Global Warming More Likely Due To Natural Factors

Once again Dallas Dunlap has done a good job of presenting facts concerning global warming (Feedback, June 20). I believe, however, that the issues aren't as cut and dry as he made them seem.

For example, while the physics of greenhouse gases show that atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) plays a part in increasing global temperatures, global temperatures peaked in 1998, dropped slightly, hit a plateau around 2002 and are now expected to decline for the next 15 years or so, despite a decade of unprecedented economic and industrial growth by China and India. China alone has been bringing dirty, coal-fired, CO2-emitting power plants online at the rate of two per week, but the temperature increase predicted by computer models hasn't happened. The explanation most frequently given: There are "natural factors" at work that cool the Earth. Do tell.

Then, although present CO2 levels are said to be unprecedented, global temperatures have been higher than they are now, when there was less CO2. Perhaps this is due to natural factors. In his PowerPoint lecture cum documentary movie, Al Gore made much of historic correlations between increases in CO2 levels and global temperatures. There's a correlation all right, but it's opposite of what Gore stated. Studies of ice cores show that at times increases in atmospheric CO2 lagged increases in temperature; the spread seems to be about 800 years, give or take. Why is this?

Liquids like our oceans and lakes contain amounts of dissolved gasses, including CO2. The colder the liquid, the greater the concentration of gas that can be held in the liquid. As the seas and lakes warm because of the increasing global temperature, the gases held in suspension are released into the atmosphere. Because of the immense amount of water involved, the warming period is hundreds of years. It's much faster when you watch your glass of beer or soda give off it's CO2 in your glass. Hence, temperature rises, water warms, dissolved gas is expelled, CO2 levels rise. It's a natural factor.

Mr. Dunlap theorizes that global warming will be catastrophic and maybe he's right. But, other than collective hubris, why should we believe that the Earth's current temperature, or close to it, is the ideal temperature? The Earth has been both warmer and colder than it is now. Retreating glaciers have left behind an interesting assortment of artifacts and debris showing that both humans and wildlife used to inhabit the land that became glaciated. Places that are not inhabitable today would once again support humans and wildlife if we had a few more degrees of warmth. New lands would become arable and growing seasons would be extended.

Of course, a changing climate would bring changing weather patterns as well. Some places may get drier while others get wetter. A warmer Earth means greater evaporation of the oceans, creating more cloud cover and more rainfall. It takes less energy overall to live in a warm climate than a cold one. (Notice that I said "live" not "be comfortable.") More people have died from exposure to cold than heat. So, let's not jump to the conclusion that just because this is the time we're alive it must be the best of all possible worlds, climate-wise.

It's unfortunate that the research and science of global climate change have been corrupted by politics. There are too many exceptions to the predictive modeling for me to buy into an impending crisis. Alarmists have cried "wolf" too many times for me to willingly cede one iota of my freedom and liberty to increased government authority, ostensibly for the purpose of protecting me from what I believe, primarily, to be natural factors.

John S.V. Weiss