We've all seen it. Whether it's a gunfight in the Wild West or a terrorist on "24", when you run out of ammunition you throw the empty gun. Glenn Beck's "Climate of Fear" special was an empty gun.
Beck conceded that the Earth is getting warmer but maintained doubt as to whether it is primarily caused by humans. For much of his hour he did a re-hash with the usual global warming skeptics including John Christy, Timothy Ball, Patrick Michaels, Richard Lindzen, and a few state climatologists. I admit a strong bias toward the evidence of AGW advanced by the majority of climate scientists, but in my opinion, Beck threw together a lot of stuff that didn't add up to a coherent case.
There was considerable bashing of the Kyoto agreement and he concluded that Koyoto's weaknesses open up the other side of the global warming debate. Huh? He pointed out that only two of the countries that signed on had met their targets. The UK, being one that did, beat their target by 15% during a time when their economy grew by 37%. So much for CO2 reductions hurting the economy.
Dr. Timothy Ball, brought up the well-worn question of how could rising CO2 causes warming when the charts seem to show that warming causes the rise in CO2.
Jeff Severinghaus, a contributor to RealClimate.org explains:
"This is an issue that is often misunderstood in the public sphere and media, so it is worth spending some time to explain it and clarify it. At least three careful ice core studies have shown that CO2 starts to rise about 800 years (600-1000 years) after Antarctic temperature during glacial terminations. These terminations are pronounced warming periods that mark the ends of the ice ages that happen every 100,000 years or so.
Does this prove that CO2 doesn't cause global warming? The answer is no."
More here.
One of the many specious points was that more people die of cold than die of heat, so a warmer climate would be safer for humans. In a very limited context, this may have a factual basis. With a broader view and the possibility of runaway climate feedback mechanisms, we could well be facing sea level changes, severe drought, and the resulting food shortages that will lead to tens if not hundreds of millions of lives lost.
Bjorn Lomborg, an economist who wedges himself into the global warming picture, contends that if saving humanity from destruction is the goal, there are other social investments with more immediate cost-benefit ratio. He redefines the question to fit his answer. Carbon heading into the atmosphere will be there for a hundred years. We will never fully experience the consequences of how we handle the carbon challenge but most people recognize a responsibility to future generations.
What was encouraging about Beck's special, was the exposure of the Tesla Roadster plug-in electric car and the discussion of how innovative capitalism can combine with human motivation to shift our passions toward solutions. Call me a pathological optimist, but I think Glenn is starting to turn the corner and see that the risks are real, the challenges are immense, and humans just may be capable of acting with a responsibility toward those who will be living here 100 years from now.