© The Washington Times CommunitiesSteve Goreham
So, what does Goreham have to say about the modern environmentalist movement's increasingly ideological nature? Why does he believe that human activity is not really the cause of climate change? In this first part of our discussion, he answers all of these questions and more.
*****
Joseph F. Cotto:Climatism is not a concept with which most of us are familiar, yet tend to hear a great deal about. How would you define it?
Steve Goreham:Climatism is the belief that man-made greenhouse gases are destroying Earth's climate. Climatism has become an ideology for global societal change, based on the misguided notion that man is the cause of global warming. Climate alarmists advocate a broad spectrum of remedies, such as electric cars, wind turbines, biofuels, restricting air travel, vegetarian diets, population control, green businesses, carbon taxes, and global government. It's become an "ism" just like capitalism, socialism, and environmentalism.
Cotto:One of the gravest concerns cited with the modern environmentalist movement is its increasingly ideological nature. Some might say that this, in fact, is a positive development. What do you think?
Goreham: In my opinion, the environmental movement has become ideological because environmental alarm is effective for raising funds. An example is the World Wildlife Fund crusade on behalf of polar bears. The WWF raises millions of dollars every year, some of it in partnership with Coca-Cola, to "save" the bear.
But there is no evidence that polar bears are endangered. Bear populations have more than doubled since 1960 to about 23,000 globally. A detailed study published in 2007 by the US Geological Survey showed that bear populations on the north coast of Alaska increased by 30 percent from 1970 to 2000, even though arctic ice in the region decreased by 30 percent. Yet every school child is taught that polar bears are endangered. Children all over the world are breaking open their piggy banks to send money to the WWF.
Cotto:Why do you think that contemporary environmentalists have become more hardline in their opinions?
Goreham: I don't know that environmentalists have become more hardline in their opinions. As a white water kayaker of more than 30 years, I consider myself to be an environmentalist. But it seems that hardline environmentalists have captured the news media and policy makers.
Cotto:Most scientists believe that human activity is the leading cause of climate change. Why do you disagree?
Goreham: If you look at both the science and the empirical evidence, the hypothesis of man-made climate change just doesn't add up.
Regarding the science, theory of man-made climate change claims that man-made emissions of greenhouse gases are boosting Earth's greenhouse effect and causing dangerous global warming. But if you break down the greenhouse effect, man's contribution is small. First, water vapor, not carbon dioxide, is Earth's dominant greenhouse gas. Somewhere between 75 percent and 90 percent of Earth's greenhouse effect is due to water vapor and clouds. Second, of the remaining part of the greenhouse effect that is caused by CO2 and methane, about 96 percent of this is caused by natural emissions from oceans, the biosphere, and volcanos. This means that man-made emissions are only causing about one percent of Earth's greenhouse effect. Even if we could eliminate all industrial emissions, the change in global temperature would be too small to even detect.
Regarding the empirical evidence, all of the climate models predict a heating of the low atmosphere in Earth's tropical regions. This atmospheric "hot spot" must be present if dangerous climate change were occurring. But thousands of temperature measurements over the last 25 years by satellites and weather balloons do not show this hot spot, powerful evidence that the climate models are wrong.
In addition, global temperatures have not increased for at least 10 years. In 1990, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicted a global rise in temperatures of 0.3 degrees Celsius per decade. Twenty-two years later, global temperatures remain far below even the lowest IPCC estimate.
Cotto:What do you believe is the greatest contributing factor to climate change? Can it be controlled through human action?
Goreham: If we look back in history, we see Earth's temperatures changing in long-term, medium-term, and short-term temperature cycles. The long-term cycles that operate over tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands of years show Earth's ice ages and interglacial periods, with temperature changes of 7 to 12 degrees Celsius. Most scientists believe that these long-term cycles are driven by gravitational forces of the sun, the planets, and possibly other impacts from the cosmos.
The medium-term cycles appear to be about 1500 years in length and are responsible for several moderate warming and cooling periods since the last ice age, including the Roman Warming, the Medieval Warm Period, the Little Ice Age, and today's Modern Warm Period. These periods have temperature changes of 2-3 degrees Celsius and are probably driven by the sun.
Finally we have short-term cycles such as El Nino, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation. These cycles show small changes in temperature over a period of a few years to several decades. These short-term cycles are probably driven by Earth's oceans. The small 0.7 degree increase in global temperatures since 1880 that everyone is so alarmed about is easily explained by a combination of medium-term and short-term natural cycles, without need for a contribution from man-made emissions.
The statement "climate change is real" is about as meaningful as "grass is green" or "water is wet." Climate change is continuous. Humans can change climate on a local scale, but can do little to "control it" on a global scale.
Part 2 - The Conscience of a Realist - Steve Goreham on the ups and downs of modern environmentalism
Joseph Cotto
The Washington Times Communities
Sat, 15 Dec 2012 12:38 CST
Global warming is one of those tricky subjects where scientific opinion can easily morph into religious doctrine.
Taking this into account, it should come as no surprise that environmental politics are now an extremely important aspect of American life. What are the benefits and drawbacks of this? Is the scientific community open to diverse ideas about climate change? Of all the challenges that prevent the environment from achieving sustainability, which is the most pressing?
In this second part of our discussion, climate researcher and writer Steve Goreham answers these most challenging questions. He also explains a bit about his life and career.
****
Joseph F. Cotto:Across the world, untold millions are very nervous about global warming. Do you believe it really is the sort of threat that many perceive it to be? Why or why not?
Steve Goreham: I think I've already answered the why or why not, so let me talk a little about the tragedy of Climatism. The tragedy of Climatism is a misallocation of resources on a vast scale. The world is spending $250 billion per year to try to "decarbonize" in a misguided fight against global warming. This is double the amount of total annual foreign aid. Over $1 trillion has been spent over the last 10 years, and the world is on course to spend another $1 trillion over the next four years on ineffective climate programs.
At the same time, about 20,000 die each day from hunger-related causes. More than a billion people are trying to survive on less than $2 per day. Two and a half billion lack adequate sanitation, 1.4 billion lack electricity, and almost a billion do not have access to clean drinking water. Every year, two million die from AIDS and almost two million die from tuberculosis. Malaria, pneumonia, and diarrheal diseases kill millions more. Suppose we stop the futile fight against global warming and switch billions toward solving the real problems of the world?
Cotto: Here in the United States environmental politics have become tremendously important. What, in your opinion, is one benefit and drawback of this?
Goreham: The benefit of environmental politics is that water pollution and air pollution in the United States is at its lowest level in more than 50 years. As a society, we've made tremendous strides in reducing our real air pollutants, such as carbon monoxide, ozone, nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides, lead, and carbon particulates, along with cleaning up our lakes and rivers.
The big drawback is that many organizations, including the Environmental Protection Agency, now call carbon dioxide a pollutant. This is bizarre. Carbon dioxide is an odorless, harmless, colorless gas. It does not cause smoke or smog. We breathe in just a trace of carbon dioxide, but create CO2 as part of bodily processes, so we breathe out 100 times the level of atmospheric CO2 with every breath.
In fact, CO2 is green! Carbon dioxide is plant food. Hundreds of peer-reviewed studies show that increased levels of CO2 cause plants to grow larger, with larger root systems, and bigger fruits and vegetables. If we could put one compound into the atmosphere that would be great for the biosphere, CO2 is that compound. Yet today every university, business, and community is working to reduce CO2 emissions.
Cotto:Your views are immensely controversial, needless to say. From your standpoint, is the scientific community open to diverse ideas about climate change?
Goreham: I find that the scientific community is usually not very open to skeptical ideas about man-made climate change. Climate skeptics are labeled "deniers," as in "holocaust deniers." Most arguments against skeptical positions claim consensus, as in "97 percent of scientists agree with the theory of man-made warming," or personally attack the skeptic as "a shill for energy companies," rather than discuss the science.
My presentations at colleges attract strong student interest, but these presentations are usually sponsored by the economics departments. My requests for a debate on the science of global warming with science departments have been turned down by ten different universities in the Midwest.
Cotto: During the years ahead, what do you think that the greatest challenge will be to environmental sustainability?
Goreham: Sadly, one of the greatest challenges to the environment is radical environmentalism itself. I'll give you three examples. First, Climatism and the environmental movement have convinced nations to try fill the world with wind turbines and solar fields. These energy sources are dilute, intermittent, costly, and require backup from traditional hydrocarbon sources. They require 75 to 100 times the land of conventional power plants in the case of solar, or 200 to 250 times the land in the case of wind. Why is using huge amounts of land with wind and solar more sustainable than coal, gas, or nuclear plants, which have a much smaller footprint? Let's make the sensible choice and leave more land for nature.
The second example is biofuels. Biofuels have been labeled "renewable" and "sustainable" and were thought for many years to be a transportation solution for global warming. But recent scientific studies show that combustion of biofuels releases more carbon particulates, ozone, and sulfur oxides than combustion of gasoline or diesel fuel. Further studies show that biofuels even release more carbon dioxide when land use changes are taken into account. Biofuels have also boosted global food prices and resulted in cultivation of more land and the cutting of forests in Indonesia and elsewhere. Yet the EPA and European Union still continue to push biofuels as a solution to global warming.
A third favorite of environmental groups is organic farming. Organic farming has lower yields and therefore requires more land than traditional agriculture, with no additional nutritional value. To the extent that organic farming is employed, more land will be needed for agriculture, leaving less for nature.
Comment: We here at SOTT don't agree with the above: the fact that the pesticides and other chemicals used by traditional agriculture makes organic produce much healthier - a fact that those who are in favor of traditional agriculture tend to not discuss. Also, there is evidence that organic farming methods can produce just as high yields as traditional farming. Please read:
Organic Farming Could Feed the World
Study Finds: Commercial Organic Farms Have Better Fruit and Soil, Lower Environmental Impact
Thinking Outside the Processed Foods Box: Health and Safety Advantages of Organic Food
Cotto: Now that our discussion is at its end, many readers are probably wondering how you came to be a voice in the climate change debate. Tell us a bit about your life and career.
Goreham: I'm a former electrical engineer and business executive, with 30 years of experience at Fortune 100 and private companies in the electronics industry. I'm married and a father of three. I joined the climate debate to add my voice to those fighting for sound climate science and sensible energy policy. I've written two books, including my latest The Mad, Mad, Mad World of Climatism: Mankind and Climate Change Mania. I'm now a full-time speaker and writer on environmental issues.
Also, despite hundreds of accusations that I must be "in the pay of the energy companies," I have never received any payment, funding, or salary from any energy company or any organization with a vested interest in the debate.
Shame about the organic farming part though.