THE GREAT CLIMATE CHANGE DEBATE
A Guest Post by author Andy May
An Overview of the Great Climate Change Debate
By Andy May
Over the last four years, Dr. Martin Capages Jr. has encouraged and helped me write three books on the ongoing climate change debate. None of the books could have been written without his encouragement, help, and inspiration. He first contacted me in 2017 to ask me to write a book, which we eventually named Climate Catastrophe! Science or Science Fiction. We had known each other for many years, and after some thought I agreed to write it.
The thesis of the book is that, whether man-made or natural, climate change might cause problems in some places, but it will certainly be beneficial in others. I explain that Earth’s oceans are a built-in thermostat, that will not allow temperatures to rise to dangerous levels. The ocean surface thermostat is naturally set to a comfortable 30°C (86°F) in the tropics and warming will mostly occur in the polar regions, which must stay below that temperature. On land, temperatures can exceed 30 degrees for climatically short periods (less than 30 years), especially in low humidity desert regions, but the global average surface temperature cannot rise to that level, as long as the oceans exist.
Thus far the slight global warming and higher CO2 levels have been beneficial to humans and the environment. There is no evidence, other than falsified climate models, that either will cause a catastrophe of any kind. That first book of mine concluded that humans should adapt to future climate changes, as we have always done, and not try to control climate change by modifying our emissions. Emissions control is only for dangerous or poisonous gases or materials, not CO2 which is beneficial for plants.
After taking some time to write a book on Kansas history, I returned to writing about the climate change debate with Politics and Climate Change: A History. This book showed that when politics and science are mixed, all you get is politics, the science disappears. I investigated the intense bias the news media, government bureaucrats, politicians, and environmental organizations had against any ideas coming from climate change skeptics, aka “deniers.” We also examined the extent these organizations would go to suppress or bury arguments that challenged their view of climate change. They still claim they have a “consensus” on climate change, its origins and effects, and thus the “science is settled.” A consensus is a political thing, consensus is not a recognized scientific concept. In Politics and Climate Change: A History I also track the history of the idea that humans control the climate with their fossil fuel emissions and I tell the stories of the people who developed that erroneous theory. The idea that humans might be affecting climate has its origins in the 19th century, but the idea that this might cause a climate catastrophe evolved in the 1980s. The “consensus” scientists have been predicting climate doom ever since, but nothing they predicted has happened.
After tracing the evolution of the idea, the book concludes that governments should not be funding scientific research. President Eisenhower was correct when he stated, in 1961, that:
“… the prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocation, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.”
The proper source of funding for useful scientific research is the private sector, where the incentive for the research is profit, a much higher goal than political power.
My plan was to stop there and move on to other topics. But, Martin found some earlier posts that I had written on Professor William Happer’s climate change debate with Professor David Karoly. He thought I should flesh out the series into a book before I stopped writing about climate change. He thought I could put something together fairly quickly and we would publish it. I agreed and went to work. Before I knew it, “fairly quickly” turned into eighteen months! I got great help and encouragement from Professor Happer and the debate moderator, James Barham, and even a little help from Professor Karoly, but still the task was much larger than I imagined when I started. The book, The Great Climate Change Debate, Karoly v Happer, was published March 1, 2022.
Martin freely offered his help with the last book, but I published it myself, which was a huge task. The main reason I chose to self-publish was I wanted to hire a professional copy-editor, which was expensive, but I felt it was necessary. I also had many more pre-publication reviewers for the book than I used for any of my other books. I think these actions improved the quality of the book. Every writer, no matter how carefully they work, needs a copy-editor. This final book explains a fairly high-level scientific debate in layman’s language.
The three books are my attempt to cover the whole topic, the science, the impact on humanity, and our economy. I hope you buy and enjoy these books, between them they cover the state of the climate today, the impact of humans on the environment and our well-being, the way current climate models work, how well they work, the influence of politicians, the news media, and environmentalists on science, and the true motivations and goals of the environmental community.
We appreciate the backstory and main ideas to you three books on climate change, and will check them out. Thanks for the post on AFP Heartland Common Sense site.