Monday, November 09, 2015

Here are five reasons why it is completely reasonable to conclude that man-made climate change is BS

1 - Temperature is not static: local temperature continuously changes during the day, it varies according to whether you are in the sun or shade, and depending on which side of the street you are on. No one can stick a thermometer into the earth's anus for 3 minutes and then read the temperature.

Global temperature based on ADJUSTED land-based readings is a CONSTRUCT, and then alarmists pick and choose data to fit their agenda. 

The closest thing to taking the earth's temperature GLOBALLY is via satellites, and this has been going on for a few decades an it shows NO WARMING THE LAST 18 YEARS.

2 - CO2 and other so-called "greenhouse gases" aka GHG's are measured in parts per MILLION aka "ppm" - methane is measured in PARTS PER BILLION! CO2 has steadily doubled since the advent of the industrial age and temperatures have not; in fact they have fluctuated up and down. This is dispositive.

In addition, CO2 is a weak conductor of temperature, whereas H2O is a strong conductor and much more plentiful than CO2. Clouds and water vapor effect atmospheric temperatures more than CO2 and other so-called GHG's and they are not adequately accounted for in any climate change computer model because their actions are still too complex to be understood.

Besides,  clouds might be formed by cosmic rays, or by trees & plants or by both.

In either case, the distribution of low level clouds in not man-made.

(And experiments have proven the cosmic ray theory of cloud formation.)

3 - The alarmists have been promising us a global climate catastrophe for decades, swearing the Arctic would be ice free in 2000, and then in 2010 and then by 2013. Guess what: the polar ice caps are still here, and Antarctica's ice cap is bigger than ever measured.

In fact, none of the computer-generated climate models which predicted man-made climate change have been even remotely accurate.

If NASA was this inaccurate, then we would have never landed on the moon, and instead missed it by millions if miles.

4 - The climate change we have witnessed since the 1970's is consistent with the climate change which predates the industrial age, in other words, it's completely natural.

Ice caps wax and wane, like tropical zones, deserts, forests, and the tides. Climate change is natural.

Long Island - where I grew up - was made when the glaciers receded 21,000 years ago, and they receded without the help of man-made CO2 - dumping their moraine at their furthest extent.

5 - People know weathermen get the weather wrong and can't accurately forecast the weather for the week ahead; therefore reasonable people are reasonably skeptical about what climatologists are predicting for the years ahead.

EXAMPLE:Up until the day it made landfall, HURRICANE PATRICIA was the strongest hurricane ever measured and predicted to be the worst hurricane ever to hit Mexico and perhaps be the worst killer storm of all recorded history, but it was a dud.

Most people understand these five points intuitively and don't need them to be spelled out. That's why most people are skeptical about the alarming claims and dire warnings made by the climate catastrophists.

This is the precise reason the climate alarmists have to continuously barrage the public with dire, catastrophic DOOM & GLOOM warnings.

Fear-mongering is their only hope of generating the support they need to completely implement their socialistic tax schemes, regulations, and all the subsidies for their cronies.



SAR2012 said...

6. I forget the speaker as it was just as this nonsense began after the first artificial / hysterical 'glo-bull cooling crisis' (I'm guessing this was circa 1996 - 9), however: an expert then or formerly of MIT spoke at length in a radio interview of the ice cores he'd studied which had been taken from Greenland. IIRC, these dated well past 1,000 years. Based on the actual evidence as found, not tree rings 'adjusted,' it was substantially warmer in the Viking Age than today. This is borne out by the Viking settlements in Greenland and evidence of expeditions on the Northeast shores of Canada (& I believe Maine?). I always figured the warming at the time was the terrible pollution from the Vikings peat-fueled SUVs .... The broadcast was on NPR, a central NH station or one with strong signal from Boston or Portland. Sorry I can't remember more, however that was pretty much definitive for me. If it was warmer when the longboats plied the North Atlantic then cooled dramatically, it sure as hell wasn't so because of fossil fuel usage. And as subsequent events have demonstrated, the whole case is based on biased algorithms, unjustified 'adjustments' to the data and data which was simply faulty in its origin. About the only increase is in the size of the funding to study & avoid what is no more than a chimera created out the whole cloth by greedy, mendacious, manipulators across the political & academic world.

Reliapundit said...

Thnx for shrng that. I consider that part of #4.

Punditarian said...

Thanks, Reliapundit! Excellent post.