In Christopher C. Horner’s article A Guide to the Hype, it is stated that “global warming” is a myth propagated by “greens” to control the world via its energy, and that warming will benefit humanity. However, A Guide to the Hype is full of logical fallacies and appeals to emotion that invalidate the argument that Horner presents.
Horner starts off by stating that global warming is not catastrophic in any way. Though his claim that “Oceans store and release enormous quantities of CO2” is truthful, the studies that found this information have also found that oceans release massive amounts of Carbon dioxide in the same cycle (Harvard 3), and that all the Carbon dioxide in the oceans is harming algae, plankton, and other sea life that forms the basis of marine food webs (Pickrell 3). A lack of algae in the food web will certainly have catastrophic affects worldwide, especially in the poorer coastal regions that Horner so vehemently defends later on.
Horner’s next claim is that by “trapping infrared solar radiation, these (Greenhouse) gases form a protective blanket sustaining life.” While this is true, different wavelengths of energy are captured by different gases. Raised levels in Carbon dioxide trap heat in the lower atmosphere that would normally be trapped higher up in the atmosphere, where water vapor, low levels of Carbon dioxide, and other gases exist (Australian Uranium Association 4). These gases increase global surface temperatures, which are the temperatures that affect life. Horner argues that Earth’s atmospheric temperature is more relevant, and that since it is not increasing, global warming must not exist. However, Carbon dioxide traps heat before it can reach the atmosphere, which explains the increase in surface temperatures, but not in atmospheric temperatures. Horner even acknowledges these surface temperature increases, but denies that their impact is negative.
Horner claims that even the surface temperature statistics he cites are flawed, as many measuring stations, particularly those in Russia, have closed in the last decade. The close of these stations in colder environments has caused the global average to rise. However, most surface temperature readings are done via satellite, which is far more accurate (Marshall Institute 5).
Horner tries to support his argument by stating that computer models can be made to show whatever evidence one needs, such as some computer models depicting global cooling in the future. By doing this, Horner inadvertently discredits his own evidence. If proponents of global warming have computer models that support their claims, then Horner can just as easily find models that support his claims. Any of these computer models could be the truth, or none of them could be true.
Horner claims that “combustion emissions contribute about two percent of greenhouse gases currently keeping our atmosphere habitable.” With this quote, Horner implies that the Earth was inhospitable before man invented combustion engines – hardly a valid statement. In the next paragraph, Horner states that “the greens and Kyoto” assume “that Man is not part of nature.” Horner is trying to back up his underlying motive to attack his opposing political party. Man certainly is a part of nature, though combustion engines and their emissions are not. Even the two percent increase caused by combustion engines has had some impact on global temperature.
Horner ignores the idea that global warming is a neutral term meaning “an increase in the Earth's average atmospheric temperature that causes corresponding changes in climate and that may result from the greenhouse effect” (Random House). Horner does acknowledge an increase in the Earth’s temperature by one degree Fahrenheit and states several climatic changes. Going by his own claims, Horner must believe in global warming. If Horner meant this article to be an attack on the political left and their climate policies, he should not have proclaimed global warming a “myth.”
The scientific consensus is that there is no definitive proof for or against global warming. Human activity that produces Carbon dioxide does have drawbacks, like depletion of virtually un-renewable resources and production of pollutants and carcinogens. Because of Horner’s logical fallacies, his article cannot be considered a valid contribution to the debate over global warming.