Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
TOP NEWS   LeftArrow - Townhall.com   RightArrow - Townhall.com  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
Monday, December 25, 2006
Climate of Fear
By Jeff Jacoby
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Are you struggling to keep up with rising gas prices?


Remember The Twilight Zone? Back in 1961, Rod Serling wrote an episode that was set in New York City amid rampant global warming. Somehow the Earth's orbit had shifted, and the planet was moving inexorably toward the sun. "This is the eve of the end," Serling intoned in his introduction. "Because even at midnight it's high noon, the hottest day in history, and you're about to spend it -- in the Twilight Zone."

The story revolves around a few desperate New Yorkers struggling to survive the murderous heat. As the temperature climbs, social order crumbles. An intruder, crazed with thirst, breaks into an apartment to steal water. An elderly woman collapses and dies. Thermometers shatter, their mercury boiling over. Finally Norma, the main character, screams and passes out. Then comes the "Twilight Zone" twist: Norma wakes up to find that it's snowing outside. She'd been having a nightmare. The Earth isn't hurtling toward the sun, after all; it's spinning *away* from the sun. The world isn't going to end in searing heat, but in a dark and deathly deep-freeze. Fade to credits.

Well, that's climate change for you. Maybe Mother Earth is warming up, or maybe she's cooling down, but either way it's always bad news.

Here, for example, is former vice president Al Gore in 2006, on the threat posed by global warming: "Our ability to live is what is at stake." It doesn't get much more dire than that.

Yet here is climatologist Reid Bryson, in Fortune magazine's award-winning analysis of global *cooling* in 1974: "There is very important climatic change going on right now, and it’s not merely something of academic interest. . . . It is something that, if it continues, will affect the whole human occupation of the earth -- like a billion people starving." It doesn't get much more dire than that, either.

Bryson's article is quoted in "Fire and Ice," a richly documented report by the Business & Media Institute, an arm of the Media Research Center. Climate-change alarmism, the report shows, is at least a century old. A few examples:

"Geologists Think the World May Be Frozen Up Again," asserted a New York Times headline in February 1895. Worrisome if true, but just seven years later, the Los Angeles Times reported that the great glaciers were undergoing "their final annihilation" due to rising temperatures worldwide. By 1923, though, it was the ice that was doing the annihilating: "Scientist says Arctic ice will wipe out Canada," the Chicago Tribune declared on Page 1.

So it was curtains for the Canadians? Er, not quite. In 1953, The New York Times reported that "nearly all the great ice sheets are in retreat." Yet no sooner did our neighbors to the north breathe a sigh of relief than it turned out they weren't off the hook after all: "The rapid advance of some glaciers," wrote Lowell Ponte in The Cooling, his 1976 bestseller, "has threatened human settlements in Alaska, Iceland, Canada, China, and the Soviet Union." And now? "Arctic Ice Is Melting at Record Level, Scientists Say," the Times reported in 2002.

Over the years, the alarmists have veered from an obsession with lethal global cooling around the turn of the 20th century to lethal global warming a generation later, back to cooling in the 1970s and now to warming once again. You don't have to be a scientist to realize that all these competing narratives of doom can't be true. Or to wonder whether any of them are.

Perhaps that is why most Americans discount the climate-change fear-mongering that is so fashionable among journalists and politicians. Last spring, as Time magazine was hyperventilating about global warming ("The debate is over. Global warming is upon us -- with a vengeance. From floods to fires, droughts to storms, the climate is crashing"), a Gallup poll was finding that only 36 percent of the public say they worry "a great deal" about it.

Still, there is always a market for apocalyptic forebodings. Paul Ehrlich grew rich writing jeremiads with such titles as The Population Explosion and The Population Bomb, which predicted the imminent deaths of hundreds of millions of human beings from starvation and epidemic disease. The Limits to Growth, the Club of Rome's 1972 bestseller, warned that humankind was going to experience "a rather sudden and uncontrollable decline" as the world's resources -- everything from gold to petroleum -- ran dry. Jonathan Schell and Carl Sagan forecast a devastating "nuclear winter" unless atomic arsenals were frozen, or better still, abolished. Those doomsday prophesies never came to pass. Neither have the climate-change catastrophes that have been bruited about for a century.

"The whole aim of practical politics," wrote H.L. Mencken, "is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." Mencken was writing in 1920, but some things never change.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Jeff Jacoby is an Op-Ed writer for the Boston Globe, a radio political commentator, and a contributing columnist for Townhall.com. href="http://www.townhall.com/Secure/Signup.aspx">Sign up today

Be the first to read Jeff Jacoby's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

Subject: comments on "we shouldn't even be here"
I couldn’t resist commenting on the statements made recently by ‘don’t tread on me’:

“Fact is, if a little extra carbon dioxide was all it took to tip some delicate balance and turn Earth into another Venus, it would have happened from day 1, long before we or any "advanced" life forms existed to drive SUV's. Astronomers/astrophysicists who specialize in the study of bodies of matter in space will tell you carbon dioxide is more natural to a planet's atmosphere than oxygen. Earth only has free oxygen in its atmosphere because for something like 1-1/2 billion years primitive algea covering the oceans had been steadily converting CO2 into oxygen until the balance tipped.”

The Earth was never like Venus nor will it ever be. However, before life began, the CO2 concentration was much higher and the temperature was too. If you count the early Earth’s atmosphere, then 3 out of 4 solid bodies known to have atmospheres are mainly CO2: Venus, Earth, and Mars. Titan’s is mainly hydrocarbons. We have no data on the atmospheres of planets outside our solar system.


“Venus, BTW, is about 64% as far from the Sun as Earth. Therefore, it gets almost 90% more sunlight energy per unit area. Venus' carbon dioxide atmosphere was caused by, rather than the cause of, its high temperature, because liquid water cannot exist on its surface. So don't let anybody snow you about Earth-might-become-Venus; there is that critically important difference.”

See my comment above- you can stop worrying Earth will become like Venus. I’m glad you solved the mystery of the evolution of Venus’ atmosphere! (I also liked the comment about ‘snowing’ folks!).


“Earth's oceans are in fact a vast reservior of carbon dioxide. Water at a given temperature and pressure will dissolve a certain amount of carbon dioxide. The higher the temperature, the less carbon dioxide (or any other gas) dissolves in water; the excess will come out of solution into the atmosphere. Try opening two cans of beer or soda pop (carbon dioxide dissolved in water) and putting one in the fridge, and keeping the other out. Which one goes flat 1st?”

Yes indeed temperature affects the concentration of CO2 in the ocean. So does the atmospheric concentration of CO2- the more there is in the atmosphere, the more there will be in the ocean, at equilibrium. By the way, what you describe is a positive feedback situation- the warmer the ocean, the more CO2 it releases to the atmosphere, warming the atmosphere more, etc.


“Variations in the atmospheric temperature for ANY reason (such as variations in sunlight) will cause water temperatures to change, in turn causing carbon dioxide to be taken up or released from the oceans, in turn affecting the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. The much-ballyhooed ice core evidence correlating past temperatures with CO2 concentration was called into question when it was noted that the CO2 concentrations seemed to lag behind, rather than lead, the temperature changes. This would suggest CO2 levels were caused by, rather than causing, temperatures.”

This is an area of research and is indeed puzzling. You may be right and it may be an effect of the above feedback.


“There are a number of naturally occurring gases with much more powerful "greenhouse effect" than carbon dioxide, such as - Water vapor! We can't do a DARN THING about water vapor in the atmosphere, because we have these large exposed surfaces of water, called "oceans," that release or absorb water vapor depending on the air temperature.”

You forgot methane, another greenhouse gas more powerful than CO2. And another one we can’t do much about. Water vapor and methane are factored into the climate models along with CO2. CO2 has a smaller effect, but it’s one we can do something about.


“I have to be suspicious, to say the least, when there is such a transparent effort to make a dogma out of a questionable theory that JUST SO HAPPENS to rationalize a pre-existing extreme green-communist policy agenda and a quantum leap in the size and scope of government.”

Please continue to be suspicious, but also inform yourself by reading the results of the work scientists are doing to try to understand this complex system. There is no perfect model, much less ‘dogma’, but all the models agree that adding a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere will cause changes.

skeptic:


a person who questions the validity or authenticity of something purporting to be factual.

What are we skeptics skeptical about? First, we do not question whether the earth, on average, is warming - 0.6 degrees C in the last century.

What we are skeptical about are, inter alia:

1. That greenhouse gases (GHGs), principally human-emitted CO2, are the cause of the warming, that is, that this particular warming trend is man-caused, or "anthropogenic";

2. That the goodness or badness of the warming is knowable.

3. That, assuming it is bad and that we caused it and can actually do something to stop it, we should stop or reduce the activities we do in order to reduce the GHGs, hence the warming.

4. That the debate is over.

But we are constructive skeptics. We generally agree that, in order:

1. That we should discover what causes climates to change, both locally and worldwide.

2. That where warming is beneficial we should encourage voluntary activities that will help those for whom the warming is harmful.

3. That we should continue to use what Julian Simon called "the ultimate resource" - our noggins - and go to the free marketplace of goods and ideas to find solutions to the sometimes perplexing problems and exploit opportunities that we see in that ever changing market. In my opinion, this generation and allocation of intellectual and material capital will be best spent in mitigating adverse effects of global warming, not in implementing command-and-control regulations to inhibit our activities. In short, economic growth, not environmentalist growth.

4. That the debate should rage on. And may the best model win.

By the way, what does your weatherperson say the weather will be like tomorrow?

Cozy in warmth,
Tim Cranston
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone: