10-17-16 – The Science and Politics of CO2

by Steven Yaskell

Climate is dynamic. There’s no scientific proof that Carbon Dioxide (CO2) levels are correlated to temperature fluctuations outside of non-dynamic climate models. These non-dynamic computer models logarithmically assume a steady-state atmospheric temperature rise with increasing CO2. In this theoretical world, the sun as a dynamic, magnetic component influencing our atmosphere doesn’t exist. (Neither for that matter do dynamic geophysical aspects influencing climate exist for these modelers.)  Applying the sun’s influence to climate models, however, gets a result showing no connection between temperature and CO2 rise, whatever the source of CO2 either natural or manmade.  Frankly, even these dynamic calculations are just computer modeling – not scientific “proof.”

There is, however, Archaeo-climate research in which isotopes reveal past Earth climates as being not only hotter but as also containing even more CO2 in the air than we have now. These scientific solutions get shouted down. CO2 effects on atmospheric conditions, in oceans regarding living things as well as temperature, and earth surface conditions, can all be challenged effectively by observation and measurement of other natural phenomena. Besides, the natural CO2 input to our biosphere can’t be separated from that of humans. Ultimately, CO2 is literally the “air” plants need in the process of respiration that results in Oxygen and Nitrogen. We as well as all animal life need these latter gases in order to exist.

There is a clear bias in government funding of climate studies. Scientists applying for government atmospheric science grants focused on “how humanity is negatively affecting the climate via humanity’s CO2 production” nearly always get funded. The counter theories are ignored at best, actively squashed at worst. This one-sided “paper-mass” certainly doesn’t make right — but it does make “might.”

The systematic exclusion of dynamic modeling represents a “cherry-picking” designed to fit prearranged expectations: it’s not science. The scientific community gets put up to this by influential politicians and billionaire supporters who are quite literally paying them — often lucratively — to do so. A big reason for this is political desire to support renewable energy special interests and government revenue schemes such as “carbon taxes.” If we allow politics and special interests to hijack legitimate science for these purposes, what will be the next aim?

A peer-reviewer of a co-authored book of mine and a wise man, indeed, Dr. Richard Lindzen, once said “whoever controls carbon controls life.” Because carbon, ultimately, is you. We are all carbon-based life forms, which, I guess, makes us pollution in the eyes of these folks. There may be legitimate reasons for and means of levying taxes on fossil fuels, but the concept of a “Carbon Tax” is semantically pretty frightening. Is this potential label due merely to idealistic zeal?  I’ll wager the labelers aren’t scientists, but they aren’t stupid, either.

The debate over CO2’s influence on climate has been ongoing internationally for decades. During this period, very reliable satellite data shows no earth surface warming since circa 1998. Yet advocates keep the bogeyman of surface warming alive with sideshow issues (“severe weather”; National Weather Service surface-temperature jiggling the “hottest year evers”; “97 % of scientists agree” etc.). Richly funded and elaborately organized, this movement crudely challenges any critique of their agenda. They have put a choke-hold on state and federal climate policies. They have brought the issue of climate change and CO2 to the forefront of our political agenda. The question we should be asking now is, how necessary is it?

Steven Haywood Yaskell authored and coauthored two books detailing solar effects on climate and has addressed man-made climate change politics in a paper for the Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI). He lives in Mount Holly.


{ 0 comments… add one now }

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post:

About Us

The Ethan Allen Institute is Vermont’s free-market public policy research and education organization. Founded in 1993, we are one of fifty-plus similar but independent state-level, public policy organizations around the country which exchange ideas and information through the State Policy Network.

Latest News

VT Left Wing Media Bias Unmasks Itself

July 24, 2020 By Rob Roper Dave Gram was a long time reporter for the Associated Press, is currently the host of what’s billed on WDEV as a...

Using Guns for Self Defense – 3 Recent Examples

July 24, 2020 By John McClaughry  The Heritage Foundation’s Daily Signal last week published eleven news stories about citizens using a firearm to stop a crime. Here are...

FERC ruling on solar subsidies could help Vermont ratepayers

July 21, 2020 By John McClaughry Last Thursday, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission finalized its updates to the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act (PURPA), in what the majority...

The Moderate Left’s Stand for Free Speech

July 17, 2020 By David Flemming Harper’s Magazine, a long-running monthly magazine of literature, politics, culture, finance, and the arts, is hardly what you would call a ‘politically...

Trump’s Regulatory Bill of Rights

July 16, 2020 by John McClaughry “President Trump [last May] issued an executive order entitled  ‘Regulatory Relief to Support Economic Recovery.’ The executive order includes a regulatory bill...