Climate Change Hypocrisy
I see the commentary already starting regarding Trump being the first “anti-science” president. Most of the motivation behind this comment is in regards to man made global climate change, although there are additional areas such as regionalized environmental, vaccinations, food quality, and medical that are likely all lumped in there. This post is specifically about alleged “man made global warming”, which the junk scientists have now rebranded to “global climate change”.
Here are scientific FACTS related to climate change:
- the earth has been cooling and warming in cycles for millions of years. The fact that the climate is changing over time is natural, normal, and expected. The only legitimate question is “is global climate change occurring at a different rate due to human impacts”
- science is not based on an opinion poll. The alleged “thousands of scientists” or “97% of scientists” statistics that the mainstream media loves to report are irrelevant. When Galileo was trying to convince the world that the earth was not the center of the universe, most of the scientific community thought he was wrong. Turns out everyone else was wrong; he was right. Science is about objectivity in the physical universe; polls are irrelevant.
- Step 4 of the scientific method is listed below. Because the number of variables involved in testing global climate change is huge, you can’t isolate one factor at a time. Furthermore, we can’t “repeat” the experiment; we live inside the experiment. The scientists attempt to address this with computer models, but that is not enough. A computer model has to be measured against physical reality and shown to be reproducible in order to demonstrate its validity, and once again, we live inside the experiment. All man made global climate change hypothesis are stuck at step 4 due to limitations of the topic being studied. If you can’t get past Step 4, you can’t call it anything more than a hypothesis.
(4) Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment: Your experiment tests whether your prediction is accurate and thus your hypothesis is supported or not. It is important for your experiment to be a fair test. You conduct a fair test by making sure that you change only one factor at a time while keeping all other conditions the same. You should also repeat your experiments several times to make sure that the first results weren’t just an accident.
- Hurricanes are some of the most studied climate issues due to the fact that they occur frequently and they cause significant economic damage. Despite massive resources funnelled into hurricane science, we still have wide variances in storm path and intensity predictions. The science is improving, and we certainly have gotten better with tracking hurricanes, but the reality is, there is still a lot of uncertainty in hurricane science predicting path and intensity more than 24 hours into the future. Yet, the climate change scientists want us to believe that our ability to predict global climate change years into the future is accurate. Seriously?
- CO2 is not a pollutant. It is part of the essence of life on this planet, and necessary. Your lungs are filled with CO2. Plants cannot survive at CO2 levels below about 150 ppm. Some CO2 facts:
- 150 ppm – the minimum concentration below which many plants face problems with photosynthesis and stop growing
- 180 ppm – the concentration during ice ages
- 280 ppm – the concentration during interglacials, i.e. also the pre-industrial concentration around 1750
- 391 ppm – the concentration today
- 500 ppm – the concentration around 2060-2070 (unlikely that before 2050 as they claim)
- 560 ppm – the concentration around 2080-2110 (the “doubled CO2” relatively to the pre-industrial values) relevant for the calculations of climate sensitivity); a concentration routinely found outdoors today
- 700 ppm – the concentration in an average living room
- 900 ppm – concentration in an average kitchen
- 1,270 ppm – the concentration used to double the growth of Cowpea in a famous video
- 1,700 ppm – the average concentration in the Cretaceous 145-65 million years ago (early mammals came, plus figs, magnolias, birds, modern sharks)
- 4,500 ppm – the concentration 444-416 million years ago (the Silurian dominated by corals and mosses); see other values in geological epochs
- 10,000 ppm – sensitive people start to feel weaker
- 40,000 ppm – the concentration of CO2 in the air we breath out
Here are the political FACTS related to climate change:
- the scientists investigating climate change don’t work for the private sector; it comes primarily from governments. If the results of their research says “man made global climate change is not happening”, they are out of work. If the results of their research says “man made global climate change is occurring”, the funding continues. What is the chance that the bulk of these researchers are going to end their income stream and declare that man made climate change isn’t happening?
- a government’s power is derived from its ability to arrest and/or fine individuals and corporations. If an otherwise law abiding company has to meet new air emission restrictions, then the government increases its power. Most politicians have no interest in decreasing government power.
- environmental groups hate industrial production. They hate them for a lot of reasons (which is outside the scope of this post). Because of that hate, ANY issue that vilifies corporations is taken up by them as a cause regardless of the facts.
I am not completely dismissing man-made global climate change, but given all the facts I just listed, it has no business being studied outside of universities. The science is not remotely valid enough to influence public policy at the governmental level.