Skeptics and Deniers: The Conclusion (Part I)

This post is Part I of the conclusion to Skeptics and Deniers, a series of analyses on the book Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years by Fred Singer and Dennis Avery. I'm sorry about the delay in publishing this post :( I really wanted to give a more in-depth review of the book, and the writing became too long to be a single post. That's why I divided it into two parts! Please understand that it took longer to explain my judgments, inferences and opinions in greater detail for a comprehensive commentary. 

*I added pictures of some pages in the book. As I mentioned before, I had to do with a Korean translation of the book that I found in the library. So don't be surprised when you see just Korean letters! I put them up for the Korean followers of my blog :) 

* For those of you who haven't been following these posts, here is a little background information:  the book's  authors assert that Global Warming is simply part of a succession of changes in the Earth's system; there is only weak evidence that Global Warming is anthropogenic; Global Warming might actually be beneficial; we do not have to make an effort to curb CO2 levels, because they aren't responsible for Global Warming.  If you wish to see my analyses posted over the past several months, please check out the previous blog posts: on the Earth and the Sun; the weaknesses of the Greenhouse Theory; rising sea levels; Mass Extinction Part I, and Mass Extinction Part II. 

My blog posts have been mostly covering the earlier part of the book, up to the relationship between Global Warming and Mass Extinction in Chapter 6. The following are some of the points that the authors make throughout the rest of the book, not just in the final chapter :) I also added my comments for some of them. Again, please remember that the words highlighted in pink are those of the authors.

Chapter 7

aaa: During the Medieval Warm Period, the population of Europe grew by 50%. It can be inferred that there was much greater food production during that time. Wealth of food brought prosperity to the cities, transportation and construction.

Chapter 10

aaa: Global Warming does not bring about greater frequency or strength of droughts, hurricanes, storms and tornadoes. For example, WASA (Waves and Storms in the North Atlantic) found there was no evidence warmer climates in 1900 - 2000 resulted in more storms or hurricanes. 

Chapter 14

aaa: There is strong evidence that abnormally low temperatures bring about greater casualties than abnormally high temperatures. Besides, the growing popularity of air conditioning will make illnesses and deaths from heat less likely. (According to a research in the early 1980s, the number of deaths during abnormally hot climates was 41% less in households with air conditioning than those without it.) Additionally, cardiovascular diseases and respiratory diseases can become much worse in cold climates. 

    : I understand that the authors are trying to emphasize how warmer temperatures aren't the worst. Colder temperatures can be worse in many ways. But is the comparison between the hot and cold really appropriate in this book? All abnormal climate phenomena can be disastrous. We're trying to figure out the best way to handle the changes in climate that are occurring in the present moment in time. Does it really matter whether the current climate is not as catastrophic as another?

Chapter 15

aaa: The rich do not necessarily have to reduce their levels of consumption. They tend to have fewer children, need less land, reduce levels of environmental pollution that result from industrialization, plant many more trees, provide most of the funding for nature conservation. Wealthy nations are taking a positive role towards environmental conservation, not that of destroying the Earth. People of the ancient ages didn't 'live in harmony' as we believe them to have been; they actually damaged nature because members of their tribes always exceeded the absolute limit of their resources. Supporters of the Green Revolution, a central idea of which is that developed nations must reduce their consumption, should consider the way such a 'simpler lifestyle' would influence life span and quality of life.

      : Such unconventional ideas and generalizations are pretty common in the book. Still, I was taken aback at the way the authors presented their ideas. What do they mean by "need less land"? Is this logic formed on the basis of "less people, less land"? What about the amount of food they require per person and the spacious homes they inhabit, both of which need land? Even if they themselves physically take up less space, much land is required to provide the products and resources that they consume. Simply emphasizing the wealthy's potential in helping nature conservation isn't really appropriate here when we're dealing with statistics like the following: USA, less than 5% of the world's population, took up 18% of the world total primary energy consumption in 2012 (US Energy Information Administration). 

    : Hypercars that run on hydrogen (see the Wikipedia page on Hypercars here)are claimed by some (which include the famous Jeremy Rifkin, author of Entropy) as a sustainable means of transportation. They also assert that 96% of the time during which the cars are parked can be used to produce electricity by connecting to the national electricity network. However, the cars' ability to actually produce energy on the distributed energy production network isn't feasible. Furthermore, it is highly inefficient. This is the "illusion of the hydrogen economy".

*Chapter 16 (The Last Chapter)

      : We should implement measures to curb CO2 levels only when the following is proved and verified:

1) Greenhouse gases contribute much more to higher temperatures than the natural cycles of change in the Earth's climate

2) Global Warming causes great harm to human welfare and ecosystems

3) Reasonable human activity accelerates Global Warming

aaa: For every argument, some researchers provide evidence for one side while others provide for the other. This book support those who say Global Warming isn't caused by human activity. This would also be the side that says we don't have to change our practices and lifestyles since there isn't sufficient evidence to prove that we should. I'm not sure this is the wise direction to take. What if it's too late to take measures when all evidence begin to point towards the other side? 

Even as the authors mentioned in various points of the book, we still do not have a complete picture of how our planet works. Trends and cycles in our Earth's system is very complex; it includes the 1,500-year cycles that the authors love, it also involves the Greenhouse Effect that they dismiss. Can we be absolutely certain which evidence is stronger than the other, and which findings are the ones to implement in our policies and practices? In my humble opinion, we should at least try not to accelerate the activities that could be damaging our environment. I also believe we should be able to make some sacrifices - even if the logic behind them isn't absolute - because they could make all the difference to our posterity. Choosing to take no action would be irresponsible when some of the evidence, regardless of their imperfections, says we shouldn't. 

      : Although we cannot prevent damage from global climate change throughout the entire globe, we can develop the technologies to minimize its influence on our society. For example, we can provide enough food through mass production and send such resources to regions that need them. 

     : This idea is valid only when this is certain: we ourselves do not exacerbate global climate change. If it is found that we do accelerate Global Warming, what the authors suggest would be attempting to clear up after the catastrophe instead of actively making an effort to prevent it. Can we really afford to simply prepare for the scenario that could be averted in the first place?

Next blogpost: The Conclusion Part II!