Critique of CHS Environmental Science Presentation


This page was last updated on March 20, 2007.


February 27, 2007

Dear Mr. Whipkey,

Thank you for sending me your PowerPoint presentation.  I reviewed it and below I provide my comments.

I’m open to the possibility that man could contribute to global warming.  I know there are a few people who assert it’s impossible for man to affect the global climate, but I’m not in that camp.

I am, however, skeptical that we are having an effect.  Rather than repeat myself here, I refer you to my critique of a Beaver County Times editorial listing most of my reasons for skepticism.  Frankly, one of the reasons for my skepticism is the quality of information in presentations like this one.  You’ll read what I mean below.

Whether there’s global cooling or warming is pretty easy to determine because all it requires is a review of temperature data for a statistically significant number of decades and possibly centuries.  What’s at issue is, 1) is the alleged warming outside the statistical norm of cooling/warming cycles and, 2) what effect, if any, does man have on the alleged warming?

In summary, I believe the folks who gave you the presentation and other information at your training session did you – and possibly mankind – a disservice.  You’ll understand what I mean if you read my comments below.

Yours truly,

Robin Cox

General comments

·        The blurb in On Center says something about “solutions to global warming,” but I saw no mention of solutions in the presentation.  Second, An Inconvenient Truth is no more a documentary than was Fahrenheit 9/11.

·        The source of your training, The Climate Project, is sponsored by Participant Productions.  In its own words, Participant describes itself as “a growing community of film lovers and activists who are dedicated to engaging their minds, sharing their passions, and improving the world around them,” “a film company with a mission to make the world a better place.  We believe in the power of media to create social change,” and “actors, filmmakers, issue experts, moviegoers, and activists from all over the world.”  The site also states “Each Participant film has its own social action campaign.”  Yes, An Inconvenient Truth is a Participant film.

None of this talk about “film lovers and activists” or “social change” should give anyone interested in an accurate assessment of the data and science a warm and fuzzy feeling.

Further, let’s not forget Al Gore is a politician.  While on the subject of Mr. Gore, owning three homes – one a 20-room, 10,000 ft2 mansion – and flying around in private jets isn’t exactly reducing his “carbon footprint.”  According to a Tennessee Center for Policy Research press release, “The average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy.  In 2006, Gore [the 20-room mansion] devoured nearly 221,000 kWh—more than 20 times the national average.”

·        Here’s a rhetorical question.  Had the American Petroleum Institute, the National Mining Association, or Michael Crichton (State of Fear) sponsored a manmade global warming training seminar, would you have attended, used the course materials in your Environmental Science class, and treat the course materials as fact?

·        The presentation focuses on alleged manmade contributions to global warming, but makes no mention of natural causes, such as solar activity.

·        The presentation treats “manmade global warming” and “global warming” as synonyms.

·        The presentation doesn’t distinguish between climate and weather.

·        No mention is made of what energy sources would replace fossil fuels, how much they would cost, and by how much they would decrease greenhouse gases.

·        There’s no mention or explanation of why the same folks who are now warning us about alleged manmade global warming were warning us about global cooling as recently as the early 1990s.

·        Though I didn’t check all the alleged facts in the presentation, I believe anyone should be concerned about the number of errors I found and noted below in my slide-by-slide comments.

·        To make this presentation to a science class would be the same as asking a political candidate to address a class without giving his opponent an equal opportunity.  If you plan to use this presentation as course material, I recommend you seek a person qualified to present a scientifically rigorous differing view.

·        When it comes to temperatures and atmospheric CO2, it’s important to remember we’re using actual figures for the present and estimates for anything much earlier than the late 1800s, at least for the U.S.  For example, one of the slides states “July 19, 2005, Las Vegas, NV hit 117°F, tying all-time record.”  How do we know what the high temperature for Las Vegas was before man started recording the temperature there?  Other issues to consider include the location of the measurement.  For example, today the official Las Vegas temperature is recorded at the airport.  Where was the temperature recorded prior to being recorded at the present airport?

Slide-by-slide comments

Slide 11:           By defining global warming as “the observed increase in the average temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere and oceans in recent decades,” the slide implies there have not been global cooling and warming periods throughout Earth’s history.

Slide 12:           I have a little trouble buying the alleged health concern expressed by “Warmer weather provides breeding grounds for insects such as malaria-carrying mosquitoes.”  As a reminder, the same folks now singing the manmade global warming song were the same people who pushed the “science” that resulted in the banning of DDT to kill “malaria-carrying mosquitoes.”  After 40+ years of DDT hysteria and untold millions of unnecessary malaria deaths, the World Health Organization (WHO) reversed its DDT position last year.

The slide purports to list “causes and effects” of “Global warming,” but omits mention of varying solar activity or any other potential natural causes.

Slide 13:           I believe you’ll find sulfur hexafluoride is SF6, not SO6.

The “definition” of greenhouse gases is part definition and part commentary.  It became commentary with “and are responsible for raising the average global temperature.”

Slide 14:           No comparison is given of manmade sources of greenhouse gases and natural sources.

Slide 20:           This slide asserts “Trucks, buses, diesel locomotives, boats, planes all do not have any environmental restrictions on pollution.  …none …zero …null …zilch …zip …nada.”  This is not true.

For example, EPA regulations have been in place for trucks and buses since at least the early 1990s.  Among the pollutants controlled are unburned hydrocarbons, CO, NOx, SOx, and particulates.  If you recall, another in a series of mandated reductions in diesel fuel sulfur content last year resulted in some short-term supply problems and higher prices.

Check the EPA website and you’ll find pollution regulations are also in effect for diesel locomotives, boats, and planes.

Slide 21:           Combustion also generates CO and NOx, and usually SOx (especially coal and petroleum).

Slide 29:           This slide asserts “models suggest a 5° temperature rise by the end of this century.”  It doesn’t specify centigrade/Celsius or Fahrenheit.  Continuing, the slide tells us, “It will be hotter than it has been in 30 million years.  Not warmer than it has been in human history, but warmer than it has been in primate evolution.”

Not that I’m a believer in what comes out of UN-related groups, but the recent report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said average polar temperatures were 3° to 5°C higher 125,000 years ago than today (page 10).  By my reckoning, 125,000 years is less than “30 million years,” “human history,” and “primate evolution.”

Slide 37:           Regarding the slide’s prediction that “As Arctic ice melts, sea levels are anticipated to raise 20 to 30 feet,” did someone just make that up?  Referring again to the IPCC report (page 7), it reports increases in the very low mm/year and claims sea levels increased somewhere between 0.12m and 0.22m (less than 5 to less than 9 inches) during the 20th century.

Regarding future sea level increases, the IPCC report (page 13) projects a range from 0.18m to 0.59m (about 7 inches to just over 23 inches) by the end of the 21st century (relative to the end of the 20th century).

As a reminder, melting Arctic sea ice won’t raise the sea level at all.

Slides 39-42:     During 2005 when manmade global warming supporters were using the active hurricane season as “proof” of their position, hurricane experts debunked that position citing that – as many other weather phenomena – hurricanes go through cycles.  This was a specific example of trying to equate climate and weather.  Manmade global warming supporters were curiously silent about the mild 2006 hurricane season.  Likewise, warmer than normal days are treated as proof of manmade global warming but no significance is attached to cooler than normal days.

Slides 41:         This slide asserts, “A few weeks after Katrina, Hurricane Rita in 2005 was the strongest hurricane ever recorded.”  This appears to be untrue.  According to the National Hurricane Center, Rita “had the fourth-lowest central pressure on record in the Atlantic basin” and was “only” a category 3 hurricane when it made landfall.

Compared to Katrina at landfall, Rita had both lower sustained winds and a higher central pressure.  In other words, Rita was weaker than Katrina at landfall.  At landfall, 1992’s Hurricane Andrew was a category 5 with a lower central pressure and thus far stronger than Rita.

The slide fails to note “ever recorded” is only since the mid 1800s.  The data available on the National Hurricane Center website begins with 1851.

Slide 43:           The slide asserts, “2005 was the hottest summer on record.”  This appears to be untrue, at least for the U.S.  According to the National Climate Data Center, 2005 wasn’t even in the top 10.  2006 was the second hottest to 1936, and five of the top ten hottest summers from 1895 to 2006 were in the 1930s.

The slide also asserts, “Of the 20 hottest years on record, 19 occurred since 1980.”  The slide fails to note “on record” is only since the late 1800s, at least for the U.S.

Slide 44:           This slide provides no context for the presented temperature factoids and is an example of trying to equate climate and weather.

The factoid for Newark (“July 27, 2005, Newark, NJ hit 101°F, a new daily high.”) appears to be a deliberate attempt to mislead by cherry picking a data point.  While the statement may or may not be true for July 27th, NOAA reports temperatures of 102°F+, 105°F, and 105°F+ were recorded in 1949, 1952, 1953, and 2001.

Further, the slide fails to note record low monthly mean temperatures were recorded at Newark as recently as 1997 and 2000.

The slide also asserts, “July 19, 2005, Las Vegas, NV hit 117°F, tying all-time record.”  The slide omits the original 117°F recorded was in 1942.  What happened in between?  NOAA also reports temperatures of 115°F+ and 116°F+ in 1954, 1959, and 1979.  What about before temperatures were recorded in Las Vegas?  Where were temperatures recorded in Las Vegas before the present location at the airport?

Continuing to look at Las Vegas, NOAA reports that as recently as 1999, Las Vegas “set a record for the fewest number of days in July with temperatures equal to or exceeding 100 degrees” and “for 11 consecutive days from the 7th through the 17th, the maximum temperature at Las Vegas, NV remained below 100 degrees.  This string set a new record, with the old record of 8 consecutive days occurring in 1982.”

The slide asserts, “Tucson, AZ tied its record of most consecutive days at 100°F: 39 days.”  The slide neglects to mention that as recently as 1999, “Tucson, AZ set a July record for consecutive days below 100 degrees on July 29 with 23 consecutive days as of that date.”

As noted for slide 43, temperatures are only available from the late 1800s.  Prior to that, all we have are estimates, and the further back we go in time, the estimates become less and less reliable.

Slides 45-47:     These slides appear to be no more than fear mongering and present no supporting data.  For example, of the alleged extinctions shown in slide 45, how many of them can credibly be tied to global warming?

Slide 48:           Regarding the Kyoto Treaty, there’s no discussion of its provisions or its history in the U.S.

The link to the Will Ferrell skit on a TBS comedy show is nothing but political collateral and – not surprisingly – fails to note the role of Bill Clinton and Al Gore.  Even so, the slide would have been balanced if it also included a link to the “Clear Skies & Global Climate Change Initiatives” President Bush announced five years ago.

Here’s a recap of the history the presentation omits.

In 1997, the U.S. Senate passed a resolution [S. Res. 98 sponsored by Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV)] 95-0 stating the U.S. should not sign any treaty that didn’t include all countries, whether developing or already industrialized.  U.S. environmentalists like to skip over the fact that so-called “developing” countries like India and Red China are specifically excluded from the Kyoto treaty.  In a letter President Bush sent to several senators in March 2001, Mr. Bush asserted the Kyoto pact excluded 80% of the world.

If global warming is such a pressing issue and has nothing to do with an economic, political, and social agenda, why did the Kyoto treaty exclude 80% of the world?

As a result of the above “sense of the Senate,” then-President Clinton never sent the treaty to the Senate for ratification.

In 1998, then-VP Al Gore signed the Kyoto Protocol for the Clinton administration in what was nothing more than a PR stunt.  Treaties cannot be implemented in the U.S. without the approval of 2/3’s of the Senate.

To make sure nothing was done in the U.S. about the Kyoto Protocol, the Clinton administration – with Al Gore as VP – included language in subsequent appropriation bills to make sure the EPA didn’t use any funds to “issue rules, regulations, decrees, or orders for the purpose of implementation, or in preparation for implementation, of the Kyoto Protocol” until the Senate ratified the treaty.

During the 2000 presidential campaign, Al Gore assured voters the U.S. wouldn’t enter into the Kyoto treaty until it included developing nations.

This is not Mr. Gore’s opinion today.  When Red China recently said it would do nothing about manmade global warming until after the U.S. did, Mr. Gore actually supported that position.  Again, if the manmade global warming issue isn’t about an economic, political, and social agenda, why would Mr. Gore support Red China’s position?

Slide 49:           The editorial cartoon is more fear mongering intended to marginalize anyone skeptical of manmade global warming.


© 2004-2007 Robert W. Cox, all rights reserved.