this from voice of reason. posted on 9-20-2019
Interesting
Then they aren't scientists. They might carry such a title, but if they are not willing to subject their theories to challenge then they have indeed crossed from science to religion."
================================================================
For many years I've known that 'Anthropogenic Global Warming' (AGW), or 'Climate Change', or 'The Climate Crisis' has become a religion based on belief instead of facts. So when I read the above comment from a leftist I was surprised at how perfectly he argued against AGW 'scientists', albeit unintentionally. When they say, "The science is settled, the debate is over" they are stating their theories are no longer subject to challenge (something that is anathema to true science) and it is proof that they have indeed crossed from science to religion, just as this leftist poster said. I agree so strongly with what he posted that I just shamelessly plagiarized him.
Anyway, I recently uploaded a slightly different version of what follows as a comment on another thread about AGW, but that's a pretty old thread, so I decided to start a new thread here. While trying (and mostly failing) to keep my comments to a reasonable size, I've listed some of the major reasons why I don't believe climate change is caused by human activity and I don't believe the alarmists' predictions.
BASICS:
First, let's define what AGW is claimed to be. The theory is that as humans burn fossil fuels the carbon in the fuels (hydroCARBONs) combine with oxygen in the air to form CO2, or carbon dioxide. CO2 is a greenhouse gas which traps heat which would otherwise escape into space. So, as people continue to burn fossil fuels, the level of CO2 in the atmosphere keeps rising, making the entire planet warmer.
SMELL TEST:
The average person who is not a scientist can still form an educated opinion about scientific premises based on common sense and likelihood. So, while burning fossil fuels does create CO2 and CO2 IS a greenhouse gas, it turns out it's not a very potent one. Further, according to the warmists, the current concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is about 400PPM. That means for every 10,000 cubic feet of air, 4 of them are CO2. Another way to view it is CO2 makes up 0.04% of the atmosphere, which seems like an awfully small concentration to be the major driver of climate on the planet.
But it gets worse. Of that 0.04%, humans' burning of fossil fuels only contributes 5% of the total, the rest comes from natural sources, such as thermal vents, volcanoes, etc. So, even if one assumes that a trace gas is the primary climate driver, it must further be assumed that the first 95% of that gas are harmless and the last 5% is catastrophic. That's like saying I can eat 19 chocolate cream pies no problem, but if I eat one more I'll get fat.
So, IMHO, the smell test fails.
ICE CORE STUDIES:
In his infamous movie, "An Inconvenient Truth", Al Gore shows plots of temperatures vs. CO2 concentrations going back millennia, as determined by ice core studies. The plots show both (CO2 levels and temps) rising and falling together and he then claims that proves that CO2 drives temperatures. However, what he fails to mention is that there is a time delay between the two of about 400 years. Now one might say that makes sense, it might take a while for the increase in CO2 to have an appreciable effect on temperatures. But the problem is that the rise in CO2 comes about 400 years AFTER temperatures begin rising, every time. One doesn't have to be a scientist to realize that a cause comes before an effect, not after.
Now, if one looks logically at that time delay it makes perfect sense. The major sink for CO2 is not trees as the AGW alarmist state, but the oceans. The ability of water to hold CO2 is dependent on the temperature of the water. The colder it is, the more it can hold. So, as global temperature rise the oceans slowly warm. As the water in the oceans warms it is unable to hold as much CO2 and so some is released into the atmosphere, causing the levels to rise.
So, IMHO, ice core data shows that rising CO2 levels are an effect of temperature rise, not a cause of it.
Further, according to the ice core data, temperatures always begin dropping at about the time that CO2 levels reach their peak. If high CO2 levels cause warming, why would the planet cool when they're at their maximum level?
CHARACTER OF THE MESSENGER:
Aside from the fact that most AGW alarmists are politicians (usually of less than stellar character) looking to increase their confiscation of wealth with a carbon tax, the vast majority of 'scientists' and scientific organizations that support AGW alarmism are financially dependent on it. It seems to me that creates a bias in them that is just as strong as the bias the alarmists point out when referring to those employed by the petrochemical industry.
But aside from conflicts of interest, let's look at the actions of the alarmists. Alarmists advocate ostracizing and marginalizing those who disagree with AGW theory. Some even suggest punishing dissenters (deniers!) more harshly with prison or even death!
In my experience that kind of behavior is what one would expect from somebody pushing a lie that they're afraid will be exposed.
SOLUTIONS:
The AGW alarmists want everybody (except themselves) to stop driving, stop flying, stop eating meat, stop using air conditioning, stop using fossil fuels in any way, stop bbq'ing, stop using plastics, move into overcrowded tenements, and on and on. Why? Because doing so, they predict, will slow global temperature increases by a whopping 0.2 degrees C over the next 80 years! (Yes, they've finally stopped making predictions that will expire before everybody hearing them is dead, so we can no longer point out their 100% failure rate).
So, in effect, the entire first- and second- world population should lower their standard of living to that of the third-world in exchange for negligible results. According to the very people pushing these draconian measures, they won't do any good!
That doesn't make sense to me.
POLLUTION:
The alarmists like to point to the pollution caused by burning fossil fuels as another reason to eliminate their use. While burning fossil fuels does, indeed, produce pollution, the power it produces is used to eliminate other, worse, pollution. Imagine, if you would, a world without sewage treatment plants. I wonder how much manure would be produced if we replaced all cars and trucks with horses, mules and oxen? How much methane will their farts produce?
I like having water come from my faucets when I open them. I use that water to clean stuff. It took power to get that water out of the well, lake or river it came from. In many cities and towns, it took more power to get that water up into the water tower. All municipal water supplies require massive electrical power to provide their water to their customers.
In many areas of the world, utilities are using reverse osmosis to purify seawater for municipal use. Reverse osmosis requires enormous amounts of electric power.
If we are to continue to provide clean potable water to large populations, we need fossil fuels to supply the power required to do it.
RENEWABLES:
Finally, many people believe we should eliminate fossil fuels and replace them with renewables, such as wind and solar power. Unfortunately those people have no understanding of power production or the scale of industrial power.
The problem with renewables is the lack of energy density. While the total power in all the sunlight hitting the earth is astronomical, the amount hitting any square meter is tiny. While solar panels may be able to produce enough electricity to power an average home, they can't begin to supply industrial-level amounts. Worse, nobody mentions the energy required to produce the solar panels. Depending on where they're installed, the average solar panel will produce the amount of energy it took to manufacture it in about 10-15 years, and they only last about 20 years.
Wind power has the same energy density problem and the turbines produce noise that makes the areas where they're installed unlivable.
But that's not the worst part. The worst part is the unreliability of both wind and solar. With wind turbines, when the wind isn't blowing strong enough AND when the wind is blowing too strongly, the wind turbines produce no power. With solar, the only thing that can be reliably stated is that it doesn't work every night.
Nuclear power, while not technically a renewable, is a viable option, but there doesn't seem to be much interest in expanding its use, especially since Fukushima. (Which is a shame, there are inherently-safe designs available.)
Lastly, the ultimate power source is nuclear fusion - the same process that takes place in the sun. Unfortunately, despite the best efforts of scientists and engineers, achieving this goal has proven to be elusive at best. As one prominent scientist (who's name I forget) once said, "We've been 10 years from developing viable fusion power for the past 50 years."
CONCLUSION:
No matter how one approaches the question of whether or not AGW is valid, whether you look at it from a scientific standpoint, a follow-the-money standpoint, the ethics and actions of the proponents, the data, the logic, the history and accuracy of predictions, ...everything, all the evidence points to it being a massive frau
this from voice of reason. posted on 9-20-2019 br ... (
show quote)
works for the dems!! I have to be explicit cuz I'm not willing to put a D behind my name