A chemist without solutions

Vincent J. Curtis

15 Mar 21.

RE: Do we have the will to save the planet? Written by Jeffery Atkinson, professor of chemistry in the faculty of mathematics and science at Brock University.  Hamilton Spectator op-ed 15 Mar 21.

It was embarrassing to read the article by a Brock professor of chemistry that argued for global warming.  Chemistry contains the knowledge required to refute the whole theory of global warming, and here the chemistry guy is pointing in the wrong direction.

Let’s go through his evidence point by point.  First up is the freezing over of the Great Lakes.  The last time the Great Lakes nearly completely froze over was in February, 2014.  The long term average maximum ice cover is fifty-five percent.  The lack of a freeze over of the Great Lakes is not something a climate crazy can hang his hat on.

‘Why isn’t the same urgency brought to fighting global warming as was brought to defeating Germany and Japan in WWII?’  The Axis powers represented an immediate existential threat to western civilization, whereas eighty years from now global temperatures might have risen by a degree or two, to conditions the world has seen previously.

‘Why is there no global coordinated response?’  What are the Paris Accord (2015), the Kyoto Treaty (1995), and, going way back, the Montreal Protocols (1976) (remember the “ozone hole?) if not coordinated, global responses?

The chemistry prof seems unaware of the global cooling – ice age scare of the 1970s.  There simply hasn’t been a continuous rise in global temperatures since 1896.  There was a rise from 1900 to 1938, a fall from 1939 to 1979, a rise to 1998, and then a pause to 2018.  Has the chemistry prof ever heard of UAH?  Has he looked at the atmospheric absorption spectra and reflected upon the significance of water vapor and the complete absorption at 15 microns?  My guess is no.

When he speaks of “weaning us off fossil fuels” he seems unaware of China, India, and the significance of 1.5 percent.  Speaking of fossil fuels, the coal beds we mine today were laid down when atmospheric CO2 levels were in the thousands of ppm.  In fact, the coal beds are where a lot of that atmospheric carbon ended up.  Life survives, and adapts, to high and low CO2 levels.

When he speaks of ice loss in the Arctic, he seems unaware of the data available from the Danish Meteorological Institute.  There is no long term trend from 2006 to the present of ice loss in the Arctic Ocean or loss of ice in Greenland.

The prof seems to have flown into irrational panic when he speaks of loss of fresh water, and loss of sustainable food sources.  How?  How is Canada going to lose its fresh water? Warmer weather and higher CO2 content in the atmosphere promotes plant growth.  This is pretty basic chemistry.  Grass grows, and cattle eat grass.  I’ve seen it.

After this, the prof descends into appeals to authority, in a way that makes the authorities seem out-of-touch, paranoid, or absurd.

The prof is quite wrong when he says, “We must raise our courage for radical system-shaking change.  We have no choice.”  In the first place, we can choose to not listen to him, and have good grounds not to listen.  One of those grounds is to recognize that when an expert in chemistry starts offering political solutions, he does so as a non-expert.  Especially when that expert is oblivious of facts he ought to know about before putting his case.

Altogether embarrassing that a chemist would write such nonsense in support of global warming theory.  And write such nonsense!

-30-