Tweet
Tomcat, last night the weather channel said my local weather would be high of 58 today. I was sweltering in my sweater today as the temp hit the high 80's.
There is no such thing as consensus in science. The fact that the word "consensus" has become thrown around should be a warning sign. Science is based on facts and evidence- not on popular vote. It only takes one scientist, with one experiment, to disprove a given theory. (although of course you want the test results to be replicable).
There is no EVIDENCE that humans are causing global warming. There is a great deal of evidence that we are not.
Computer models are nothing but simulations. They will show exactly what they are programmed to show. The scientists are after funding. If the government didn't have dollars to dole out, there wouldn't be any haggling over it. If those scientists say "there's nothing wrong" then they don't have an issue to demand funding for.
The facts are these, the earth MAY have warmed about 1 degree in the past 100 years. I say *may* because it's not so simple to just measure the temperature of the earth. Few people stop to think about that.
Global warming theory predicts that an increase in global temperature caused by human contributions to greenhouse gases would begin in the atmosphere and then later warm surface temperatures.
This is the exact opposite of what is happening now. Satellite measurements show that surface temperatures vary, but have risen an average of about 1 degree, while the atmospheric temperatures are not.
The reason is land use. Many climatologists believe that the effect of urban heat because of changes in land use has not been sufficiently accounted for. In other words, it's very possible that 1 degree increase is even a mistake.
There is no vast expanse of melting glaciers, glacial ice is on the INCREASE.
As I said previously, governments and grant seeking scientists and eco-weenies all have something to gain by promoting this fear of glbal warming. It is the retired scientists who no longer have anything to fear, and a few more honest souls who are exposing the bullshit.
The harbinger James Hansen, who started all this doomsaying, was off in his predictions by over 300%. By comparison NASA launched the mars probe, they announced that it would touch down 243 days later at 8:11 PM. They were off by 24 minutes; that was a few thousandths of a percent. Imagine your rent or car payment bill being too high by 300%. Hansen himself said after ten more years studying the issue that €œthe forces that produce climate change are so poorly understood as to be impossible to predict.€
CO2 makes up .03% of our atmosphere. That's less than one third of one percent.
If you marked the breakdown of the atmosphere on an American football field, the 70 yard line would be nitrogen. CO2 would be the width of the white stripe marking the end zone. The total amount of CO2 contributed by humans is less than the width of a pencil.
Aside from highlighting some facts beyond the general conjecture and hyperbole, I'd like to mention something else I almost never hear anyone mention...
This notion that our earth or environment is "delicate" or that there is some kind of "delicate balance" is pure hogwash. The earths systems are dynamic and are changing all the time. There are many forces and cycles that occure naturally that "correct" imbalances.
For instance, when heat increases, more water vapor is released in the stmosphere. This creates more clouds, which blocks out more light, which lowers the temperature again.
When CO2 increases, plant life thrives, which creates a multitude of effects; direct cooling (vegetation areas are cooler than urban areas), increased consumption of CO2, change in light reflection, cycles in the fauna that interact with that vegetation, etc. etc. etc.
There is absolutely zero correlation between the data sets of human introduced CO2 and the global temperature. During periods of higher CO2 concentration the earths temperature has been both higher and lower. During periods of lower CO2 concentrations the earths temperature has been both higher and lower. There are times when CO2 levels were increasing as global temperature dropped.
The point is that CO2, or any greenhouse gas change as a factor of global temperature are very WEAK forces. Much bigger forces exist in the tilt of the earths axis and our distance from the sun. Both have been known for years to cause cyclical changes.
I'm not advocating polluting. Every week I go and pick up litter. As technology advances, we pollute less and less every year. New cars pollute less than 1970's models. Even without switching to hybrid cars, every year people change to newer models pollution is reduced. Private property rights is another factor that makes a huge impact on pollution.
What I am advocating is dropping the campaign of fear based on lies, and the twisting of science to become a political tool. There is no disaster, social, economic, or ecologic, that more government can bail us out of.
Increases in government control and redistribution of wealth have failed miserably. Think of every "war on drugs", "war on poverty", etc.
If you want to see a great example of a bureaucratic control and economic redistribution experiment in science look at the Russian social experiment to improve agriculture. Millions starved to death.
There is no such thing as consensus in science. The fact that the word "consensus" has become thrown around should be a warning sign. Science is based on facts and evidence- not on popular vote. It only takes one scientist, with one experiment, to disprove a given theory. (although of course you want the test results to be replicable).
There is no EVIDENCE that humans are causing global warming. There is a great deal of evidence that we are not.
Computer models are nothing but simulations. They will show exactly what they are programmed to show. The scientists are after funding. If the government didn't have dollars to dole out, there wouldn't be any haggling over it. If those scientists say "there's nothing wrong" then they don't have an issue to demand funding for.
The facts are these, the earth MAY have warmed about 1 degree in the past 100 years. I say *may* because it's not so simple to just measure the temperature of the earth. Few people stop to think about that.
Global warming theory predicts that an increase in global temperature caused by human contributions to greenhouse gases would begin in the atmosphere and then later warm surface temperatures.
This is the exact opposite of what is happening now. Satellite measurements show that surface temperatures vary, but have risen an average of about 1 degree, while the atmospheric temperatures are not.
The reason is land use. Many climatologists believe that the effect of urban heat because of changes in land use has not been sufficiently accounted for. In other words, it's very possible that 1 degree increase is even a mistake.
There is no vast expanse of melting glaciers, glacial ice is on the INCREASE.
As I said previously, governments and grant seeking scientists and eco-weenies all have something to gain by promoting this fear of glbal warming. It is the retired scientists who no longer have anything to fear, and a few more honest souls who are exposing the bullshit.
The harbinger James Hansen, who started all this doomsaying, was off in his predictions by over 300%. By comparison NASA launched the mars probe, they announced that it would touch down 243 days later at 8:11 PM. They were off by 24 minutes; that was a few thousandths of a percent. Imagine your rent or car payment bill being too high by 300%. Hansen himself said after ten more years studying the issue that €œthe forces that produce climate change are so poorly understood as to be impossible to predict.€
CO2 makes up .03% of our atmosphere. That's less than one third of one percent.
If you marked the breakdown of the atmosphere on an American football field, the 70 yard line would be nitrogen. CO2 would be the width of the white stripe marking the end zone. The total amount of CO2 contributed by humans is less than the width of a pencil.
Aside from highlighting some facts beyond the general conjecture and hyperbole, I'd like to mention something else I almost never hear anyone mention...
This notion that our earth or environment is "delicate" or that there is some kind of "delicate balance" is pure hogwash. The earths systems are dynamic and are changing all the time. There are many forces and cycles that occure naturally that "correct" imbalances.
For instance, when heat increases, more water vapor is released in the stmosphere. This creates more clouds, which blocks out more light, which lowers the temperature again.
When CO2 increases, plant life thrives, which creates a multitude of effects; direct cooling (vegetation areas are cooler than urban areas), increased consumption of CO2, change in light reflection, cycles in the fauna that interact with that vegetation, etc. etc. etc.
There is absolutely zero correlation between the data sets of human introduced CO2 and the global temperature. During periods of higher CO2 concentration the earths temperature has been both higher and lower. During periods of lower CO2 concentrations the earths temperature has been both higher and lower. There are times when CO2 levels were increasing as global temperature dropped.
The point is that CO2, or any greenhouse gas change as a factor of global temperature are very WEAK forces. Much bigger forces exist in the tilt of the earths axis and our distance from the sun. Both have been known for years to cause cyclical changes.
I'm not advocating polluting. Every week I go and pick up litter. As technology advances, we pollute less and less every year. New cars pollute less than 1970's models. Even without switching to hybrid cars, every year people change to newer models pollution is reduced. Private property rights is another factor that makes a huge impact on pollution.
What I am advocating is dropping the campaign of fear based on lies, and the twisting of science to become a political tool. There is no disaster, social, economic, or ecologic, that more government can bail us out of.
Increases in government control and redistribution of wealth have failed miserably. Think of every "war on drugs", "war on poverty", etc.
If you want to see a great example of a bureaucratic control and economic redistribution experiment in science look at the Russian social experiment to improve agriculture. Millions starved to death.
But the simple fact is they get it 95% right >95% of the time. 
It's great to see a well reasoned argument from a widely read academic. 
Comment