map
Our Affiliates
Listen In 28 LanguagesRFE/RL Radio
In 28 Languages

'Berlin Wall's Lessons For Today'

In an op-ed for "USA Today," Jeffrey Gedmin discusses RFE and the role of free media in societies living under repressive regimes. More
More Articles

Features

Global-Warming Skeptics Raise A Storm In New York

''Human contribution is small, probably not zero, and it's small compared to these other factors which we cannot change,'' such as the sun and ocean currents, said one conference participant.

March 10, 2009
By Nikola Krastev
NEW YORK -- These are tough times to be a skeptic about global warming.

Two years ago, an international United Nations panel concluded with near certainty that human activity plays a role in the planet's rising temperatures. And now, the new U.S. administration has vowed to spearhead international efforts to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions.

But more than 600 people gathered in New York City this week at the International Conference on Climate Change say they are up to the challenge.

Joseph Bast, president of the Heartland Institute, which organized the conference, argues that the extent and causes of global warming are far from proven. The goal of the gathering, he tells RFE/RL, is to provide a forum to challenge people like former U.S. Vice President Al Gore with a healthy dose of skepticism.

"We think we have a great story to tell that more and more prominent scientists are coming out saying global warming is not a crisis, that the question of what causes it and how extensive it's going to be are wide open in the scientific community," Bast said.

"And that message is not effectively reaching enough people," he adds. "So, by holding an event like this we hope that we can get the attention of more people and eventually have an effect on public policy."

There is a special urgency at this year's gathering. Governments around the world are working on plans to further tax greenhouse-gas emissions, while U.S. President Barack Obama has proposed to roll greenhouse-gas emissions back to their 1990s levels.

'Vehicle For Government Intervention'

But many conference participants say those efforts are misguided. Those who acknowledge global warming is happening say the Earth is going through a natural, periodic cycle, with industrial activity contributing very little to the process.
By the ideology which uses or misuses it -- it has gradually turned into the most efficient vehicle for advocating extensive government intervention into all fields of life and for suppressing human freedom and economic prosperity.


The Heartland Institute bills itself as a free-market think tank. Until 2006, the Chicago-based group received money from oil giant Exxon Mobil, although that has now stopped. The institute has not shied away from taking up other controversial causes. For example, it also seeks to decrease high taxes on cigarettes and curbs on smokers.

The keynote speech was delivered by Czech President Vaclav Klaus, who has become well-known for his opinions on the issue. Speaking to students at Columbia University a day later, he reaffirmed his vocal opposition to the concept that global warming is man-made.

"The problem is not global warming," Klaus said. "By the ideology which uses or misuses it -- it has gradually turned into the most efficient vehicle for advocating extensive government intervention into all fields of life and for suppressing human freedom and economic prosperity."

'An Overstated Truth'?

Al Gore has won worldwide acclaim for his environmental activities and especially for raising awareness about climate change with the film "An Inconvenient Truth." In 2007 he won the Nobel Peace Prize along with the UN panel for his climate-change-awareness activities.

Bast of the Heartland Institute argues that although Gore is the most prominent spokesman for the man-made climate-change cause, his arguments lie "way outside the mainstream scientific community."

Czech President Vaclav Klaus is a well-known skeptic of climate change.
"Very few qualified scientists would say that Al Gore and what he says in his film is accurate. He grossly overstates the possibility of sea-level rise for example," Bast says.

"There's simply no peer-reviewed scientific literature that would justify predictions of a 20-foot [6-meter] rise in sea level, and yet that's very prominent in his film."

Dr. Howard MacCabee, an oncologist in California and a conference participant, says that even very liberal estimates show that industrial pollution by itself has negligible or little effect on global warming.

"Human contribution is small, probably not zero, and it's small compared to these other factors which we cannot change. We cannot change the sun, we cannot change [the sun's] multidecadal oscillations, we can't change ocean currents, we can't stop El Nino," MacCabee says.

"El Nino was the biggest spike on the temperature for the past 40 years. That was in 1998 and the hottest year in our recent history was the 1998, the year of El Nino, which has nothing to do with CO2 [carbon dioxide]," he adds.

For now, the conference participants seem to be losing the argument.

A recent opinion poll in the United States showed that 58 percent of respondents believe climate change is at least partly caused by humans. But another poll, by the Pew Research Center, indicates that in these times of economic turmoil, addressing climate change is not a top priority for many Americans.
This forum has been closed.
    Next 
Comments page 1 of 5
by: Bob Serian from: San Jose, CAlifornia
April 03, 2009 17:03
CO2 based climate change can be explained in terms of simple physics.
To all of you who took physics: CO2 has an absorption line in the infrared.
Read no further.
To those of you who are not students of physics, here is my explanation.
When the sun (visible light which passes through CO2 molecules) shines on anything but a reflective surface, some of it gets converted to heat. This, of course, heats up the surface, and some of the heat escapes as infrared radiation. (See: hold your hand over a hot frying pan.)
This radiation is invisible (infrared or below red) but still contains a lot of the energy supplied by the sun.
If this infrared radiation radiates off a near-horizontal surface it will head straight for space.
The problem comes in if the ray of infrared encounters a CO2 molecule.
The molecule will capture it. After a short time the molecule will radiate a ray that is equal to that captured (for a balance of energy). The infrared ray that was headed for space now is being reradiated in an unknown direction, which means that there is a possibility that it will head back to earth, warming it.
Simple, huh?

by: Lynn from: WA
March 14, 2009 18:59
marcus, Along with the benefits of a clean environment, we must also consider the cost. Rich countries can afford to clean up and innovate technology that prevents pollution. Unreasonably taxing the wealth of a nation to please the environmentalist alarmists is counter-productive. For these reasons, the argument over AGW is hardly irrelevant.

Also, was it C02 that killed the trees?

Clearly, the United States has come a very long way in learning how to take better care of our environment. As you say, the forests are recovering, as are the rivers and lakes.

If our economy is punitively taxed, it's unlikely we'll be able to continue our environmental progress.

by: marcus
March 14, 2009 13:29
Isn't whether there's global warming or not irrelevant? It's still pollution and it's killing the seas, the forests, the water we drink. Is there any harm in cleaning the environment? I live in a part of the world where the hills were literally bare twenty years ago because of pollution, but after they shut the coal power plants the trees grew back. You don't need to be a scientist to understand that human waste and pollution are very negative for the planet's health. Focusing on global warming is the big industry's way of distracting people from the issue, which is that the planet is small and we leave a big mess everywhere we go, and multiply massively. That's not sustainable, and that is what the environmental message should be, not arguing about who's a scientist and who's not.

by: Mike G from: Floriduh
March 14, 2009 12:00
Ok i get it there are two sides to every story but i am missing something here? why would cleaning up the planet be a bad thing? Or are the skeptics too pissed off to realize we still need to clean up our earth. i am no scientist but have noticed things changing in my 50 years of being here. Pollution is pollution no matter how you cut. So it is ok to pollute is all i get from the skeptics sad very very sad!!!!!!!!

by: Noah from: ft. wayne
March 13, 2009 20:56
To Girma:

You couldn't BE more wrong. the atmosphere has a mass of 5.1480×10E18 kg. To say that the CO2 content of the atmosphere wouldn't lead to warming is not only completely false, it is irresponsible to post such nonsense on a public forum. You should be ashamed of yourself.

by: T.L. from: Colorado
March 13, 2009 18:46
No hard nose facts...try these hard nose arguments. Google these and you will discover that Science has demonstrated...

1. The ocean has been rising for 18,000 years. During the past 180 centuries time, the ocean has risen 120 meters. The British Isles and North America became populated only because 12,000 years ago they were connected by dry land.
2. CO2 levels were much higher during the most fruitful time on earth.. the Triassic and Jurrasic period. That evidence should lead any objective person to at least wonder if perhaps more CO2 might actually be a good thing.
3. 93 % of the CO2 on the planet earth is stored in the oceans. The annual exchange of Co2 between the oceans, the land (dying plants, vulcanism, emit CO2 while growing plants extract it) at an estimated 200 GT of C per year absolutely dwarfs that being added by man. The world is a natural carbon sequestation system. The CO2 added by mankind does not simply accumulate year after year over the decades. More Co2 creates more plants which absorb more Co2. Also, as more CO2 goes into the environment, more of it is absorbed by the ocean because 1. Co2 is heavier than O2 and N2 so it concentrates more on the earth's surface and 2. Co2 compines with H2O and falls from the sky as Carbonic acid (found in soda pop).
4. The hystoric correlation between rising temperatures on earth and increased solar activity is nearly perfect. Mankind did not cause the numerous past ice ages or periods of global warming.
5. The mean temperature of the earth today is almost exactly at the midpoint for the past 2000 years. The past 150 years have been warming only because the earth was emerging from the latter phase of the little ice age which followed the mideival period of global warming.
6. Global temperatures have cooled every year since 1998. If the increase of global temperature was caused by man's emmission of CO2, it should be linearaly increasing annually since the amount of CO2 being put into the atmosphere by man has increased every year since 1998.
7. Measurements of undisturbed rain forest area in the Amazon indicate that the amount and size of the trees has increased during the past 40 years, as the result of higher Co2 levels, such that, each acre of this undisturbed Amazon forest is now capable of extracting an additional 900lbs of carbon per year. Scientists have estimated that the half life of the adjustment period at 15 to 25 years. To be clear.. more Co2 = more vegetation. More vegitation leads to less CO2. At least that is how it appears to have happened for the past 400 million years or so.
7. The ice cap in Greenland is actually growing by 2 inches per year now. It is not shrinking at all. Why? Warm air holds more moisture which leads to more snow in Greenland!
8. For every ton of Co2 which will be added by developed nations in the next 20 years, developing nations like China and India will add 10 tons. The Kyoto agreement does not restrict the production of CO2 by developing nations at all! No wonder they signed it. If the US imposes any kind of a carbon tax, the result will be that teh dirtiest US industries (such as cement manufacturing and oil refining) will just move to Mexico and the net result will be lost US jobs witn ZERO decrease in CO2 production.
9. "Cap and trade" has been a miserable failure in Europe. There has been no reduction in CO2 output, but the cost of energy has increased dramatically.
10. Germany will decommission 17 nuclear reactors by 2020. The country has no Nat. Gas. The current hope in German is for clean coal.
10. The US already has the most nuclear power in the world by far 104 vs France with 59. Developed Europe will build only 2 additional nuclear reactors in the next decade. Where is Europe going to get its "clean energy"? From wind? Look at the world wind maps. The only good locations for wind in Europe is in the North

by: T. L. from: USA
March 13, 2009 17:57
The acerage of forests in North America is what it was 100 years ago. The total acerage is 1,75 Billion acres. This forest replenishes itself every 30 years. An average acre of forest has 200 trees, not counting the tons of other vegitation. If North America, consumed the lumber in 11.6 Billion "mature trees" every year, the consumption would be in balance. We do not consume anything close to that. The trees we use to make paper mature in 6 - 8 years. Half of the paper made in North America is made from the sawdust of lumber which was cut for other purposes. Go for a drive in the country and open your eyes!! There are trees everywhere.

by: T. from: USA
March 13, 2009 17:48
"But more than ***600 people*** gathered in New York City this week at the International Conference on Climate Change say they are up to the challenge.""

Your effort to undermine the nature of this debate is obvious. Not one mention of the fact that most of the participants were scientists and that most of the speakers were PHDs. This is not a collection of "nutters". These are real live scientists raising legitimate questions.

http://www.heartland.org/events/NewYork09/PDFs/NationalReviewAd.pdf

Here is what this global warming hysteria is all about. Both sides of this debate agree that the magnitude of CO2 in the atmosphere is now at 385ppm. 385 ppm is exactly equivalent by ratio to that of a room which is filled with 10,000 tennis balls representint the total atmosphere. Out of that 10,000, only 4 represent all of the C02. That's 4 out of 10,000. All agree, at least 3 of those tennis balls representing Co2 have been there for centuries and therefore were put there by mother nature. This hysteria is all the result of the silly belief that this 4th tennis ball is a sin and that adding another tennis ball making it 5 out of 10,000 would be an utter catastrophe. Give me a break! During the Jurassic period, the most fruitful and abundant period in the history of planet earth, CO2 levels were 3 to 4 times higher than they are now. Most office work places have CO2 levels in the range of 1000 ppm which people seem to tolerate just fine. Plants love Co2. The more CO2 the more and large are the plants. This has been proven hundreds of times in greenhouse experiments. As for the ocean rising ... IT IS.... and it has been steadily rising for 18,000 years at an average rate of 2Ft per century. The fact that the ocean is rising and that the planet is warming has nothing to do with Co2. The cause and effect is the exact opposite. Most of the CO2 on planet earth (93%) is stored in the ocean. Warm water holds less CO2 than does cold water. As solar activity warms the earth, the level of CO2 goes up. This has been true for billions of years and it can be proven with the simplest of experiments. And, as for man made CO2 emissions, do some research. For every ton of C02 which will be added to the atmosphere during the next 25 years by the developed countries, China, India and the other developing countries will add 10-1Tons. Al Gores team would have the western world wrecking its economies for nothing.

What Al Gore and his team are doing by surpressing and avoiding legitimate debate on this hysterical notion, is exactly equivalent to the book burnings which went on in Nazi Germany in the 1930s. His team of scientific blasphomers would like everyone in the world to believe the debate is over. Well, here is a link to a site which contains the names of 31,000 scientists (9,000 PHDs) who believe that Al Gores ideas are silly theories which are being supported with ultra hyped junk science. If his case has merit, he should not fear defending it in a public forum. I believe that Al Gores "An Inconvenient Truth" video is the same type of nonsensical make-believe science that the Nazis put out whith their scull measurement dogma which was designed to prove the superiority of the Nazis superman vs the other "mongrel hunanoides" of the world!! Al Gore and his team need to stop the name calling, and smearing and debate the issues. The world needs and deserves to hear the whole truth!!


http://www.heartland.org/events/NewYork09/PDFs/NationalReviewAd.pdf

by: Girma from: Perth
March 13, 2009 15:34
To say that 1 particle of CO2 out of 2500 particles of the atmosphere (CO2 is 0.04% of the atmosphere), traps the earths heat (global warming) is not science; it is mysticism. I have a problem selecting one right number out of ten, let alone 2500.
I hate fear mongering of the global warming brigade. We are healthy, well feed, and live long life. The main sign of disaster is when there is a drastic decrease in these quantitative measures, not fear inside the skulls of this brigade. My answer when they talk about the future is that I am not prepared to give them a blank cheque to swindlers.

by: Ed from: Houston
March 12, 2009 17:15
Wow, what a lot of pseudo-science in this forum. Ethanol subsidies were a result of global warming? Weren't they to ween us off of foreign oil and provide easy money to farm lobbies? It's not like ethanol made out of Midwestern corn is actually of any environmental benefit.

And burning fossil fuels produces carbon dioxide, guy, it's not "already in the air before intake." Basic chemistry: hydrocarbons plus oxygen produces carbon dioxide and water vapor (CH4 + 2O2 → CO2 + 2H2O).

And in the NatGeo article, if you get past the first couple paragraphs, the Mars theory is shot to ribbons. Any other half-facts? Starting to sound like a 9-11 Truthers forum...
    Next 
Comments page 1 of 5
TEXT SIZE - +

Editors' Picks

President Van Rompuy

'How's That Again?!' Audio

Karzai Inauguration

The Anticipation Of Change Video

Follow Us On Twitter

Keep up-to-date on all the latest news from RFE/RL's broadcast region by following us on Twitter:
~ You can find our instant news feed at @RFE_RLNEWS.
~ An obsessive Kremlin watcher? Follow our blog at @PowerVertical.
~ Human rights abuses chronicled at @RightsWatchdog.
~ News, comment, and the odd silly dictator story at @TransmissionRFE.

Products and services:

RSSMail SubscriptionMobile