I've taken some time to explore the different viewpoints concerning global warming.  In my search, I've tried to be open-minded and rational, looking at both the alarmists' arguments and the deniers' as well as many in between.  (Yes, I did read the entire IPCC report summary.)  The outcome of my search has not been what I expected.  Before I started this research, I held the belief that the Earth is warming, but that is has little or nothing to do with human activity.  Moreover, I believed global warming alarmists ranting on about impending world-wide catastrophe were more like mouthpieces for the capitalism-hating crowd than legitimate voices of reason.

Now, after reading from literally dozens of sources for global warming information, some of my perceptions have changed, but not all.  There is so much data out there on CO2 and other "greenhouse gas" concentrations, temperature readings, sea levels, and ice depths over thousands of years that I could write a pretty good-sized book explaining all that I've studied over the last day or two. I will try to stick to a high-level approach instead, hoping to fit what I want to say into a reasonably long blog post.

The first item of interest is historic concentrations of CO2 and other greenhouse gases in our atmosphere.  There is little doubt that the level of these gases is now at unprecedented highs.  Even charts used by those who would deny man-made global warming support this fact.  In addition, this rise does correlate to the industrial age.  (The rapid and pronounced increase in CO2 concentrations over the last 150 years was the most remarkable aspect of my findings.)  Given that correlation and to use the IPCC's terminology, I would agree that it is "very likely," if not "virtually certain," that man's activity has contributed significantly to this increase.

Further, the records show that CO2 concentration levels also correlate very closely with average global temperatures.  Before this latest upward bolt of CO2, when the earth was hot, CO2 was thick in the air, relatively speaking.  When the earth was cold, CO2 was not so thick.  This correlation begs the question though, "Does more CO2 in the atmosphere heat the earth or does a heated earth support more CO2 in the atmosphere?"  It's the proverbial "which came first" dilemma.  The scientists at the IPCC clearly believe the former.  If they are correct, then they are also very likely correct that the current global warming trend is "very likely" due significantly to human activity.

I need to point out here that a small but important minority of scientists believe CO2 concentrations follow temperature change, not vice-versa.  And it is notable that even while CO2 concentrations have skyrocketed lately, global warming has not.  It has remained on the gradual ascent began around 1680, well before the industrial age began.  In fact, the projected temperature rise over the next 100 years as published in the IPCC report has actually been reduced from the previous IPCC report in 2001.

That last point is significant, not just because it signifies a reduced possibility that global warming will be catastrophic to the earth, but also because it highlights the fallibility of science in predicting the future, especially when it comes to the weather!  Just 30 years ago, the 1970's counterparts to the batch of scientists employed by the IPCC today were proclaiming the gloom and doom of a coming Ice Age in response to temperatures that had fallen globally since 1940.

Ok, let me try to wrap this up - so much for the reasonably long blog post.  In my layman's estimation based on everything I read, global warming is not a myth, and it is very likely enhanced significantly by mankind.  Now don't rush off and lump me in with the impending doom crowd, because I am not among them.  Even taking the worst case scenarios from the IPCC's report, the most severe consequences over the next 100 years are more drought and famine in some areas (more rainfall in others), hotter temperatures (which will produce longer growing seasons across large portions of the Northern Hemisphere), and no more than 23 inches in sea level rise.

Even if we extend that to the next 1000 years and take as truth that the polar ice caps will all but melt away, mankind, and plants and animals for that matter, will have plenty of time to adjust and adapt.  Today's beach front condos and hotels will crumble and fall long before the sea overtakes them.  The coastline and all its accessories is in constant flux now anyway.  Besides, we are talking about 1000 years.  Think back 1000 years and take a picture of our civilization back then.  This is not, as movies such as "The Day After Tomorrow" would have us believe, an immediate crisis.  Far from it.  We will not go out tomorrow morning or next year or even in 10 years and see beach front properties underwater.  It will take scores of generations.

As one scientist noted, several thousands of years ago the ocean's surface was several hundred feet lower than it is today.  That is a major rise from then until now.  Guess what:  Flora and fauna survived just fine.  I think we can handle another 20 feet or so over the next 1000 years.  All this, of course, assumes the worst case scenarios will actually materialize.  In the face of this gradual change, I believe mankind's creative capacity to produce more with less, to develop new technologies, and to solve imposing problems will be more than up to the challenges any feasible amount of global warming can throw at us.

That brings me to my final point - treaties like Kyoto.  The best way to combat the ravages - if there are any - of a warmer earth is not by stifling technological and industrial advance, but by letting those very forces of free-flowing human ingenuity tackle them.  Advances in irrigation, salt-water conversion, electrification - all possible solutions to the droughts and famines which may or may not come - will be accelerated not by more governmental controls but by the capitalistic engine that has produced the comfortable lifestyles enjoyed by countless millions more humans now than ever before.

Contrary to the capitalism-hating crowd - which I still believe claims many of the alarmists in this debate - I am much more confident in capitalism than restrictive governmental regulatory policy heading into the unknown world of this new millennium - whether or not that involves continued and significant global warming.

Parting shots: