| | | I'm not cherry picking anything. I didn't make the chart. And I didn't make it up that prominent climatologists have stated publicly that they are baffled as to why there has been no meaningful warming for the past 15 years as their models predicted.. If they had any integrity, they would state publicly that they clearly need to work on their models and maybe it is a tad bit early to hit the panic button that dismantles the fuel and foundation of our technology, industry and economy.
It is true that man has liberated a fair bit of CO2 that was at one time in the atmosphere and then became sequestered in through geological processes.
And it is most likely true that some amount of warming is caused by the increase of the atmospheric CO2. Notice that I said "some" not all.
So let's look at some other things...
We have about 150 years of empirical data about the earth's atmospheric temperature. And much of that data is still pretty spotty. But it is generally accepted that the widespread gathering of temperature data coincides with the end of the little Ice age. 150 years ago the global average was estimated to be about 0.2 degrees C below the mean.
So let's deconstruct a bit.
-Any scientist will agree that 150 years of data is meaningless if you are trying to understand any of the various earth cycles.
-The centerpoint from which temperature anomalies are measured has rarely been even close to what the earth's average temperature actually was for any given year. As a baseline for determining what is normal or to be expected form earth's climate cycles, it is artificial and very focused on a period of time that is relevant only because it is the historical periods of mankind. In geologic time, it is still quite meaningless.
-If you measure from the point where the global average temperature clearly broke out of the downtrend, it was about 150 years ago and at 0.2 below the mean. But if you measure from the beginning of the industrial revolution, the temperature was closer to 0.7 degrees C below the baseline. Since we are currently about 0.5 degrees C above the baseline it really does make the temperature rise look extreme. So there are a couple of questions that fall from this. The first is if there is a causal relationship or simply coincident. The next question is then "is it a good thing or a bad thing that the global warming came along and reversed the global cooling period?
-We are currently in the holocene interglacial period. The earth is stuck in glacial/inter-glacial cycle due to the positioning of the continent of antarctica being positioned over the south pole. The current average temeperatures and CO2 levels are normal for what has been scene at the back end of an interglacial period.
So let's say that everything listed above is meaningless and that we accept that the global warming that we have seen is very specifically caused by manmade CO2. There are a few more things that need to be answered before we start freezing and starving millions of poor people.
-What is the relationship of CO2 and temperature? is it an infinitely linear relationship or is the greenhouse effect limited after a certain threshold is reached?
-Is Global warming a bad thing? There are certainly examples where we can expect some negative impact due to global warming, but there is ample evidence that no only man, but the vast majority of animal and plant life thrives in warmer temperatures. Plants love the extra CO2 as well. Does the bad outweigh the good?
-If we determine that the negative impact of global warming outweighs the positive impact, we must then determine if the negative impact of global warming outweighs the negative impact of dismantling our cheap energy resources in an effort to reduce global warming. We've seen all of the worst case scenarios from the climatologists. All of which have completely and utterly failed to come to pass. But we never see the estimates on the number of deaths caused by the counter-AGW efforts. We never see the positive impact analysis regarding increased plant life from higher CO2 levels (which is a built in regulator for CO2 levels). We never see the studies that predict the increased acreage of agricultural land that would result from warming.
So if you are going to throw arctic ice pack or increased water temperatures (that nobody can find), if you want me to take you seriously, then show me that you understand that the worst case scenarios presented by the climatologists were pure speculation with no real understanding of how the earth would react to the conditions that were projected by the climatologist's models that have been proven with empirical data to have absolutely no predictive value. Once you do that, then show me that you have looked at both the positive and negative impact of both plans of action (doing nothing compared to restructuring every facet of our society to eliminate fossil fuels).
Armed only with wild speculation of extreme worst case scenarios and a handful of climate models that have no predictive value, the liberal pseudo-environmentalists have already cost this country and the world, trillions of dollars.
When the shoddy practices of the climate scientists came to light a couple of years ago, that should have been enough for thinking people to start questioning the motives behind the actions. It is simply not acceptable and it is not science to change empirical data that has already been published, so that the graphs that the climate models produce will support the claims and speculations of the scientist. It's not science to withhold raw data because you think another scientist will try to disprove your theory. At its core, that is the polar opposite of science.
So we have clear evidence that the biggest names in climate science had questionable practices when it comes to "science". And then we have the "97% of all scientists agree" appeal to authority that is used to shut us up. That number comes from an association whose charter is to be education activists. If you join and claim to be a scientist, you are a scientist. And yet I didn't see one private sector geologist in the list. I have the phone numbers of at least 25 private sector geologists in my contact list. Not one of them believes that manmade CO2 will significantly alter the climate or that any climate change will have a significant negative impact.
Since there are obviously credentialed scientists on both sides of the issue, an appeal to the authority of one side or the other doesn't make sense. This means that it is legitimately our job to question the assumptions, methodologies, results and bias of the science and scientists. |
|
