Not all scientists think human-generated CO2 is a problem.
The science of climatology has become utterly fouled by politics, self-interest, willful blindness, and group-think. Democrats outside of fossil fuel states don't dare openly question the "inconvenient truth" that human-caused CO2 is damaging the planet. Most Republicans have moved to an opposite, climate-skeptical position. For Republican officeholders, either CO2 is not an imminent problem, or at least there is nothing Americans could do. So don't bother.
2. We aren't warming. The data on rising temperatures is subject to dispute by climate skeptics. Temperature trends depend on start dates and what one considers "normal." We are warmer now than we were during the "Little Ice Age" that ended in 1850, but the earth isn't warmer than it was during the Roman empire. Who is to say what normal is?
3. Nothing Americans might do matters. China and India are putting coal plants on line every two weeks and they aren't going to stop for decades or centuries. Climate change skeptics say that a Green New Deal is pointless.
4. CO2 greenhouse effect is modest. Climate skeptics say that clouds and water vapor are far more important than CO2. If temperatures rise a little from CO2, the extra moisture held in the warmer air will bounce radiation back into space. Moreover CO2's effect isn't linear. More CO2 has less effect.
5. Don't over-react to CO2 numbers. Climate change skeptics say that CO2 amounts in the atmosphere are no hazard. Indoor rooms with people in them routinely have 1,000 ppm. U.S. submarines are allowed to have up to 5,000 ppm before they adjust the CO2 level down. There is nothing special about 200 or 400 ppm.
6. More CO2 is good for plants. Climate change skeptics say that Americans have conflated CO2 with pollution. CO2 isn't smoke. CO2 is good. It is plant food, the building block of life. We pump CO2 into greenhouses to make plants grow better. CO2 will make the earth greener so forests will grow better and farms will be more productive.
7. We need more CO2. It brings us back to normal. The continent of India is moving north into Asia. That has created a new and dangerous problem for the earth. Rain on exposed rocks of Tibet pulls carbon out of the atmosphere when atmospheric carbon mixes with minerals from eroding rock. That carbon eventually settles sequestered in the ocean bottom. The "carbon cycle" is in overdrive, making this an CO2-deprived period in earth's history. This may explain the unusual three-million year cold period of Ice Ages. We need to restore a healthy carbon cycle. This argument contradicts the argument that extra CO2 doesn't warm the earth, but both arguments have adherents.
8. More CO2 is essential to save the planet. Climate change skeptics include people open to the idea of imminent climate catastrophe. Ice Age cycle timing suggests that we are at the tail-end of a 15,000-year interglacial period. We are due--possibly slightly overdue--to go back to accumulations of winter snow in northern latitudes in North America and Europe. We are scheduled to return to 100,000 years of mile-deep ice sheets down to the 42nd degree of latitude, i.e. New York City. The industrial revolution's use of coal in the early 19th century may have reversed the "little ice age." That thousand-year cold period may have been the beginning of return to "normal." Thank goodness for coal. Going forward, it will take far more atmospheric CO2 to stop the inescapable effect of earth's elliptical orbit and the Northern Hemisphere's tilt away from the summer sun. The winter snow in Canada and Europe may not melt. It will accumulate. We do face climate catastrophe, but in the opposite direction from the one feared. Modern humanity got accustomed to a short, freak period of unusually warm interglacial weather. Fortunately, fossil fuel CO2 could extend the interglacial era.
There are other facts, trends, and climate models which give skeptics a basis for doing nothing. It is the job of scientists to be skeptical, to examine data, and to challenge existing paradigms. I welcome climate-skeptical scientists. We want to get this right.
Politicians, however, need not be rigorous. They need something plausible and pleasant to say to voters. Climate change skeptics do not need to overthink with talk of carbon sequestration and albedo feedback loops. Items one, two, and three are sufficient for the purposes of climate-skeptical politics: Don't blame us; the numbers are uncertain; blame China.
[Note: To get daily home delivery of this blog go to https://petersage.substack.com Subscribe. The blog is free and always will be.]
17 comments:
I’d wager none of Peter’s readers are climate scientists. Unless we are, it makes sense to accept the consensus of those who know what they’re talking about. “There is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen.” https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1103618
The Deloitte Report shows the cost of climate change is in the trillions in the U.S. alone. It’s also killing people by the thousands and getting worse. Republicans, led by sneering demagogues like Trump and McCarthy, have launched a war on “woke capitalism,” which includes businesses that care about the environment. You’d have to be an idiot not to care about it, or psychotic.
Bravo to Peter for his open-minded approach to this topic. The politically correct knives will be out. “Trust and safety” drones at social media companies will be shadowbanning references to his post. Greta Thunberg will be screeching, “How dare you!”
The true answer to what the future of the climate will be is, we don’t know. The false certainty promoted by “the experts“ and amplified by the liberal mainstream media is more of an exercise in political advocacy than a shining example of the scientific method at work. Institutional capture by climate believers has happened across the board in science.
We need a rational, cost/benefit analysis of the climate issue and possible actions we might take. Bjorn Lomborg’s website is a good place to start.
It's nice that Peter presented the "other side" of an issue for a change.
I grew-up in Los Angeles in the 50's, 60's, and 70's when the smog pollution was so bad that it was like thick "pea soup" on some days. It looked like "brown fog". It was so bad that it used to burn my lungs. During that same time period, pollution was so bad on the east coast and the mid-west rust belt that they had "acid rain", and Lake Erie burned. If the climate was ever going to be changed by pollution (and man), then it would have been then. But, it didn't happen.
Times have changed. Air and water quality have improved dramatically due to pollution controls. We don't have the same pollution we had 50 years ago. It's difficult to believe that we have a climate crisis now when pollution is much less than what it used to be. The world isn't ending in 10 years like that moron AOC believes.
The documented fact is that if every person in America died today, then the climate change tomorrow would be microscopic. The climate change would be infinitesimal. People aren't changing the climate, and for someone to think they are indicates an oversized belief of importance.
The climate has been changing since Earth was formed, and way before man originated. It's a phenomenon caused by the sun, moon, and ocean, which are much bigger forces than any humans are. We can control pollution, but man can't control the climate. What some politicians really want to do is control YOU, and they are using "climate" as the vehicle to control you.
Only a dictator or authoritarian would consider it to be a "settled science". The fact is that "Climate Change", or "Global Warming" are frauds perpetrated on humans by Marxist politicians in an attempt to control them, and to destroy capitalism.
I too grew up in the SanFernando valley in the 50s and 60s. I remember my lungs and throat burning too. But just because pollution has been ameliorated in some areas doesn’t mean it’s ceased to be a huge problem. And LA is a clear case of humans both befouling and mitigating climate issues. No climate change huh? And California burns more furiously every year, and we nearly burned down Talent and Phoenix right here. And we are suffering a mega drought which will have enormous social and economic impacts for many years to come. And not just here, but the arctic is warming faster than anywhere else. Northwest passage is now an economic reality for navigation. To deny these short term changes is burying your head in the sand. And CO levels can be measured and reflect human input in increases. And methane, fluorocarbons, and many other toxic gasses from human activity all contribute to climate issues. I get that this science has become political. I laugh out loud when claims are made that attempts to control emissions is a form of communism meant to take away our freedumbs…
People still believe the Earth is flat.
It’s all too predictable. Providing no references, people with no expertise offer their opinions as if they were facts. Unfortunately, climate scientists have a pretty good idea of what the future holds, and it’s not a pretty picture:
“The scientists surveyed by Nature are part of the IPCC working group charged with assessing the causes and extent of climate change. Their latest report, approved by 195 governments in August, concluded that fossil-fuel emissions are driving unprecedented planetary changes, threatening both people and the ecosystems that humans rely on for food and other resources.” https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02990-w
Predictions of the future climate are based on computer models which are dependent on the accuracy of scientific understanding of the underlying meteorological processes.
Cloud formation, for instance, is a very poorly understood physical process. Clouds are obviously an important part of weather and the climate. How do you include cloud formation in a climate model? You “parameterize’ it. That’s a long, technical word which basically means you add a fudge factor to the model that reflects your best guess as to how clouds form.
The climate models contain many of these parameterizations. Are the predictions of these models a good basis for setting significant economic policies that will affect the fates of billions of people? I have significant doubts about that; and, for the record, I do have a certain degree of expertise when it comes to software.
It doesn't actually even require any expertise to recognize that temperatures are rising, polar icecaps and glaciers are melting, sea levels are rising, and the world is experiencing firestorms, superstorms, drought and flooding. All this began at about the start of the industrial revolution and the sudden increase in the use of fossil fuels. A reasonable and prudent person, able to put two and two together, would be willing to do whatever it takes to protect their offspring and the planet they depend on. We didn't inherit the Earth from our ancestors; we borrowed it from our children.
"The true answer to what the future of the climate will be is, we don’t know."
We don't even know the effect of our interventions to date. Have our efforts made things worse or better?
While in NYC for Thanksgiving, I did find one claim that answers the question. At Union Square, there is an animated billboard display that counts down to disaster. As of Nov 30, 2022 we have 6 years and 234 days left, unless we do something.
You'll find more info at the world climate clock website. Google it.
It is laughable when Republicans such as Marsha Blackburn (TN) criticize those concerned about climate change as just trying to make money from the issue, as if anti-climate change politicians were not influenced by the fossil fuel industry.
An interesting sidebar is that I recently watched a documentary on PBS called Red Power Energy about how different American Indian Nations are dealing with competing tribal, environmental and economic concerns. Many tribal lands in the American West are very rich in natural sources, including coal and oil.
Whatever anyone thinks about climate change, there are a host of other good reasons to break or substantially reduce our global reliance on fossil fuels.
Depending on where you live, our sun is a free, reliable and renewable resource. (Obviously, as with anything else, there are start up costs with solar.)
But being prudent and taking reasonable steps to mitigate the damage done will possibly (probably?) have an adverse effect on many Corporate bottom lines, and might even require the top 1 or 2 % of the wealthiest people to pay a bit more in taxes. I'm not sure the Governments held in the grasp of those same entities will have the will to do what is best for the people and the planet.
For anyone who is not aware, not all air pollution is visible.
Have you not learned that those who don't pay attention to history are doomed to repeat it?
The things you say are needed have been done and reported on by unbiased corporate media.
Inaction is not an option.
I also remember LA's infamous air quality.
There were people and corporations back then who said it wasn't bad.
You're welcome.
They dismissed science because they don't understand it.
I guess pro-life isn't really about protecting life at all.
What concrete actions have any of you warmistas taken to stop cli:ate change at a personal level? Anything? Or are you waiting for your Rich Uncoe to save th3 day?
Please respond, ok?
Post a Comment