This is an archived article that was published on sltrib.com in 2009, and information in the article may be outdated. It is provided only for personal research purposes and may not be reprinted.
I recently received a letter from Sen. Orrin Hatch in response to concerns I expressed regarding his opposition to the cap-and-trade proposal. Hatch apparently believes that I have been misled by media accounts of the dire consequences of global warming and that I am unaware of the scientific evidence underlying his opposition.
He notes that, "... I have serious concerns with any legislation that proposes a cap-and-trade system to reduce human carbon emissions, and I question whether controlling human activity can have any influence on the climate. I believe it is important to look at the scientific basis for climate change."
He then launches his version of the scientific argument: "Though it is not widely covered in the media, there is considerable debate within the scientific community regarding the theory of anthropogenic global warming. The United Nations Panel on Intergovernmental Climate Change bases its theory of AGW on a number of assumptions. The validity of these assumptions continues to be the basis for the debate surrounding global warming."
To support his position, Hatch parrots a demonstrably erroneous interpretation regarding the Antarctic Vostok ice cores. Hatch argues that, "If most of the global warming has resulted from human CO2 emissions, then real world observations of these two variables should demonstrate a correlation. This assumption is not supported by one of the most comprehensive and widely accepted data sets available to climate science: the Vostok ice cores taken from Antarctica."
He then misinterprets the 420,000 years of glacial and interglacial stages to indicate that temperature is the forcing factor for rises in CO2, reversing the actual causal mechanism.
"The most recent analysis of the [Vostok] data shows clearly that changes in atmospheric carbon follow changes in temperature with a lag of between 800 and 1,000 years. In short ... the observed data fail to support the very central IPCC assumption that CO2 is a primary driver of the climate."
I don't know the actual source of Hatch's argument, but the model he ascribes to is identical to that proffered in Joanne Nova's Skeptic's Handbook , a well-debunked publication aimed at a right-wing audience. The Hatch-Nova argument implies that IPCC scientists were unaware of the Vostok data. However, a reading of the 2007 IPPC Synthesis Report shows they did incorporate the data in their considerations and these data gave strong support to their conclusions.
The much more likely interpretation of the Vostok evidence has been succinctly provided by atmospheric scientist Andrew Dessler at http://www.grist.org" Target="_BLANK">http://www.grist.org: "What most scientists think happens is that the orbital variations cause a small initial warming. This small initial warming leads to CO2 being released, which then leads to further warming. Thus, CO2 indeed lags the initial warming. However, that does not mean it's not playing a crucial role in the warming. In fact, its role in warming is pivotal.
"In summary ... we would say that CO2 was acting as a 'feedback' over the [420,000-year] period. In the past century, however, humans have taken over the carbon cycle and now dominate the [yearly] atmospheric changes."
Current levels of CO2 are unprecedented during the past 420,000 years, lending strong support to the Dessler and IPCC views.
Finally, Hatch's call for a cost-benefit analysis to politically derail enactment of cap and trade signals his advocacy of short-term economic benefit at the expense of the intolerable long-term consequences of global starvation, migration, ill health and societal collapse.
I find this scientifically unacceptable and dangerously shortsighted.
Dr. Michael S. Berry is an archaeologist working in Salt Lake City.