The Case for Anthropogenic Climate Change

Feb 1, 2011 at 11:55 AM

By Matt Cockerill

Many libertarians, including otherwise serious scholars and men of letters, sound like empty-headed dolts when discussing scientific matters. To redress this unfortunate deficiency, I want to talk about Global Warming, a subject scarcely (if ever) raised on pro-liberty websites.

The Greenhouse Effect entails the absorption of solar radiation emitted from the earth's surface via certain "greenhouse gases" (a category comprised of water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone). This absorption of solar radiation heats the earth. Empirical verification of this theory is accessible to all of us; it would be foolish to deny it.

Obviously, then, the heat of the earth will increase in tandem with increased atmospheric concentrations of CO2. Ergo, human emissions of CO2 are contributing to global warming. Period. The scientific debate is over anthropogenic climate change's degree and social import, not over its existence.

Given the logically inescapable nature of my reasoning as presented in the foregoing paragraphs, as well as the fact that the Greenhouse Effect is an empirically-verifiable phenomenon, I think it is singularly silly for people to say man doesn't contribute to this problem (if a problem it be).

(Countintuitively, let me note that it is POSSIBLE that increases in plant biodiversity resultant from increased global temperatures might actually reverse global warming; more plants will siphon more CO2 from the atmosphere, hobbling the Greenhouse Effect and reducing global temperatures to an agreeable median.)

When libertarians bat their eyes at the problem they court the charge of scientific denialism. Rather, we should dispute the Chicken Little Narrative of the Greens, and offer pro-market solutions to this problem.

To my eye, it is especially crucial to emphasize that global overpopulation, a mutation of the welfare state, was a necessary condition for the manifestation of climate change.

Posted in:

Blog Policy
Login or register to post comments

Re: Overpopulation:

It seems to me that the free market case this video makes about growth in population decreasing poverty could also be made about the growth in population solving the problems of anthropogenic climate change.

Submitted by Bonnie Kristian on February 1, 2011.

I don't see science as settled on the issue with too much politics having been injected for a straightforward answer to be accepted in my opinion. That being said there are numerous scienctists of relevant pedigree who either don't see global warming as happening or don't see it as anthropogenic. I'm not gonna say I know anything specific about climates, atmospheres, etc, but if I think if I were to look at the issue from a neutral standpoint, without ever having heard of An Inconvient Truth and the like, I would probably come down as undecided. I personally don't believe its anthropogenic, the evidence contradicting anthropogenic causes mixed with the rising amount of lobbying from green industry for subsidy and even ClimateGate just makes me fall down as opposing anthropogenic causes.

I'll just say straight up that I got all these links from Wikipedia, they had a very nice page organizing all of it so I went with it.

Those who disagree with the validity of the contemporary models:

Those who disagree that its anthropogenic:

Khabibullo Abdusamatov - "Global warming results not from the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, but from an unusually high level of solar radiation and a lengthy – almost throughout the last century – growth in its intensity...Ascribing 'greenhouse' effect' properties to the Earth's atmosphere is not scientifically substantiated...Heated greenhouse gases, which become lighter as a result of expansion, ascend to the atmosphere only to give the absorbed heat away."
Sallie Baliunas
George V. Chilingar
Ian Clark - "That portion of the scientific community that attributes climate warming to CO2 relies on the hypothesis that increasing CO2, which is in fact a minor greenhouse gas, triggers a much larger water vapour response to warm the atmosphere. This mechanism has never been tested scientifically beyond the mathematical models that predict extensive warming, and are confounded by the complexity of cloud formation – which has a cooling effect. ... We know that [the sun] was responsible for climate change in the past, and so is clearly going to play the lead role in present and future climate change. And interestingly... solar activity has recently begun a downward cycle."
Chris de Freitas
David Douglass
Don Easterbrook
William M. Gray
William M. Gray - "This small warming is likely a result of the natural alterations in global ocean currents which are driven by ocean salinity variations. Ocean circulation variations are as yet little understood. Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent temperature changes. We are not that influential." "I am of the opinion that [global warming] is one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the American people." "So many people have a vested interest in this global-warming thing—all these big labs and research and stuff. The idea is to frighten the public, to get money to study it more."
William Happer
William Kininmonth
David Legates
Tad Murty
Tim Patterson - "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years. On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"
Ian Plimer
Tom Segalstad
Nicola Scafetta
Nir Shaviv
Fred Singer
Willie Soon
Roy Spencer
Philip Stott
Henrik Svensmark
Jan Veizer