A scientist takes on the global warming hysteria

I recently read an article by S. Fred Singer, who is professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia as well as a distinguished research professor at George Mason University. He earned his Ph.D. in physics from Princeton University, so he is a person with authority and prestige. His point is that we are facing a political problem because of a mistaken idea that governments can and must do something about climate change.

He starts with the key question -- is the observed warming of the past 30 years due to natural causes or human activities? He notes that the geological record shows a persistent 1500-year cycle of warming and cooling that goes back for more than one million years. Obviously, the human race is not responsible for that. In addition, during much of the last century the climate was cooling while carbon dioxide levels were rising.

Many environmental activists claim there is scientific consensus that the burning of fossil fuels is the chief cause of this warming. But Singer says there is no such consensus. He notes an increasing number of climate scientists who are raising serious questions about this issue. For example, in one group, the American Meteorological Society, the rank and file scientists never had a chance to have input in a report the organization issued which seemed to support man-caused warming. Within this organization it is estimated that well over 50 percent of the members regard man-made global warming with great skepticism.

Singer says there is one culprit which may be the most important cause of global warming -- the sun. Over years the sun varies in its radiation, which has been measured in satellites and related to the sunspot cycle. It also varies in the amount of ultra-violet radiation, which affects the amount of ozone in our atmosphere. In addition, there is variation in the solar wind that affects the intensity of cosmic rays, which in turn change the amount of cloudiness in our skies.

If natural causes are primarily responsible for climate change, some interesting consequences come about. Regulation of carbon dioxide emissions is pointless and expensive. Focusing on wind power and solar power become less attractive since they are uneconomic and require huge subsidies. Also, substituting natural gas for coal in electricity generation makes less sense because of costs.

Actually, global warming is not the disaster that many predict. Some warming with higher carbon dioxide levels will increase GNP and raise standards of living in many countries, especially in areas of agriculture and forestry. Places in the north could save on heating fuel, increase crop production, use the Arctic as a shortcut to ship between the Atlantic and the Pacific, and accomplish much for people.

Singer makes some good points. And he's not alone -- many scientists are beginning to speak up about the hysteria associated with global warming. As Christians, we need to be good stewards of the earth, and we certainly do not want to ruin what we have here. But we also have a duty to use our money wisely and help those in genuine need. Let's use the minds God gave us to distinguish between fact and fiction.