by Anthony Lupo
(NAPSA)—One of the fundamental tenets of our justice system is one is innocent until proven guilty. While that doesn’t
apply to scientific discovery, in the
global warming debate the prevailing attitude is that human
induced global warming is already
a fact of life and it is
up to d o u b t e r s t o
Global p r o v e otherwise.
To complete the
Debate analogy, I’ll add that
to date, there is no
credible evidence to
demonstrate that the climatological changes we’ve seen since the mid-1800’s are outside the bounds
of natural variability inherent in
the earth’s climate system.
Thus, any impartial jury
should not come back with a
“guilty” verdict convicting humanity of forcing recent climatological changes.
Even the most ardent supporters of global warming will not
argue this point. Instead, they
argue that humans are only partially responsible for the observed climate change. If one takes a
hard look at the science involved,
their assertions appear to be
First, carbon dioxide is not a
pollutant as many claim. Carbon
dioxide is good for plant life and is
a natural constituent of the
atmosphere. During Earth’s long
history there has been more and
less carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than we see today.
Second, they claim that climate
is stable and slow to change, and
we are accelerating climate
change beyond natural variability.
That is also not true.
Climate change is generally a
regional phenomenon and not a
global one. Regionally, climate has
been shown to change rapidly in
the past and will continue to do so
in the future. Life on earth will
adapt as it has always done. Life
on earth has been shown to thrive
when planetary temperatures are
warmer as opposed to colder.
Third, they point to recent
model projections that have
shown that the earth will warm
as much as 11 degrees Fahrenheit
over the next century.
One should be careful...