My thanks to Minh (see comments on last blog) for taking my plea seriously. He asked for scientific evidence that Global Warming is a hoax. I intend to provide some references here.

But before I do, let me posit that I do not know of any evidence that we will not experience warming in the near future. And I am not certain that the warming will be benign. My assertion is much more humble. Climatologists know so little of the complex natural and man-made phenomena that affect our planet's temperatures that I think it is unconscionable to demand immediate and drastic action to reduce fossil fuel consumption. It might be easier to list five points:

1. The political forces behind the Global Warming Hysteria have an ulterior motive. They are of the elitist opinion that they should control the world's resources. In short, they are socialists who think we would all be better off if they controlled everything. So I suspect they see Global Warming as a convenient excuse to control the world's fossil fuel consumption. With this powerful motivation, I doubt they have the objectivity to accept criticism of their position.

2. The "solutions" that have been proposed (such as the Kyoto protocol) rely primarily on the power of government to tax and regulate. Taxation and regulation stifle economic growth. This will hurt the poor disproportionately. To quote paper No. 407 from the National Center for Policy Analysis in their critique of the economic impact of the Kyoto protocol:

"Thus the world's poor - who are concentrated in developing nations - would suffer the most from Kyoto through higher trade barriers, greater energy costs, lower energy demand and fewer job opportunities. Many developing nations' already shaky economies will shatter. And as economies of the industrialized nations also contract, pleas for aid will likely fall on deaf ears."

And to quote my beautiful wife Leslie:

"As a rising tide lifts all boats, so a retreating tide lowers them."

As I see it, we live in a global economy. If energy costs go up, it costs more to trade with other countries. So, developing countries can't sell their goods for as high a price. And, consequently, they can't purchase food as cheaply. So, each worker in the country has to work more hours to buy the same food as before. You can see this would be disastrous if they already work all day just to buy necessities. Most Americans could take a 20% cut in buying power and live.

As another example, the push to switch from fossil fuels to "carbon neutral" fuels made from plants has convinced our government to subsidize ethanol as an automotive fuel. On the downside, however, when some portion of arable land is diverted to growing crops for ethanol, that decreases the supply of arable land to grow food for humans and livestock, so food prices go up. We pay 50 cents more for a Big Mac. In Cameroon, thousands die. That would be none of my business, except if my government is using my money to subsidize an ethanol market that wouldn't exist otherwise. And especially if they are doing it because a former Vice President desperately trying to find meaning in life encouraged the whole thing on false pretenses.

Even in the case of a country that could grow its own food (and thus wouldn't need to import food), there would still be negative consequences to increased energy costs. All countries rely on trade to better the condition of their citizens. Whenever world energy prices go up, the buying power of poor nations goes down. They are less able to import the technology and equipment to improve the safety of their builidings, raise the vaccination rates of their children, improve agricultural yield or provide access to clean water.

3. If we are warming, there is little we can do about it, even if we accept an anthropogenic source. It would be better to spend our resources learning to adapt to the higher temperatures. This doesn't fit the anti-fossil fuel environmentalist agenda, so you never hear about it. You should ask yourself why that is, especially since all efforts to reduce carbon emissions are failing. Every country in the world is emitting more CO2 every year. Where are the calls to adapt? I think you don't hear them because they don't really believe their own baloney.

4. I am not against regulating emissions. I have witnessed first hand the improvement in air quality in California from emissions regulation. But we should stop once fossil fuel engines reach the perfect goal of emitting only CO2 and H2O. And that is pretty much the case right now for car engines. Once again, I suspect that for political reasons the environmentalist crowd couldn't declare victory and express satisfaction. They had to find something else wrong with fossil fuel emissions once modern engines became that good. I would support continued efforts to identify harmful environmental emissions of all sorts and seek to eliminate and reduce them as the economics of the situation allows.

5. In addition to the above (mainly political and philosophical) points, I do seriously doubt man-made CO2 is a significant contributor to the Global Warming that occurred in the 80's and 90's. (I say "occurred" because there has been no Global Warming this decade.) So, finally, here are some links to sites that contain references of interest. It is not exhaustive. But for those who have not tasted of the opposing argument, it is a start. If you want to chat by email, use my last name at alumni.rice.edu. I won't put any more posts about Global Warming on the blog to spare all the people who just want to see the cute kids!

Roy Spencer's Web Site

http://www.weatherquestions.com/Roy-Spencer-on-global-warming.htm

A Global Warming Primer

http://www.ncpa.org/globalwarming/GlobalWarmingPrimer.pdf

Great Global Warming Swindle

http://www.greatglobalwarmingswindle.com/index.html