BALLING: The public may believe some rift has divided the climate community regarding the greenhouse issue, but in reality there is far more common ground than disputed turf in the global warming debate. The climate of the Earth has always been in a state of change ranging from long periods when the planet was extensively covered by ice to warm periods with no ice caps whatsoever. The Earth’s climate is highly variable, can change rapidly, and we should not expect the climate of our day to persist over long periods of time.

The concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) has increased, due largely to the use of fossil fuels to run cars and electric power plants. Other human activities release assorted gases (methane, nitrous oxide) into the atmosphere that also have the ability to trap heat energy that would otherwise escape into space, thereby warming up our planet.

Most climate scientists would agree that a continued buildup of greenhouse gases will lead to warming, assuming all else is held constant. But theoretical predictions are similar to of next weekend’s weather forecast – it’s the best guess we can make, but reality may look very different from the prediction.

While opinions vary on how to measure global warming, the inescapable fact emerges that the temperature record shows statistically significant warming in recent decades - and it is tempting to blame human activity for the upward trend. But have humans caused the observed warming or is it the result of the natural swings in the global climate system? One thousand years ago, temperatures were as high or higher than what we experience today. It is noteworthy that climate scientists chose the term "Climate Optimum" to describe that period. The good times ended and much of the Earth plunged into "The Little Ice Age" five hundred years ago, which thankfully ended in the late 19th century. This climate reality raises the question of whether the warming of the past century was part of the natural ebb and flow of the climate system or indeed was caused by human activity. On that topic, there is a great deal of ongoing debate, and nothing close to a "consensus." Even those outside the climate community to do not agree on the conclusions we can reach from the existing evidence. To compare two recent examples, Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth concludes global warming is the greatest threat facing mankind. Michael Crichton, on the other hand, examines the same scientific evidence, and in his book State of Fear, concludes global warming is something of a hoax. So without even having to delve into the scientific literature and studies, you can see the enormous uncertainties surrounding the global warming issue

FORD: After last year’s hurricane season, global warming seems to be mentioned in every story covering an usual weather event. Is our weather now at the mercy of the global warming bogeyman?

BALLING: Although popular visions of the greenhouse world inevitably include images of more severe storms and increased climate variability, the scientific community hardly agrees. No conclusive evidence exists to link extreme weather episodes to increased greenhouse gas concentrations. The world’s leading scientists do not link tsunamis to climate change, they find no relationship between warming and recent hurricane activity, and they are reluctant to link extreme weather events to the greenhouse effect. Even the latest report from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) confirms that "No systematic changes in the frequency of tornadoes, thunder days, or hail events are evident in the limited areas analyzed" and that "Changes globally in tropical and extra-tropical storm intensity and frequency are dominated by inter-decadal and multi-decadal variations, with no significant trends evident over the 20th century." But I have no doubt that with news stories on weather events, we will continue to see "global warming" mentioned and implicated as the culprit.

FORD: Hollywood has jumped on to the global warming bandwagon with everything from special effects disaster epics to animated children’s films pushing the alarmist message, and now comes the product of Al Gore’s latest hobby. What are your thoughts on the film and would you characterize it as a documentary, action/adventure, horror, or date movie?

BALLING: "An Inconvenient Truth" is billed as the scariest movie you’ll ever see. Thanks to Hollywood, we sweltered through "Waterworld" in 1995 only to freeze to death in "The Day after Tomorrow" in 2004. Gore pours through the evidence and concludes global warming is the greatest threat facing humanity. However, the film ignores more inconvenient truths that it exposes.

For example, many of Gore’s conclusions are based on the infamous "Hockey Stick" graph that shows near constant global temperatures for 1,000 years with a sharp increase in temperature from 1900 onward. 

The record Gore chooses in the film completely ignores the Medieval Warm Period of 1,000 years ago and Little Ice Age that started 500 years ago and ended just over 100 years ago. Despite evidence from throughout the world (dare I say a consensus?) that these climate episodes existed, Gore’s Hockey Stick reduces these inconvenient eras to nothing more than insignificant fluctuations.

Gore discusses glacial and snowpack retreats atop Kenya’s Mt. Kilimanjaro, implying that human induced global warming is to blame. But Gore fails to mention that the snows of Kilimanjaro have been retreating for more than 100 years, largely due to declining atmospheric moisture, not global warming. Gore does not acknowledge the two major articles on the subject published in 2004 in the International Journal of Climatology and the Journal of Geophysical Research showing that modern glacier retreat on Kilimanjaro was initiated by a reduction in precipitation at the end of the nineteenth century and not by local or global warming. 

There are more, but you get the picture. So the film is certainly not the most accurate depiction of the state of global warming science. But if you are a fan of science fiction, by all means, see this film.

FORD: If the U.S. would just get in line and sign onto the Kyoto protocol, would everything be OK.?

BALLING: The Kyoto Protocol is aimed at stabilizing emissions of greenhouse gases, not their concentrations in the atmosphere. Even if Kyoto could stabilize CO2 emissions today (and Kyoto seeks to stabilize emissions to 1990 levels), we still would pump billions of tons of these gases into the atmosphere each year, and we would still achieve a doubling of concentrations somewhere near the middle of this century. The Kyoto Protocol would have little impact on greenhouse gas concentrations, and the climate impact would be trivial and absolutely undetectable for many decades to come. Kyoto suffers from an infinitely indefensible cost/benefit ratio associated with its high economic costs and zero climate impacts.

Keep in mind the Kyoto Protocol was negotiated in December of 1997 giving the Clinton – Gore administration more than three years to present the Protocol to the United States Senate for ratification. Given Gore’s position in the senate and his knowledge and passion for global warming, one must wonder why then Vice President Gore did not seize on what appears to have been an opportunity of a lifetime? 

FORD: It seems all we ever hear about are the negatives of global warming, but you mentioned scientists have labeled a warmer era as "climate optimum." This begs the question - aren’t there any positives that balance out the global warming effect equation?

BALLING:  Thousands of experiments conducted worldwide continue to confirm the benefits associated with elevated levels of atmospheric CO2. It causes plants to grow faster and bigger, produce more fruit and usable biomass, become more efficient in their use of water and nutrients, and increases resistance to drought and other stresses. Virtually every plant in the global biosphere is already reaping the benefits that come from higher concentrations of CO2. There are potentially positive implications for global food supply and hunger issues, water conservation, and species habitat and diversity, to name a few, but these do not get much play in the press, and do not make for great movie plots.

FORD: Any predictions for what the future of the global warming debate will hold?

BALLING: Scientists and policy makers will continue to vigorously debate the greenhouse issue, but we should keep an eye on the common ground. The debate makes great TV, but doesn’t reflect the enormous knowledge base that is not in dispute. As Mark Twain once said, "Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please!"