Letter to Editor - Global Warming Science v Politics

[Hogeye]

Dear Editor (NWA Times),

Grady Jim Robinson's editorial (Wed. April 4) about global warming illustrates just how politicized the issue has become. He frames the issue as a conservative vs. liberal political spat rather than a scientific question. Ignoring the science, it becomes Rush Limbaugh vs. Al Gore, where hasty generalizations abound.

The editorial has some factual errors. Most skeptics do not deny that global warming exists. Robinson quotes Thomas Sowell out of context, making it appear that Sowell denies recent global warming. In fact, in the very same article Robinson quotes, Sowell wrote, "There is no question that the globe is warming but it has warmed and cooled before, and is not as warm today as it was some centuries ago, before there were any automobiles and before there was as much burning of fossil fuels as today." Sowell goes on to say, "No one denies that temperatures are about a degree warmer than they were a century ago." The portrayal of "global warming deniers" denying climate change or global warming is at best mistaken and at worst dishonest.

What they deny is one or more parts of the following theory: The average temperature of earth's atmosphere is warming catastrophically due to man-made greenhouse gasses. While there do exist a very few who deny that late 20th century warming occurred, the vast majority deny the statement above for other, more reasonable, reasons. Most simply deny the "catastrophically" part. Many assert that the earth has been as warm or warmer, without catastrophic consequences. Indeed, some have pointed to beneficial results such as better crop yields. Is the theory that there were warm periods frivolous or bunk science? No, the climate model with a global Medieval Warm Period (MWP) and Little Ice Age (LIA) was the standard theory, accepted my virtually all climatologists, until 1998.

So we have dueling scientific theories. The classic theory shows a major warming (MWP) around 800-1200 A.D., a cooling (LIA) around 1600-1800, with a recovery from the lows during the 20th century. (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/surface-temp.gif) The new "hockey-stick" theory shows little or no major trends like the MWP or LIA, but a huge warming in the late 20th century. (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/standard-deviate.gif) That's the science. Period. Science makes no political claims, nor policy pronouncements.

Why has this scientific question become politicized? First, government has become the major funding source for research. He who pays the piper calls the tune; it is almost impossible for science to remain objective and unpoliticized. Second, there is an ongoing ideological schism between libertarian values - those believing in a limited government - and authoritarian values - those who see government as the solution to problems. With the discrediting of state socialism in the latter 20th century, many with authoritarian leanings have turned to environmental alarmism as an excuse for big government. Those with more libertarian leanings resist this. Critical thinking about the global warming issue is clouded by this ideological struggle.

Hogeye Bill

[Hogeye]

Good news - NWATimes called. The letter should come out in the next few days.

[Doug]

Good news - NWATimes called. The letter should come out in the next few days.

OK, and what's the good news?

[Hogeye]

It's good to publicly expose strawmen - like Grady Jim Robinson's blanket claim that GW alarmism skeptics deny that global warming exists. (And his outright falsehood about what Sowell wrote.) It's good to clarify the issues, and point out the alternative theories - in this case the classical theory and the hockey-stick theory. Critical thinkers want to know!

Also, I think it is good to explain why and how such issues become politicized. Forewarned is forearmed. Perhaps it will help people separate the politics from the science.

BTW, Dr. John Dixon gave a talk about global warming last night at the 1st Presbyterian Church. He gave a good factual presentation without alarmism. It can be done.

[Doug]

BTW, Dr. John Dixon gave a talk about global warming last night at the 1st Presbyterian Church. He gave a good factual presentation without alarmism. It can be done.

DOUG
It sounds like you are really making some progress!

[Hogeye]

The letter was published today, Monday's NWATimes.