Could CFCs, already known to be responsible for the ozone hole, also be responsible for global temperature change, rather than CO2?<\/p>\n

That’s the conclusion from a new paper in Modern Physics B<\/a>, a high-level peer-reviewed journal. \u00a0The paper found that while the correlation between recent temperature anomalies and \u00a0CO2 was close to 0 – as in, no correlation whatsoever – the correlation to CFCs was close to 1, almost a perfect fit:<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Climate scientists have been hard-put to explain the fact that there’s been no net warming since 1998, despite increases in atmospheric CO2. \u00a0If this is true, it is extraordinarily good news. \u00a0CFC usage has been heavily reduced since their effects on the ozone layer were discovered, and are slowly being removed from the atmosphere. \u00a0The 15-year lull in warming would not, then, be a pause before further warming, but the top of the roller coaster before we headed back down.<\/p>\n

But more important, even the publication of the piece pulls the rug out from underneath the climate alarmists, who have been telling us for well over a decade that The Science Is Settled, and that CO2 emissions are responsible for global warming – or, as they now prefer, “climate change.” \u00a0There has been plenty of reason to doubt these conclusions – historically, CO2 levels have closely led, rather than closely training, global temperatures. \u00a0Moreover, climate has been changing for millennia, long before the industrial revolution. \u00a0And recent papers have also cast doubt on the speed<\/a> with which temperatures have actually been increasing.<\/p>\n

CO2 emissions have become something of a totem in current policy debates, inserting themselves into just about every discussion, and they have been responsible for some of the most distortionist of recent economic policies. \u00a0The people who suffer from these policies most are, of course, the poorest. Globally, the poorest find themselves victimized by added costs for their countries to industrialize and modernize. \u00a0Locally, Americans find themselves with higher utility costs from green subsidies, higher food costs from diverting massive amounts of corn to ethanol, higher housing costs from mandatory efficiency requirements in building codes, and higher transportation costs from boondoggles like “cash-for-clunkers.” \u00a0 And of course, such policies make jobs scarcer for college grads, and less remunerative for a middle class already finding it hard to save for their futures.<\/p>\n

On a grander scale, “greenhouse gas emissions” end up being the justification for wasteful light-rail, high-speed rail, and streetcar projects, and the excuse for diverting ever-more tax dollars into losing efforts<\/a> to force people out of suburbs an into higher-density city centers. \u00a0The Supreme Court’s ruling that CO2 is a pollutant has given the EPA carte-blanche to interfere in just about every industrial process in the country. \u00a0This despite the fact that natural gas use has allowed the US’s CO2 emissions to fall to 1992 levels, even as actual industrial production has risen, without massive government intervention.<\/p>\n

As, the climate alarmists have been seeing the debate slip away from them, they have resorted to more anti-science, political hardball tactics. \u00a0The Climategate I and Climategate II emails laid bare the ruthlessness with which they treated those who questioned their orthodoxy. \u00a0Recently, it was revealed that the Texas A&M Atmospheric Sciences Department was requiring what amounted to a climate loyalty oath<\/a> for its faculty – usually not a sign of security that one’s position is supported by the actual science.<\/p>\n

Add this paper to the growing body of evidence undermining the need for massive reordering of the global economy in order to stave off a disaster that looks increasingly unlikely.
\n