The last two bitter winters have lead to a rise in public awareness that CO2 is not a pollutant and is not a significant greenhouse gas that is triggering runaway global warming.
1- A greenhouse gas is defined as being a gas in an atmosphere that absorbs and emits radiation within the thermal infrared range. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. CO2 is the 2nd most abundant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere.
2- CO2 is recognized as a fund pollutant. Fund pollutants do not cause damage to the environment unless the emission rate exceeds the receiving environment's absorptive capacity
3- The December 2008 – February 2009 average temperature was 33.49 degrees F, which is 0.53 degree F above normal. This data was provided by the NOAA's National Climatic Data Center and is a measure of the United States as a whole.
How did we ever get to this point where bad science is driving big government we have to struggle so to stop it?
1- Intensely poor grammar. Valid pieces of information are generally composed with great attention to detail and design. Poor writing is a poor framework for any argument.
2- We came to this point via membership in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, along with 193 other countries who recognize global warming as a reality. No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion of the cause of global warming.
3- "Bad" and "big" are very vague words. With neither factual evidence behind these adjectives nor a standard against which to compare, how does one know how big "big" is and what degree of error "bad" entails?
The story begins with an Oceanographer named Roger Revelle. He served with the Navy in World War II. After the war he became the Director of the Scripps Oceanographic Institute in La Jolla in San Diego, California. Revelle saw the opportunity to obtain major funding from the Navy for doing measurements and research on the ocean around the Pacific Atolls where the US military was conducting atomic bomb tests. He greatly expanded the Institute’s areas of interest and among others hired Hans Suess, a noted Chemist from the University of Chicago, who was very interested in the traces of carbon in the environment from the burning of fossil fuels. Revelle tagged on to Suess studies and co-authored a paper with him in 1957. The paper raises the possibility that the carbon dioxide might be creating a greenhouse effect and causing atmospheric warming. It seems to be a plea for funding for more studies. Funding, frankly, is where Revelle’s mind was most of the time.
1- Research yields no profit, and is therefore unsustainable without funding. Potential research projects are evaluated by potential funding sources and only the most promising receive funding. Revelle's concern with continuing his research is understandable.
Next Revelle hired a Geochemist named David Keeling to devise a way to measure the atmospheric content of Carbon dioxide. In 1960 Keeling published his first paper showing the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and linking the increase to the burning of fossil fuels.
These two research papers became the bedrock of the science of global warming, even though they offered no proof that carbon dioxide was in fact a greenhouse gas. In addition they failed to explain how this trace gas, only a tiny fraction of the atmosphere, could have any significant impact on temperatures.
1- In the second sentence, it is stated that he did in fact link the cause with the effect. However, the third and fourth sentences contradict this. Contradictory statements, regardless of concurrence or dissent, greatly erode the credibility of both statements. Without even the slightest of detail behind either statement, this section is largely unusable for any credible argument.
2- CO2, by definition, is a greenhouse gas. Stating failure to prove this in a study done 51 years ago is clearly immaterial and intended to erode the case for greenhouse gas involvement in global warming. Analaogous to this would be reporting to a sixth grade class a study on the effects of smoking done in 1985 before reporting current evidence. It is both unnecessary and irrelevant.
Now let me take you back to the1950s when this was going on. Our cities were entrapped in a pall of pollution from the crude internal combustion engines that powered cars and trucks back then and from the uncontrolled emissions from power plants and factories. Cars and factories and power plants were filling the air with all sorts of pollutants. There was a valid and serious concern about the health consequences of this pollution and a strong environmental movement was developing to demand action. Government accepted this challenge and new environmental standards were set. Scientists and engineers came to the rescue. New reformulated fuels were developed for cars, as were new high tech, computer controlled engines and catalytic converters. By the mid seventies cars were no longer big time polluters, emitting only some carbon dioxide and water vapor from their tail pipes. Likewise, new fuel processing and smoke stack scrubbers were added to industrial and power plants and their emissions were greatly reduced, as well.
1- This states an issue and a resolution thereof completely concurrent with the argument for mankind's involvement in global warming through the emission of greenhouse gases.
But an environmental movement had been established and its funding and very existence depended on having a continuing crisis issue. So the research papers from Scripps came at just the right moment. And, with them came the birth of an issue; man-made global warming from the carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels.
1- Speculation. The dependence on which funding stood is heresay and cannot be backed.
2- Previous statements from this essay both directly and implicitly support this. At this point in the reading, the basic logical argument still supports mankind's involvement.
3- Again, the writing style is weak and laden with grammatic mistakes. A lack of professionalism has made this a poor essay.
Revelle and Keeling used this new alarmism to keep their funding growing. Other researchers with environmental motivations and a hunger for funding saw this developing and climbed aboard as well. The research grants began to flow and alarming hypothesis began to show up everywhere.
1- Speculation, again. No factual basis stated.
2- Argument fails to address the issue of man's involvement in global warming. This focuses on discrediting the character of the researching by means of their funding sources. Irrelevant.
3- Assuming factual basis had been provided, this funding source argument showed the scientists to be completely logical. Changing the descriptive magnitude of events without altering their factual framework is a daily reality.
The Keeling curve showed a steady rise in CO2 in atmosphere during the period since oil and coal were discovered and used by man. As of today, carbon dioxide has increased from 215 to 385 parts per million. But, despite the increases, it is still only a trace gas in the atmosphere. While the increase is real, the percentage of the atmosphere that is CO2 remains tiny, about .41 hundredths of one percent.
1- The first factual evidence arrives, and is partially misreported. The author states the concentration to be around ".41 hundredth of one percent," which is mathematically equal to .041% (forty-one hundredths hundredth of one percent). The actual concentration at the time was .41%. While this is largely grammatic, it is misleading and false.
2- This section fails to address the effect of such a concentration. Sarin is able to kill a human with 0.00000003 grams per cubic foot of air, a staggeringly small concentration.