate in the manner that weather
is forecast.
Essex and McKitrick also show: There is no such thing as
a global “temperature.” For there to be a single temperature
there must be “thermodynamic equilibrium,” and that doesn’t
even exist in a room! (Storm: 114, 115). Temperature
is not a “thing” but, “a number that represents the
condition of a physical system.” (Storm: 117).
Averaging various temperatures in various locations is as
meaningless, they say, as averaging all the numbers in a
phone book to get an average phone number. They explain that
this is because temperature is an “intensive quantity” not
an extensive one with an “additive property” like energy. (Storm:
117) They illustrate this by stating, “If you join two
identical boxes with the same energy and same temperature
together, the resulting box will have twice the energy, but
it will not have twice the temperature. There is no amount
of temperature; it measures the condition of the stuff in
the box.” (Storm: 117)
So one cannot take a temperature somewhere in each of the
50 states, add them all together, divide by 50, and have the
“average” temperature of the United States at a given time.
It would be a meaningless number. So how can one create a
model that gives a temperature as an output and have it be
meaningful? Essex and McKitrick comment: “The subtleties of
the dynamics and thermodynamics are simply unpresentable, so
the grand creations of the modelers have no impact. Instead,
the modelers must suffer the indignity of having the
intellectual products cheapened by the portrayal as fancy
thermometers. They are not thermometers and global climate
isn’t temperature.” (Storm: 121)
This is not to say that one cannot take a temperature at
a certain location over a period of years and come up with
average highs and lows for that location (which, of course,
is done throughout North America). But the results are
statistics, not an actual temperature. The statistics are
only meaningful if the same process were used to gather the
data and nothing significant changed at the location where
data was gathered. As Essex and McKitrick point out, that is
not the case even with local temperatures. The Global
Historical Climatological Network that gathers data from
stations that record local temperatures had between 12,000
and 15,000 locations from which to gain data between 1950
and 1970. In 2000 there were less than 6,000 such locations.
(Storm: 154, 155). This has seriously damaged the data
quality and calls into question the statistics used to
generate a number falsely called a global “temperature.”
(Essex and McKitrick with tongue in cheek call this number
“T-Rex” which supposedly is going to devour the planet.)
Furthermore, the data gathering stations that remain open
are often located in airports in larger cities where the
urban heat island effect is a factor. The bottom line is
that the data gathered before the large decline of data
locations that happened precipitously in about 1990 is of a
different nature than the data gathered since 1990. Essex
and McKitrick conclude “[I]f you are calculating an index
and the circumstances change, the index must be terminated,
and replaced by a new one. T-Rex has had it both ways. It is
an index whose sampling rules changed dramatically at
several times, but it has not been terminated particularly
in the beginning of the 1990’s. Data quality rules say,
T-Rex must be terminated!” (Storm: 157)
There is more to say about global “temperature,” and
Essex and McKitrick reveal many important facts and issues
in chapters 4 and 5 entitled “T-Rex Devours the Planet” and
“T-Rex Plays Hockey.” The latter title refers to a famous
hockey stick shaped graph that was published to prove global
warming. Ross McKitrick and another scientist were able to
show serious errors in the original work that created the
hockey stick graph to such a degree that the issues ended up
on the cover of The Wall Street Journal in 2005 and
in testimony before congress. The hockey stick graph was
eventually debunked. (Storm: 171 – 173). They cite
the reason that a single flawed graph ended up being the
center of a political storm: “It is far worse to have to
face it [errors in one’s work] when the PUN [Panel of the
United Nations on climate change] has elevated your disputed
work onto such high pedestal that it is virtually an act of
divine infallibility, worshipped by international media
throughout the world.” (Storm: 171) Again, flawed science
has become a religion.
A Lying Metaphor: “Greenhouse Effect”
In selling an idea to the general public, complex scientific issues are
often boiled down to a catchy metaphor that takes on a life
of its own. That is the case with global warming and
“greenhouse gasses” and the “greenhouse effect.” Essex and
McKitrick state, “Science by metaphor is always risky
business, and one misleading idea in this category has done
more damage to peoples’ understanding than any other. You
have heard of the one that we have in mind: the greenhouse
effect.” (Storm: 125). The metaphor is used to
promote the idea that putting CO2 into the
atmosphere will make the earth more like a greenhouse and
thus raise global “temperature” (remember this is a
statistic and not an actual measurement).
The metaphor itself is fundamentally wrong on two
important levels. The first is that greenhouses are not what
they are because they are notoriously high in CO2
levels. The opposite is true. Greenhouses exhibit a lack of
CO2 that can hinder plant growth5.
This is caused by the fact that plants absorb CO2.
So adding CO2 to the atmosphere does not make
earth more like a greenhouse which tends to have less CO2
than the outside air, particularly in the winter months. The
presence of CO2 is not what makes a greenhouse
warmer than the outside air. That part of the metaphor is
based on myth and unreality.
The second serious error of the greenhouse metaphor is
that greenhouses do not work like the atmosphere in general.
Essex and McKitrick have illustrations to show that
“Greenhouses don’t work by the greenhouse effect!” (Storm:
126) There are aspects to energy flow balance, infrared
radiation and fluid dynamics. These are “two basic
mechanisms for carrying away the energy.” (Storm:
126) A greenhouse controls one of the two—fluid dynamics:
A greenhouse acts like the picture on the bottom.
Someone comes and shuts off the fluid dynamical energy
drain from the surface, by putting something up, like
glass or plastic, that the inbound solar radiation can
pass through but air cannot. It doesn’t matter what the
material is, the effect is quite pronounced. The
explanation is both theoretically and experimentally
certain. (Storm: 126)
So with the fluid flow shut off, the energy flow out via fluid dynamics
is stopped and the greenhouse heats up. CO2 is
about infrared radiation, not fluid dynamics. Greenhouses
are not warm because they trap infrared radiation. But that
is the very issue that global warming alarmists are
concerned about. But this has nothing to do with a
greenhouse. No one could possibly stop the release of energy
through fluid dynamics from planet Earth. Fluid dynamics is
what causes the lack of knowledge about future climate:
As we have emphasized throughout this chapter, this [the
fluid dynamic flow of energy] is largely turbulent, and
we don’t know what it would do. We can’t solve the
governing equations. Recall, that in the case of
turbulence we can’t even forecast from first principles
the average flow in a simple pipe. (Storm: 126
The complexities of the matter are such that we cannot know or predict.
Greenhouses are controlled in a manner that produces certain
heating; the planet is not.
There are further complexities to consider, such as
aerosols (“Microscopic particles formed of every known
substance that get carried by air movements into the
atmosphere and slowly fall to the surface” – 338). As Essex
and McKitrick point out, “We have blinds (clouds and
aerosols) and air conditioning (fluid motions and
evaporation from the surface) and we cannot tell what they
will do. Could it be more unpredictable?” (Storm: 128)
The earth cannot and will not ever be a greenhouse as long
as there is fluid dynamical flow of energy. Say our authors,
“That [greenhouse effect] is the metaphor to which people’s
minds retire. It is unscientific nonsense. But it props up
the Doctrine.” (Storm: 128) Once again we return to
religious faith.
Before we leave the deceiving greenhouse metaphor, we
should also consider the fact that CO2 is not the
only infrared absorbing gas to consider:
So-called greenhouse gases have absolutely nothing to do
with greenhouses. We will call them ‘infrared-absorbing
gasses’ here. The most important of them, radiatively
speaking, isn’t carbon dioxide, it’s water vapour! Water
is more important to the radiative transfer of energy
than all of the other infrared gases combined, and there
are about a half-dozen usual suspects. However, too
often water vapour will not be on the list of
‘greenhouse gases’ even within some professional
discussions. (Storm: 129)
So why leave out water vapor? Because it adds to the uncertainty of
climate change, and true believers need certainty to promote
their plans: “When water is forgotten as an
infrared-absorbing gas, the whole unsolved climate problem
fades from sight and the Doctrine grows. Most public
discussion of global warming in the past few years has been
built on incoherent clichés and misleading metaphors.” (Storm:
130).
The term “carbon” is also bandied about with discussion
of “carbon offsets” and so on. Carbon is found throughout
the planet and comes in many forms, such as diamonds and
pencil “lead.” Carbon is not the issue with infrared
absorbing gases, only CO2. Essex and McKitrick do
some simple demystifying: “Water vapour is king among
infrared gases, yet is rarely mentioned, even though the
behaviour of other infrared gases cannot be understood
unless you can figure out everything due to water vapour
first. Carbon is not carbon dioxide. Simple, but it needs to
be repeated.” (Storm: 130) We should start thinking
more critically and not allow ourselves to be deceived by
metaphors that have no basis in reality.
Do Humans Cause Climate Change?
As my wife and I were driving home from northern Minnesota we saw a
billboard that read, “The icecaps on Mars are melting, are
humans causing it?” The sign advertised for a Web site that
disputes human-caused global warming. What is interesting is
that those who are not “believers” in the official Doctrine
are marginalized as “contrarians” who refuse to get with the
“consensus.” For example, a scientist in Russia pointed to
the diminishing of the “ice caps” (actually carbon dioxide
caps) on Mars as evidence that whatever “warming” earth has
experienced is due to the sun, and not to human activity6.
The same article that reported his findings quoted another
scientist: “His views are completely at odds with the
mainstream scientific opinion, and they contradict the
extensive evidence presented in the most recent IPCC
[Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] report.” So
Official Science cannot be contradicted by evidence! It is
reasonable to ask whether there is any evidence against the
Doctrine that can be allowed into the discussion.
Essex and McKitrick claim that Official Science starts
with the assumption that whatever average modelers of
climate construct should be flat over time if all human
influence were removed. (Storm: 216) With that faulty
assumption, graphs are created that show change and the
change must be caused by something humans have done: “The
assumption is, in effect, that unless something forces it
from outside the system, any particular average you
construct (e.g., temperature, ‘radiative forcing’) ought to
be flat over time. It is all very cozy for the ‘heat
theorists.’” (Storm: 216, 217) But this is not based
on reality. Climate changes over time, and it has for
centuries. The causes of such change are complex. But the
models are constructed to show that humans are now the
culprits: “There is little sense that more work is needed on
the models. Models are not perfect, they say, but they can’t
be wrong, in classical doublespeak. They must conclude it is
human moral turpitude that is the cause of the discrepancy.”
(Storm: 217) We are back to religious categories
again—humans are “sinning” by producing CO2. As I
asserted my CWN article about global warming, this is a
“sin” of which it is impossible to repent.
The key issue is that we cannot know what adherents of
the Doctrine claim to know:
We have no way of knowing, even in principle, what the
20th-century climate would have looked like if no one
had ever learned how to extract and use fossil fuels.
Yet much of the debate between “skeptics” and
“believers” in global warming seems to be based on the
assumption that we know what the climate would have
looked like (in particular that T-Rex, however computed,
would lie flat) and we just have to hash out whether
this or that temperature statistic is really going up or
not. (Storm: 224)
The authors do a brilliant job of showing how those creating climate
models can assure certain outcomes by changing the scaling
parameters looking for “signal-detection.” The process means
excluding many factors from the models. The results are
determined by which are excluded. The process is circular
and the conclusions are meaningless (Storm: 227).
The question is, “Are humans causing global warming?” The
answer is, “We cannot know.” We cannot even measure global
temperature accurately, and if we could we would not know
what is making it increase or decrease. So if we adopt the
mentality of human-caused global warming, we have taken a
religious leap of faith.
The Difference Between Nescience and Uncertainty
The term “nescience” means “lack of knowledge.” Essex and McKitrick
illustrate the concept by asking, “How many
extraterrestrials live on Earth?” (Storm: 232) Of
course if we do not know such beings exist, we cannot
discuss their number. We are uncertain about how many humans
exist on earth (exactly) but it is reasonable to discuss a
rounded number. But when we do not know if something exists,
we have nescience, not uncertainty. Our authors explain:
Nescience is, therefore, not the same thing as
uncertainty. For one thing, people feel a need to use
adjectives with uncertainty [like “a little” or “very”].
But adjectives are not necessary with nescience.
If we are nescient about the effect of carbon dioxide on
local temperatures, no information is added by saying we
are “a little” or “very” nescient. Also, “uncertainty”
suggests that more study can be counted on the help the
situation. . . . But often a situation of nescience is
so intrinsic to the problem under study that more data
and bigger computers will not resolve the problem. (Storm:
232)
They go on to discuss what is known and not known about past CO2
levels through processes like sampling bubbles in Antarctic
ice and ancient tree leaves buried in peat. The conclusion
of the discussion is this: “The specialists in the field may
never sort out the relative stability of CO2
levels during the past 10,000 years within certain wide
limits.” (Storm: 240)As mentioned before, the problem with trying to equate
climate change to variations in CO2 over time is
that doing so requires the creation of models that require
many variables be transformed into constants in order to
make the modeling possible. Essex and McKitrick show that by
changing certain numbers, the models can predict most
anything: “In this [one they explained] simple model, you
can also get cooling by allowing a small variation in the
fraction of sunlight that is reflected before it gets into
the system. And there are other arbitrarily fixed things
that can be changed too, to get nearly any outcome at all. .
. . Once you allow the things that are held constant, for no
physical reason, to change, you can get models that do
nearly anything.” (Storm: 246) The models are not the
same as real climate and have no predictive power in the
real world. The output of the model is determined by what
factors the person who creates the models decides to make
important and which ones to artificially make constant. This
is necessitated by the irreducible complexity of climate.
What we want to understand in this discussion is what we
can actually know, even with some necessary uncertainty,
about human caused global warming. In my opinion Essex and
McKitrick make a profound point:
The models show surface warming from adding carbon
dioxide to the atmosphere because of their programming.
They could yield surface cooling with different
programming, without violating any physical law. All
that is required is to allow things to change in the
model that do, in fact, change in the atmosphere. This
is not uncertainty, this is nescience. (Storm:
246)
So we are asked to believe in human-caused global warming in the
absence of knowledge. This is the definition of a blind leap
of faith, and a very costly one at that.
We can illustrate the problem here from special
revelation (the Bible). What we know about God and the
spiritual realities of the universe we know not by mere
observation, but by the fact that God has spoken. Had God
not revealed the truth about Himself and other spiritual
matters to us, we would be like pagans using our
imaginations to fill in the missing information. The issue
of nescience is important in Christianity. If someone asked
the oft-cited silly question of how many angels can dance on
the head of a pin we would have to confess nescience. We
cannot know what God has not revealed. Those who demand
obedience to ideas that are not derived from special
revelation are false prophets at best. They tell us that
certain things about the spiritual world are true and expect
us to behave accordingly. But they cannot teach what cannot
be known. So we rightly reject them.
By analogy, demanding action based on nescience
concerning general revelation is also abusive. We cannot be
held accountable to what cannot be known. Those who claim to
know what they cannot know and demand that we submit to
their “knowledge” are the false prophets of general
revelation. We should no more listen to them than we would
listen to a Joseph Smith (founder of the Mormon religion).
Essex and McKitrick explain the relatively small
contribution humans make to CO2 in the
atmosphere:
There are about 750 GtC (gigatons carbon) of CO2
in the atmosphere. The stock of CO2 fixed as
carbon in land biota (plants, animals, and soils) is
about 2,000 GtC, in oceans it is 40,000 GtC, and in
fossil fuel reserves it is about 5,000 to 10,000 GtC. CO2
is constantly being exchanged between the surface and
the atmosphere. Plant respiration and decomposition
releases and withdraws 60 GtC (plus or minus 2) annually
into the atmosphere. The ocean releases and withdraws
about 90 GtC (plus or minus 2). These are very large
additions and withdrawals from the atmosphere: this is
what we are believed to contribute in fossil fuel-based
emissions, only about 7 GtC, or 5 percent of the total
land and ocean emissions. Minor variations in natural
release and withdrawal can swamp anything that we have
contributed. (Storm: 234)
The large sources are not typically balanced they say. So we are being
asked to assume the “guilt” for creating warming that might
not have anything directly to do with CO2 and if
it does, our part is miniscule compared to the whole.
Essex and McKitrick go on to debunk other myths such as
alarmism about sea levels rising (Storm: 283). They
mention the benefits to plant life of CO2
enrichment (Storm: 289). There are many facts that most
people are not aware of because the official “Doctrine” is
drowning out the voices of reason. Climate changes and is
likely to continue to change in ways that we cannot know.
But people have amazing ways of adapting to change. Thus
Essex and McKitrick give this suggestion: “A better approach
[than impoverishing people by reducing economic growth to
reduce CO2 emissions] to climate policy would be
to continue pursuing economic growth around the world so
that present and future generations will have the means to
adapt and flourish in whatever climate they find themselves
over the next century.” (Storm: 290)
But such common sense is not even on the table in the
public discussion. The major political candidates from both
major parties in the U.S. are “believers” in global warming.
Their religion will not allow them to think realistically.
Taken By Storm makes it clear that we end up with the
issue of sin: “The problem is that if we seriously look at
the adaptation question and realize that it will be dead
easy, the whole heroic enterprise of trying to reduce fossil
fuel use and carbon dioxide emissions looks pointless, or
even harmful. Nor would people be made to feel appropriate
contrition for their sins, if they could simply adapt to the
consequences without much notice.” (Storm: 290)
Answers to the Doctrine of Certainty
It is time to go back to the nine points of the Doctrine and answer
some questions. Essex and McKitrick do this in chapter 10.
Is the Earth warming? The answer is that because there is no
single global temperature, we cannot give a yes or no
answer. The Earth is not in thermodynamic equilibrium.
Temperatures are going up and down here and there all over
the planet. As they point out, “If there were some climate
changes in the category of our sun going nova, or even
something more moderate like a major ice age, then all of
the infinity of local temperatures would be saying the same
thing; namely, that it is heating or cooling everywhere or
everywhen.” (Storm: 315)
Has warming already been observed? The answer is yes, in
many places; but then cooling as been observed in many
places as well. “But what people have in mind here is that
an ‘unnatural’ warming has been observed here or there. To
conclude that would require some idea of what the natural
temperature in a location is, but there is no such single
thing.” (Storm: 316)
Are humans causing global warming? We cannot know that.
“Humans have modified the environment in which they live,
and will continue to do so. But to conclude that humans are
the one cause of climate change is to make the mistake of
picturing our complex, chaotic climate as a thermometer in a
green house.” (Storm: 317)
Do all scientists but a few on the fringe believe it? The
answer is “no.” This is a political issue, not a scientific
one. Essex and McKitrick explain:
The critics, when not dismissed as “contrarians,” are
often referred to as “skeptics.” A skeptic is someone
who true believers do not want to invite to a séance.
They have also been called “dissidents,” bring to mind
the internal opponents of the Cold War Soviet Union.
Lately the term “deniers” and “climate criminals” have
become more common as the political nastiness has grown.
(Storm: 317)
The consensus is fictional and political. Scientists debate that which
is debatable, “And climate change is debatable to say the
least!” (Storm: 318) We have a religion at work here
that takes human caused global warming as its own “special
revelation” that has settled the matter once and for all.
Is it bad and should we act immediately? These, points
five and six of the “Doctrine,” have become meaningless. If
we cannot forecast future climate change we cannot declare
it to be good or bad. In my opinion, what we have is humans
thinking they can control that which is beyond their
control. They fear a possible bad future. It is true that
catastrophes happen, including weather-related ones. Essex
and McKitrick state, “Clearly, we cannot say ‘it’ is all bad
and getting more bad, as some seem to want to do. We cannot
function rationally this way.” (Storm: 318)
Is any action better than none? This really makes no
sense. We are asked to take action based on the possibility
that something bad might lie in the future because humans
are doing what they cannot avoid doing—creating CO2.
Essex and McKitrick make a humorous but valid analogy:
The reasoning is that being a skeptic about the prospect
of one’s house burning down does not stop us from buying
fire insurance. But if this was a case of buying
insurance, the Kyoto Insurance company would be up on
charges for fraud. You would be buying a policy for
which it is unclear precisely what is being insured, for
which the premiums cost more than the putative damages,
and which does not pay any compensation in the event the
damages occur. Would you be willing to buy such a policy
for your home or auto? If so, please contact the
authors. (Storm: 318)
So the answer is no, do not take action on something that may not
exist.
Are the critics of the Doctrine bad people with bad
motives? The final two points of Doctrine are based on the
faulty logic of the ad hominem argument. Since we
cannot know future climate change, how can people who say we
cannot know be proven to have bad motives?
So the “Doctrine” is false and misleading. But most of
the world believes it.
Conclusion
Some evangelicals have been deceived into signing statements on global
warming. That is not surprising when we consider how many
are courting favor with the world. And since so many are
deceived on the level of special revelation (they teach
false doctrine) we cannot be surprised that these same
people are misled about general revelation as well.
Believing falsehood is always harmful, whatever falsehood it
is.
That brings us to the concluding points of this review.
If, for the sake of argument, we were to grant that
human-produced CO2 will be the cause of
cataclysmic events, then we had better get right with God
because we cannot live without creating CO2. I
say that based on Jesus’ comment regarding people killed by
a disaster. He said: “unless you repent, you will all
likewise perish” (Luke 13:5b.). I agree that the
planet faces a disaster, but the disaster of which I speak
is far worse than any effects of the supposed human-caused
climate change. The disaster is God’s wrath against sin. And
we have an antidote. We have the gospel.
The eco-alarmists of the world see the human population
as the main threat to the environment. But as Christians we
must submit to the truth of the Bible: “God blessed them;
and God said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply, and fill
the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea
and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing
that moves on the earth’” (Genesis 1:28). God
repeated this command to Noah after the flood: “As for
you, be fruitful and multiply; Populate the earth abundantly
and multiply in it” (Genesis 9:7). Apparently God
was not concerned about CO2. He was concerned
about the people.
The global warming religion is about redefining sin. It
is about man, rather than God, defining what is and is not
“sin.” It is also about offering false “redemption” by
purposely impoverishing the entire human race. We should not
get sidetracked. The real issue is God’s wrath against sin
(as He defines it) and where we shall spend eternity. Our
only hope is through the finished work of Christ. Christians
have the answer to the ultimate “global warming,” which will
happen when God judges the earth with fire (2Peter 3:10;
Revelation 16:8). The single global warming-related issue we
should concern ourselves with is telling a sinful world of
God’s impending judgment unless it repents of its rebellion
against Him and obeys the One who has been resurrected to be
King and Lord.
Issue 106 - May / June 2008
End Notes
- His essay, “Global
Warming: Why Evangelicals Should Not be Alarmed” is
available on the Cornwall Alliance Web site:
http://www.cornwallalliance.org/articles/
-
http://www.christianworldviewnetwork.com/article.php/2679/Bob_DeWaay
- Christopher Essex and Ross
McKitrick, Taken by Storm – The Troubled Science,
Policy, and Politics of Global Warming (Toronto: Key
Porter, 2002) revised edition 2007. The rest of this
paper will use bracketed page references to this book.
- Here I must explain that I
studied chemical engineering at Iowa State University
before I was converted. I studied differential calculus,
dynamics in fluid systems, and quantum mechanics which
uses differential calculus. I also studied
thermodynamics. This helped me understand the material
in the book I am reviewing.
-
http://www.homeharvest.com/carbondioxideenrichment.htm
-
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html
Copyright © 1992-2005 Twin City
Fellowship
Critical Issues Commentary
P.O. Box 26127
St. Louis Park, MN 55426
pastorbob@twincityfellowship.com
Please
read the rest the of this much-needed message -- along
with the endnotes -- at
http://www.twincityfellowship.com/cic/articles/issue88.htm
Other articles by Bob DeWaay:
Redefining the Church
Faulty Premises
of the Church Growth Movement
“Church Health
Award” from Rick Warren or Jesus Christ?
Bob DeWaay is
the Pastor of
Twin City Fellowship, a
non-denominational evangelical Church in Minneapolis, MN:
"We are a
body of believers who attempt to live our Christian
faith according to Acts 2:42 by devoting ourselves to
prayer, fellowship, searching the Scriptures, and the
Lord’s Supper. Our mission is to equip the saints for the work of
ministry and to reach the lost with the Gospel of Jesus
Christ. We do this through expository preaching, study
of the Scriptures, publications, our website and
neighborhood outreaches."