Global Warming Revisited
Climate Change has become a hot topic in today’s world.
Everyone is saying the earth is warming but by how much, what are the causes
and is it a bad thing. The problem I have with the whole debate is although it
has a science basis, it has long since been moved from the scientist domain to
the political one. First we see the scientists, according to a recent poll, are
97% in agreement … or are they.
Before we start looking at the science, let’s look at the
97% number. The poll says 97% scientist agree in Global Warming or Climate
Change including some skeptics. This is from an article published by John Cook,
the Climate Communications Fellow at the University of Queensland. The article
first says nothing about the dangers or harm to the environment, the study just
states that it’s happening. Now when you dig into this article you find it’s
not scientist but rather articles that had anthropogenic climate change we
considered C02 as the blame for Global Warming in 13000 papers. Granted of
those papers only 41 to 64 papers explicitly state that humans are the reason
for climate change.
With that said, we need to look at the propaganda associated
with this article. The article is presented with “news” that states man is destroying
the environment and we will die soon which makes the correlation that 97% all
agree with their catastrophic position. The desire is to stop all pollution and
go to green energy. As nice as this sounds, we need to realize that this would
cause a large scale damage to mankind then a slow progression of finding
cleaner fuels. So when you review the hype and see what’s happening, just look
at the solutions the politicians are doing. Mainly “Carbon Tax” is presented as
the solution which taxes big polluters, AKA big business, which tax the output
with the hopes it would end.
If you look at the money trail, the idea is to loot the
coffers of big business for tax purposes (mostly for continued research) and
not to stop carbon emissions. So we see a large scale propaganda machine
attached with this 97% number which has been shown to be fraudulent. But the
“news” will not correct this the same way it pumped it up. So the classic
propaganda technique of telling a lie enough till it becomes truth has been
abused here.
Remember ALL the planets are experiencing Global Warming
which would imply the sun has a larger impact on the environment that mankind!!
While the data suggests warming and we see graphs that show
wide spread warming we fail to notice two major things with them. First, the
graphs show less than a 1 degree rise since the mid 1800’s. Second, it fails to
mention the margin of error in the collection of this data. I am sure the data
from the mind 1800’s did not have the accuracy we can expect from today’s
collection instrumentation that has been developed for the climate scientists
(another money grab, but we will not explore this further here).
The biggest problems is not science behind Climate Change but
rather the hype of computer models that show dramatic changes. To be science
they data must be “falsifiable” to be real scientific models. A dramatic
example of this was highlighted by Al Gore in his Global Warming documentary
“An Inconvenient Truth” and his “hockey stick” graph. This was a 2006
documentary that showed a catastrophic rise in temperature. The ice caps were
to be gone by now and we were going to be living in a much hotter environment
with no polar ice caps. The model was not matched at all, the climate remained steady
and the ice caps grew. So, the computer model is proven wrong as viable
science. Yet the only change in the presentation of this is the x-axis (the
time line) or the y-axis (the amplitude) and not the dramatic curve.
Why are most of the computer models wrong? They assume the
earth is a much less stable system than it actually is. The “feedbacks” in the
computer models to how the earth responds to the slight temperature rise from
pollution. So alarmists tend to get the hype and press and REAL science is
ignored. The reason for this is you must follow the bucks and how the funding
is divided out.
Think of it this way, the world wide pollution is getting
worse, especially in China. Why is this, our policies have forced these
polluting jobs and work overseas to economies that are not governed by bad
science. With this we see the models continue to fail. Why do they fail? The
“feedbacks” are based in amplifications due to water heating to produce more
water vapor that creates a larger greenhouse effect and will therefore cause
more overall warming. But what is not considered is if these same feedbacks
produce clouds which reflect the warming rays.
The system we exist in called earth is very stable. Based on
geology we see many “catastrophic” events in earth’s history that caused
radical shifts in the environment including volcanoes and meteorites. We never
seem to notice that the system returns to a stable state and eventually cleans
itself out. One only needs to look at a 1988 study by Dr. James Hansen that
shows a model of increased temperatures of .8 degrees by today. Subsequent
reality shows the temperatures have bounced up and down yet remained stable
throughout those years with current models showing a drop from 1988.
In 2003 we deployed the Argo system which accurately
measured temperatures over 2000 meters and have 3000 buoys. Since this system
was deployed, we have seen measurements have remained relatively flat. On the
other hand global ocean temperatures are still shown on the rise based on data
collection from the mid to late 1800 where ships would measure ocean
temperatures via throwing a bucket overboard and measuring with crude devices.
We never are show the margin of error from these collections or in the
calculations but rather are just fed the data as true. So while the models fail
we see the presentation of the data is also failing.
So while some data that shows increasing temperatures (a
Scientific America article shows temps over the last 100+ years rising 1.6
degrees as the most radical found) we have just as many that shows things are
stable. Unfortunately while I do not disagree something may be amiss, I know
that data collection in 1880 to data collection today is vastly different in
accuracies and could account for a margin of error of 1.6 degrees.
Because the science is not rock solid, I just feel a more
logical and measured approach needs to be followed to reduce pollution and
increase safety for mankind.
Now don’t get me wrong, this is not a blog that supports big
business and pollution. I abhor what we do to the environment and am spooked at
how blinded our politicians who are paid to ensure our safety ignore because
they get more from special interests. I believe a more measured approach should
be done to help clean up our environment. Take civil defense, there was not a
profit motive to protect our nation from the communist threat. The government
had to fund these projects to ensure our countries safety. Today we see
pollution as a large threat but is not a problem with our country and really
has no large profit motive.
Follow me here, we can make laws that clean up our
environment yet does nothing for other countries around the world. Eventually,
these laws and market forces caused Adam Smith’s “Invisible Hand” to move
business offshore were it was less restrictive to produce products. The result
is actually more pollution and sure it’s not in “our backyard” it is still a
global problem (consider Fukishima for an example of one country effecting
many).
What we can do is divert funds to a “Skunk Works” style
project for energy development (for those who do not know the Skunk Works was
Lockheed’s Cold War secret defense projects). We remove the profit motive by
making the technology public domain so that third world counties can easily
adapt these new sources and produce a cleaner backyard for themselves. This way
the world will benefit and mankind will be safe. The will not be safe from
Climate Change whose causes are still debatable but from having a source of
clean reliable energy.
Think of the internet today. That was a byproduct of the
defense industry spending that was eventually used for the common good.
As we look at other solutions, why not stop this wide spread
consumerism? That is really driving most of the environmental pollution we see
today. Why would the government not put a stop to all this crap we get just to
have more junk? It would reduce emissions, landfill and waste yet it would also
eliminate monies from taxes paid for the profits and sales for said junk.
That is why in the end the government may never do anything other than charge
Carbon Taxes, since that will only profit them. Clean and cheap energy does
nothing for them in the long run other that lower their overall tax revenue.
Link for 97% consensus fraud:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTTaXqVEGkU
Link on data issues with Climate Change models:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2J8zEJHIg8
Climate Change in 12 minutes from a Skeptic:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gDErDwXqhc
My Blog that some consider wacko as they somehow cannot
understand science of Climate Change and the politics:
http://journeythroughbible.tumblr.com/post/131942732613/propaganda-climate-change-and-creation
A Skeptics Case:
https://mises.org/daily/5892/The-Skeptics-Case
Article Supporting Global Warming:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/no-pause-in-global-warming/
If you want to see my slant on Evolution … check out:
http://journeythroughbible.tumblr.com/search/evolution
BIG NOTE – As I finished this .. THIS JUST IN FOSSIL FUELS CAUSE COOLING:
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/628524/Climate-change-shock-Burning-fossil-fuels-COOLs-planet-says-NASA