Bob Webster - Looking out the Window: Are Humans Really Responsible for Changing Climate? The Trial of Carbon Dioxide in the Court of Public Opinion

Copyright 2021 Bob Webster

All rights reserved

First Edition

PAGE PUBLISHING, INC.

Conneaut Lake, PA

First originally published by Page Publishing 2021

ISBN 978-1-6624-2920-0 (pbk)

ISBN 978-1-6624-2921-7 (digital)

Printed in the United States of America

This book is intended to help readers examine real-world evidence to better understand whether it supports or contradicts the theorized relationship that claims growing atmospheric CO2 is causing global climate to warm.

Does Earth face an impending existential threat from fossil fuel use?

Many people sincerely believe their future is in real danger of dramatic climate change that will cause severe famine, coastal inundation, unusually severe weather events, and other climate-related catastrophes claimed to be caused by civilizations dependence on fossil fuels.

People who hold this fearful belief generally do so on the basis of dire warnings coming from some climate change scientists. Can these scientists be trusted to provide a full, fair, and honest evaluation of the likelihood of any future climate change threat?

In an ideal world people should be able to rely on those theyve entrusted with responsibility to warn them of any future dangers. This book isnt just about evidence and claims that fossil fuels pose an existential threat to humanity; it is also about a betrayal of trust.

The human-induced climate change belief is examined in a way that seeks to replace belief with understanding. It is the authors hope that the understanding gained from the perspective and knowledge imparted by Looking Out the Window will calm most fears about Earths future climate and our use of fossil fuel to power modern civilization.

Climate is generally defined as the prevalent weather conditions over many years. It is customary to consider thirty years of temperature change sufficient time to represent a measure of climate and multiple years of observed climate a reasonable indicator of climate change.

With that in mind, US government records dating from the late 19th century are used to construct graphics for readers to easily visualize any consistent relationship between changing global atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) and changing global average surface temperature (GAST), the key measures associated with climate change theory.

Theory claims that changing atmospheric CO2 (growing CO2) is causing global temperatures to change (global warming).

The observed relationship between atmospheric CO2 growth and changing global surface temperatures is examined in a way designed to be interesting, understandable, and requiring no special scientific knowledge. This examination will clearly reveal the true nature of the relationship established by more than 100 years of global records for atmospheric CO2 and global average surface temperatures.

Using a 19th-century greenhouse effect theory as midwife, the coincidence of late 20th-century climate warming with a long-term growth of atmospheric CO2 gave birth to the greenhouse gas climate change theory.

The essence of this new greenhouse gas climate change theory asserts that in the absence of a stronger mitigating force:

If atmospheric CO2 increases, climate will warm.

If atmospheric CO2 decreases, climate will cool.

Does an examination of the records for atmospheric CO2 and temperature change offer compelling evidence contradicting this theorized relationship? Should theory prove to be inconsistent with real-world observations, then real world evidence must supersede any theory that inexorably binds changing climate to changing atmospheric CO2.

The brief coincidence of late 20th-century warming with growing atmospheric CO2 (Figure 1-1, page 2) is seized upon as evidence supporting this theory while records spanning more than a century that soundly contradict this theory are ignored (Figures 1-2 through 1-4, pages 3 and 4).

The new climate orthodoxy cannot be questioned. Those who ask the obvious questions are treated as heretics and derisively labeled as skeptics and deniers. When records do not support the theory, those who have the temerity to point out that inconvenient truth are slandered and bullied. That isnt science. Its dogma.

A fortuitous late 20th-century solar grand maximum together with a strong El Nio warming spike in 1998 served to produce enough short-term climate warming to build a base from which this new climate change narrative was launched simply because it was accompanied by a persistent long-term atmospheric CO2 growth.

Naturally, if carbon dioxide growth is to be the culprit for catastrophic global warming, then the source of that growth had to be identified and charged as an accessory.

Despite claims to the contrary, nobody really knows the true source of recent atmospheric CO2 growth. A convenient patsy was found in the increased global use of fossil fuels with their additional CO2 emissions into the atmosphere. These emissions became the designated source of atmospheric CO2 growth. While substantial evidence exists to seriously question fossil fuel as the source of observed atmospheric CO2 growth, it does make for a good climate change demon if one blindly accepts the validity of the underlying climate change theory.

Ironically, it doesnt seem to have occurred to those promoting this narrative that growing atmospheric CO2 might simply be a by-product of climate warming that, in turn, warms ocean waters. Warmer oceans will shift the balance of ocean emission and absorption of CO2 to and from the atmosphere in favor of greater emissions.

Having charged fossil fuel with being responsible for atmospheric carbon dioxide growth, the new narrative quickly found a new label to exploitanthropogenic (human-caused) global warming (or simply AGW). Blame humanity for using fossil fuels! If this sounds a bit familiar to older generations, during mid-20th century cooling, some scientists blamed fossil fuels for releasing sunlight-blocking particles that were claimed to be causing climate cooling.

But along the road to warming Armageddon something unexpected happened. Warming paused. Oops!

After more than a decade of the inconvenient pause in warming made the term global warming increasingly awkward, a new label, human-caused climate change, quietly emerged. This change facilitated an even broader spectrum of potential disasters for the public to be warned about and, of course, dutifully blamed on the use of fossil fuels. Blame big carbon for climate change and the grand human-caused climate-change narrative is complete.

To insinuate the notion that climate wouldnt be changing if not for fossil fuels, the term was revised yet again to just plain climate change.

Thus the belief that human activity is responsible for climate change is anchored by two premises:

Climate change (warming) reflects atmospheric CO2 change (growth).

Atmospheric CO2 growth is substantially caused by the use of fossil fuels for energy and transportation.

The first premise is based on the somewhat controversial use of the 19th century greenhouse gas theory as the foundation for the related greenhouse gas climate change theory characterized above.

Depending on context, throughout this book, this theory will be referred to as greenhouse gas climate change theory, climate change theory, or just plain theory.