The most impactful portion of the movie shows Gore, next to his twenty-foot high screen, climb into a machine lift to show how carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere are projected to reach record levels – off the chart when compared to the last 650,000 years, according to Antarctic ice records. Carbon dioxide is a major by-product of burning fossil fuels like oil, coal and natural gas. Temperature levels follow carbon dioxide levels very closely over the last 650,000 years, with ice ages, warm periods and rising and diminishing carbon levels clearly visible in the historical record.

As mentioned, however, there is still a popular debate raging in our country regarding climate change and whether or not it’s due to human activities (“anthropogenic”).

In particular, I’ve received, via email, an op-ed masquerading as an article from the Canada Free Press from three different sources, and counting. This piece interviews a number of scientists who believe that humans are not causing the warming we’ve witnessed over the last hundred years. (Keep in mind that no one seriously debates whether we have in fact witnessed such warming – the debate, where it still exists, is over whether or not this warming is caused by humans or natural cycles).

For example, the article, written by Tom Harris (and available at www.canadafreepress.com) quotes Bob Carter, at James Cook University in Australia: “Gore’s circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention.”

The article also states: “Carter is one of hundreds of highly qualified non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts who contest the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing significant global climate change.”

There are many other statements, but these are the crux of the piece, which attempts to cast doubt on the notion of consensus scientific views in this area.

First, it’s necessary to distinguish between scientific debate and popular debate. On the issue of human-caused climate change, there is almost no scientific debate – the scientists quoted in the above piece notwithstanding – but there is still, evidently, a significant popular debate.

As Gore notes in the movie, a recent Science magazine survey (Science is the premier scientific journal in the U.S.) of all peer-reviewed articles on climate change between 1993 and 2003 found zero that disagree with the notion that humans are the major cause for the warming we’re witnessing today. Zero. There were 928 articles tallied and fully three quarters explicitly or implicitly supported the notion of anthropogenic climate change. 25% took no position as they covered methods of research or paleoclimate – not current climate. The piece is available at www.sciencemag.org (search for Oreskes).

Was the method followed in the Science survey comprehensive? No – they performed a keyword search for the phrase “global climate change,” so it’s certainly possible that some peer-reviewed papers escaped this dragnet. One way of gaining a better feel for the state of the scientific debate might then be to examine the statements of scientific societies tasked with examining this issue.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is a United Nations entity, comprised of hundreds of climate scientists brought together after climate change first became a real concern in the late 1980s. They stated in 2001: “There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.” (The Third Assessment Report, www.ipcc.ch). For a U.S. view, the National Academy of Sciences, tasked with examining this issue, stated, also in 2001: “Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth’s atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise.”

Additionally, the American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) have all issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling. And just this June, the National Research Council, tasked by Congress to look at this century’s temperature increase, also found compelling evidence that the observed warming is due to human influence.

Obviously, there are naysayers here and there, as found in the Canada Free Press article, but it should be clear from this discussion that the vast majority of scientists in this field believe the debate is settled.

However, we can sidestep this popular debate entirely by highlighting the fact that a growing body of evidence indicates greenhouse gas emissions reductions will lead to cost savings. That is, combating climate change will probably be good for the economy, not harmful.

The most prominent example is BP, one of the biggest oil companies in the world. In 1998, BP adopted voluntary reduction goals and in just a few years was saving literally hundreds of millions of dollars. This was due to the simple fact that emissions reductions generally result from reduced energy use through more efficient energy use – something that has economic merit entirely separate from any concern about climate change.

The state of California has very ambitious climate change goals, leading the nation, as we do on many issues. Governor Schwarzenegger set the state on course to achieve an 80% reduction below 1990 emissions levels by 2050, a truly ambitious goal. Reports commissioned by the Governor, as part of state policy planning, show that the interim 2020 goals can be met with a cost savings for the state. California is, by itself, the sixth biggest economy in the world, making it likely that the reports’ conclusions apply equally well to the U.S. as a whole.

As Governor Schwarzenegger stated last year, in announcing his climate change mitigation plan: “I say the debate is over. We know the science. We see the threat. And we know the time for action is now.”

Well said, Arnold.

To join in on the conversation or to subscribe or visit this site go to:  http://www.energypulse.net

Copyright 2005 CyberTech, Inc.