Do you believe in man-made global warming? A recent NEWS poll revealed that 51 percent of our audience does and 45 percent does not.

An editorial I wrote in the May 18 issue of The NEWS that addressed this question from the “51 percent” standpoint generated some very charged responses.

Here’s the other side of that argument.


CO2 is widely believed to be public enemy No. 1 when it comes to greenhouse gases.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) made waves recently when it announced atmospheric concentrations of CO2 reached 400 parts per million (ppm) for the first time in documented history.

But, perhaps CO2 isn’t as detrimental to climate change as many believe it is.

Since 1850, atmospheric concentrations of CO2 have increased 40 percent from 285 to 400 ppm. Over that same period, the forcing (the difference of sunlight absorbed by the earth and the energy radiated back to space) from CO2 has increased only 5.7 percent, according to the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC).

Some researchers argue CO2 has little to no impact on global warming at all.

In a 2012 article published in Forbes, contributor Mark Hendrickson stated, “During many stretches of planetary history, there has been no correlation between the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere and global temperature. In other long stretches, the variations of the two factors followed a significant sequence: Increases in CO2 followed increases in warmth by several centuries. You don’t need to have a degree in climate science to know that, in a temporal universe, cause does not follow its effect.”

And, CO2 is a necessary component for plant growth. Without it, plants would not grow and plant-life animals would cease to exist. Any eighth-grade earth science student knows that.


Science suggests the Earth has endured at least five ice ages during the planet’s 4.6-billion-year history. The oldest known anatomically modern human fossil stretches back only 250,000 years. How can man be responsible for climate fluctuations before they ever walked the Earth?

Research from Texas A&M University states the Earth’s climate cycles are likely caused by a combination of oceanic and atmospheric circulation changes, not man-made sources. “A subtle shift in atmospheric circulation to a more meridional jet stream flow would encourage the transport of warm, salty water into the sub-polar North Atlantic, which, in turn, could lead to the reestablishment of strong Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (AMOC) and enhanced oceanic heat transport to the high-latitude North Atlantic.”

These warming-cooling oscillations, also referred to as Dansgaard-Oeschger cycles, make a lot of sense when considering the cause of climate change. And, if you aren’t sold on the D-O theory, Google Salt Oscillator Hypothesis and the Wind Field Oscillation Hypothesis.


It cost about $100 billion to put a man on the moon. According to Sir David King, foreign office, U.K., and six other prominent British scientists and businessmen, it’ll cost much more than that to “save the world from climate change.”

And, who really gains when a climate-change agenda is sprung into action?

Myron Ebell, director of global warming and international environmental policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, said environmentalism has grown to become a $1.5 billion industry.

To keep the money rolling in, environmentalists continue to push their agendas, said Tom Bethell in a 2005 American Spector article.

What better way to fuel the fire than to impose scare tactics that “could” impact all planetary breathing creatures.


As building professionals, which dose of climate change science do you believe in? Is our world on a fast-track toward damnation, or is the “science” behind man-made climate change a large dose of hysteria?

Should we reduce pollution, conserve energy, research sustainability, and be good stewards of the earth? Yes. Should we significantly alter the way we deliver human comfort in a complex world perverted by fortune and politics? I’ll leave that up to you.

We wanted to give both sides of the argument. Where do you stand? We’d love to hear your opinion. Visit our LinkedIn group page and share your insight at

Interested in reading the climate change editorial that appeared in the May 18 issue of The NEWS? Visit

Publication date: 6/22/2015

Want more HVAC industry news and information? Join The NEWS on Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn today!