Doug Henwood Talks

The Nation - June 11, 2007 http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070611/cockburn

beat the devil by Alexander Cockburn

The Greenhousers Strike Back, and Strike Out

I began this series of critiques of the greenhouse fearmongers with =

an evocation of the papal indulgences of the Middle Ages as =

precursors of the “carbon credits”–ready relief for carbon sinners =

burdened, because all humans exhale carbon, with original sin. In the =

Middle Ages they burned heretics, and after reading through the hefty =

pile of abusive comments and supposed refutations of my initial =

article on global warming I’m fairly sure that the critics would be =

only too happy to cash in whatever carbon credits they have and torch =

me without further ado.

The greenhouse fearmongers explode at the first critical word, and =

have contrived a series of primitive rhetorical pandybats, which they =

flourish in retaliation. Those who disagree with their claim that =

anthropogenic CO2 is the cause of the small, measured increase in the =

average earth’s surface temperature are stigmatized as “denialists,” =

a charge that scurrilously combines an acoustic intimation of =

nihilism with a suggested affinity to those who insist the Holocaust =

never took place.

The greenhousers endlessly propose that the consensus of “scientists” =

on anthropogenic climate change is overwhelming. By “scientists” they =

actually mean computer modelers. The Intergovernmental Panel on =

Climate Change (IPCC) and their computer-modeling coterie include =

very few real climatologists or atmospheric physicists. Among =

qualified climatologists, meteorologists and atmospheric physicists, =

there are plenty who do not accept the greenhousers’ propositions. =

Many others have been intimidated into silence by the pressures of =

grants, tenure and kindred academic garrotes.

Peer review, heavily overworked in the rebuttals I have been reading, =

is actually a topic on which the greenhousers would do well to keep =

their mouths shut, since, as the University of Virginia’s Pat =

Michaels has shown, the most notorious sentence in the IPCC’s 1996 =

report (”The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human =

influence on global climate”) was inserted at the last minute by a =

small faction on the IPCC panel after the scientific peer-review =

process was complete. The former head of the US National Academy of =

Sciences (and president of the American Physical Society), Frederick =

Seitz, wrote in the Wall Street Journal, “I have never witnessed a =

more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the events =

that led to this IPCC report.”

I should acknowledge one imprecision in my description of Dr. Martin =

Hertzberg’s graph in my first column–”the smoothly rising curve of =

CO2″–which prompted several intemperate responses, charging that I =

couldn’t possibly expect CO2 or carbon levels to drop just because of =

a one-third cut in manmade CO2. Indeed, I should have written, “One =

could not even see a 1 part per million bump in the smoothly rising =

curve.” Even though such transitory influences as day and night or =

seasonal variations in photosynthesis cause clearly visible swings in =

the curve, the 30 percent drop between 1929 and 1932 caused not a =

ripple: empirical scientific evidence that the human contribution is =

in fact less than a fart in a hurricane, as Dr. Hertzberg says.

As for the alleged irrefutable evidence that people caused the last =

century’s CO2 increase, the “smoking gun” invoked by one of my =

critics, Dr. Michael Mann, and his fellow fearmongers at =

realclimate.com, the claim is based on the idea that the normal ratio =

of heavy to light carbon–that is, the carbon-13 isotope to the =

lighter carbon-12 isotope, is roughly 1 to 90 in the atmosphere, but =

in plants there’s a 2 percent lower C13/C12 ratio. So, observing that =

C13 in the atmosphere has been declining steadily though very =

slightly since 1850, they claim that this is due to man’s burning of =

fossil fuels, which are generally believed to be derived from =

fossilized plant matter. On the na=EFve and scientifically silly =

assumption that the only way that plant-based carbon can get into the =

atmosphere is by people burning fuels, they exult that here indeed is =

the smoking gun: Decreases of C13 in the atmosphere mean that our =

sinful combustions are clearly identifiable as major contributors to =

the 100 ppm increase in CO2 since 1850.

This is misguided, simply because less than a thousandth of the plant- =

based carbon on earth is bound up in fossil fuel. The rest of the =

huge remaining tonnages of plant-based carbon are diffused through =

the oceans, the forests, the grasslands and the soil. In other words, =

everywhere. Obviously, lots of this C13-deficient carbon has the =

chance to oxidize into CO2 by paths other than people burning fuel, =

i.e., the huge amount of plant material that’s naturally eaten or =

decayed by the biosphere.

Perhaps even more significant, cold ocean waters absorb lightweight =

C12 preferentially, resulting in lots of C13-deficient carbon in the =

oceans. This low-C13 carbon most certainly would have been released =

massively into the atmosphere over the course of the world’s warming =

trend since 1850, when the Little Ice Age ended. All of these larger =

natural pathways for emitting low-C13 carbon into the atmosphere have =

been considerably accelerated by this same warming trend. So once =

again, the greenhousers have got it ass-backward. The 100 ppm =

increase in CO2 can’t be uniquely attributed to humans because at =

least as plausibly it could be the effect, not the cause, of the =

warming that started after the Little Ice Age denied by Dr. Michael =

“Hockey Stick” Mann.

I had promised that this third column would pose the question “Are =

things really so bad?” a theme I will take up in this series, along =

with a continuation of these rebuttals. I had hoped to deal with =

criticisms at the end of the series. I have changed my plans, since =

committed greenhousers like George Monbiot charge that I have ignored =

their rebukes. In actual fact I was offline, in Russia, flying =

thither over the Arctic and thus able to make a direct review of the =

ice cap. So wait a couple of weeks for my next column before you =

critics let fly again. Coming up: how greenhouser theologians deal =

with the global water cycle and the highly embarrassing and =

persistent lag between temperature and subsequent atmospheric CO2 =

change. After that, I’ll offer a real treat: the nightmare visions of =

the greenhousers and how many have fallen under the implacable =

guillotine blade of reality.

This entry was posted on Thursday, May 24th, 2007 at 5:25 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.