It's Time To Clean Out The EPA

June 13, 2002

by Bob Webster - Editor at Large

In characterizing as "bureaucratic" the Climate Action Report 2002 sent by his Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to the UN, President Bush has taken a necessary but insufficient step toward reaffirming good science in the face of an assault by proponents of junk science at the EPA.

The tainted EPA report states "greenhouse gases are accumulating in the atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing global mean surface air temperature ... to rise."

Real science tells a very different story.

In New Earths, Edward Oberg describes the radiative process for atmospheric heat trapping: "Heat from the surface is absorbed by the atmosphere; but the atmosphere itself can radiate heat. However, since the temperature of the upper atmosphere is much colder than the surface (on the average, 33°C colder), the heat loss rate is much lower. Consequently, the atmosphere keeps the heat in. It is primarily the water vapor, and to a smaller degree the carbon dioxide, that contributes the greatest portion of this 'greenhouse effect.'"^[1]

In Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus, Dr. Richard S. Lindzen (Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology) explains the fallacy of an oversimplified understanding of greenhouse warming: "Many of us were taught in elementary school that heat is transported by radiation, convection, and conduction. The [CO₂ warming advocates'] representation [of greenhouse warming] only refers to radiative transfer. As it turns out, if there were only radiative heat transfer, the greenhouse effect would warm the Earth to about seventy-seven degrees centigrade rather than to fifteen degrees centigrade. In fact, the greenhouse effect is only about 25 percent of what it would be in a pure radiative situation. The reason for this is the presence of convection (heat transport by air motions), which bypasses much of the radiative absorption."^[2]

Dr. Lindzen estimates that the total contribution of all "greenhouse gases" (of which carbon dioxide, CO₂, is only one) to atmospheric warming is less than 5% - the rest is due to water vapor and clouds. The effect clouds and water vapor have on atmospheric heat retention is easily verified by comparing the temperature of a clear, calm evening with that of a cloudy, calm evening during the same season.

Carbon dioxide accounts for less than four-thousandths of one percent (0.0033%) of our atmosphere. By contrast, nitrogen and oxygen account for roughly 78% and 21%, respectively. Far from being a "pollutant" (as some proponents of human-induced global warming proclaim), CO₂ is as essential a gas to plant life as oxygen is to animal life. Further, nature performs a wonderful balancing act whenever CO₂ levels increase. Through photosynthesis, plants convert CO₂ to new growth (using the carbon atom, C, and releasing oxygen, O). As atmospheric CO₂ increases, so does plant growth, thereby removing a significant portion of CO₂ present as the byproduct of fossil fuel burning. This is merely one facet of the ongoing processes by which atmospheric CO₂ is replenished and absorbed by natural processes each year.

While it is true that increased atmospheric CO₂ might contribute to a slight climate warming, it cannot explain larger historic climate variations that have marked Earth's long climate history nor will warming from fossil fuel burning produce the "global warming" the fanatics at the EPA would have you believe.

As reported by Nick Schulz^[3] in Mutiny Is Her Bounty, "The president can reasonably oppose an energy suppression treaty like Kyoto for two reasons. One is that the science used to justify the treaty is inconclusive or shaky. ... When I asked MIT climatologist Richard Lindzen about the claims in the EPA report, he called them 'ridiculous.'" Further, for one who proclaims himself seriously concerned about the state of education in this country, President Bush seems to have abandoned the quest for credible science in an effort to get along with Whitman and her out-of-control underlings at the EPA. Lindzen addressed this point with Schulz when he remarked, "The primary danger [with this report] is that the public will take the assertions seriously and demand mitigation." In allowing the mythology of human-induced "global warming" to secure a foundation in his Administration, Bush unwittingly promotes a greater danger, "Global Ignorance."

As Philip Stott concludes in Mythical Madness, "at the heart of the myth of "global warming" (as distinct from the complex science of climate change) ... we think we can manage climate by playing about with just one small set of factors, namely so-called 'greenhouse' gases. In truth, we can no more predict the impact of halting gas emissions than of emitting gases."^[4]

So what is the real cause of climate warming (assuming long-term climate warming will persist)?

To answer this question, we must better understand the basic science of climate. One of the first things a study of climate reveals is that climate is always in change - it is either warming or cooling. Those who suggest that current climate warming is the result of fossil fuel burning cannot explain the cause of countless episodes of climate warming and cooling that have marked Earth's long climate history - long before humans existed to burn fossil fuels.

A serious study of past climate trends reveals clear scientific evidence that such warming and cooling episodes may be the result of solar variability.^[5,6] Recent data confirm that our sun's energy output is not constant. Much like a light dimmer can raise and lower the light (and heat) given off by an ordinary light bulb, our sun has a history of variability sufficient to account for historic warm and cold climate episodes. Solar variability is now the leading candidate to explain global climate changes in the recent past known as the "Medieval Warm Period" and "Little Ice Age." Indeed, the "Modern Warm Period" commonly referred to as "global warming," has been marked by unusually high solar activity during the past decade.

For these reasons, programs to require diminished CO₂ production will be inconsequential in their effect on global temperatures since they will fail to have any impact on the primary influence on climate change - and they will be enormously costly to humankind.

Because the science of climate and climate change is not adequately understood, scientists are incapable of developing accurate computer models to predict future climate based on current knowledge. Further, data gathering techniques and computer simulation capabilities are inadequate to accurately predict climate even if the underlying science were sufficiently understood.

Does it make much sense to adopt policies that would severely damage worldwide economies based on poorly understood science that is inadequately simulated by computer models? Common sense suggests the answer to this question is an emphatic "no!"

Finally, does it really make sense to allow the EPA to continue its assault on common sense, good science, and intelligent Administration policy? Again, an emphatic "no" is the correct response.

It's time for President Bush to clean house at the EPA - and that includes removing Christine Todd Whitman, who has presided over and endorsed the bad "science" being promoted by the EPA.

Footnotes:

1. Mutiny Is Her Bounty by Nick Schulz in Tech Central Station

2. Oberg, James Edward, New Earths, pp 54-55.

3. Lindzen, Dr. Richard S. (Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology) in Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus, 7^th paragraph.

4. Mythical Madness by Philip Stott in Tech Central Station

5. Does the Sun Control Everything Climatic?

6. Holocene (Solar Effects on Climate)