It seems these days that everyone has bought into the idea of global warming. Congress is busy debating a cap and trade bill and the Kyoto Protocol has become the international standard for dealing with greenhouse gasses. Environmentalists are predicting the end of life on the planet if we do not do anything about it.
So, perhaps the lone voice in the darkness should ask the question “Is it true?”
There is a lot of hype about carbon dioxide content in the atmosphere and its effect on the planet’s temperature. Scientists are talking it up in hyperbolic terms because it draws more attention to them and more research dollars to their projects. If global warming were not a concern, they would be relegated to jobs as weathermen. They seize on anecdotal evidence to support their assertions (this is advocacy, not science).
It is important to separate fact from fiction and what we know from what we do not know.
To help with this, let me make some observations. First, examine the chart. It traces the history of the Earth’s temperature for the last 500,000 years, along with the concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide and dust. It should be read left to right—the left side being the current day and the past being to the right. The current day temperature variation is zero and historical variations are plotted backward from that point.
It is clear that there is a causal relationship between atmospheric carbon dioxide gas composition and the temperature of the Earth. While scientists jump to the conclusion that carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, causes the temperature to rise, when we examine the chart closely, we see that the Earth’s temperature appears to rise in advance of carbon dioxide content in the atmosphere.
Why?
That should raise a question: Why? Could there be a more powerful force in the planet’s ecosystem? Which is the cause and which is the effect? Another big question that arises once we look at the history of the planet’s temperature and carbon dioxide content is, “Since these cycles have occurred before the industrial revolution, what causes the temperature and carbon dioxide gas content to rise and fall?”
It is clearly the case that the planet is warmer today than it generally has been. It is also true that the planet’s temperature has peaked at about the present level many times in history—then declined. Once again, this peak and decline has happened hundreds of thousand of years before humans contributed carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.
Environmental scientists should also seek to understand the self-correcting mechanisms in our ecosystem. Why, when the Earth’s temperature and carbon dioxide gas contents peaked in the past, did the system reverse gear, causing both to drop sharply?
One can make a case for any conclusion that one wants by simply selecting a data timeframe. During the past 10 to 12 years, the temperature of the Earth has cooled. During the past hundred years, the temperature of the Earth has warmed. During the last 5,000 years, the Earth has cooled. And during the last 20,000 years, the Earth has warmed.
Scientists (with a stake in the race) argue that the polar ice cap is receding. This is true, but only for the northern hemisphere; the southern ice cap is growing. They argue that industrialization in the last 150 years has caused the planet to warm. At the same time, the temperature of Mars also has warmed by about the same percentage amount. But there obviously are no people on Mars. Could it be that some more powerful exogenous force has caused it—perhaps flare-ups on the sun?
An important principle to understand is that scientists, activists and political leaders can make any case they want by presenting selected data that supports their advocacy—and leaving out data that refutes it. We should look at all sides of our situation in a balanced way.
High Costs
The cost of an errant public policy response can be very high. We need only look at the cap-and-trade bill under consideration by our political leaders. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the legislation would cost the average American household $1,600 per year in higher energy costs (electricity and fossil fuel heating and transportation). Their lost purchasing power and the lost jobs (estimates are from 1.7 million to 7 million) would weigh heavily on a struggling economy. Furthermore, even if the U.S. engages in such a policy, to the detriment of our economic well-being, clearly emerging market greenhouse gas producers will not (China, India, Brazil, Russia, etc.). This seems like a big cost for a benefit that is in serious question.
Research in this area is important, but it must be done with an objective mind. The drivers for global warming and cooling are complex and dynamic. Our planet’s ecosystem is complex and changing. The study of this needs to be an interdisciplinary pursuit. Atmospheric sciences must consider the interaction of the atmosphere with the ocean (it absorbs about 50% of the carbon dioxide) and the atmosphere’s interaction with the Earth’s surface and its biomaterials, as these are as big factors.
If these forces are as profoundly causal as they have been in the past, the planet may have past the warming peak, and we should worry more about the return of a cooling cycle and another ice age. Mankind may be simply a passenger on the train of the ecosystem’s warming and cooling process. What we do, or don’t do, may have little effect. We actually know very little about these processes, but we should push on to understand them.
One thing is sure: These temperature changes are more glacial than the polar ice flows themselves and significant changes will take thousands of years.
Martin is the chairman, chief executive and chief investment officer of Mont Pelerin Capital LLC.
