I am just going to hazard a guess that most of the people reading this will miss the entire point of the article itself. Having said that, I hope now that most will pay attention and not miss the underlying point(s) contained herein.
Inconvenient Truths About Climate Change
It was noted by someone when I was a kid, that if the earth and its surrounding atmosphere were a grapefruit, we would not even have an accurate … much less complete … knowledge of even the peel. It is relatively safe to say that this remains true to this day despite the advances we have made.
The Climate is indeed changing. In fact, if the truth were to be told, the climate has been changing for as long as we have had a climate. Weather happens too, but the twain should not be confused, one with the other. I personally do not know anyone who is denying that we have a climate on this earth and that it is changing. However, I do know a great many people who doubt the veracity of the claims of so many of the alarmists running about like to many “Chicken Littles” screaming that the sky is falling and only oppressive government regulations and taxes can fix it. Personally, I do not even know anyone who wants to suck on a vehicle exhaust pipe or drink brackish water and seemingly at least, all of the people I have spoken to regarding such matters, all would prefer that we become good stewards of the environment not only for our sake, but for the sake of our kids and even for the sake of the planet. What I do know, are that a great many of my friends are so tired and fed up with the constant screaming and seeming bantering of the Alarmists, that they now tend to say and do things in an effort to irritate the Alarmists even to a fraction of the extent that the alarmists are bugging them … this is even more magnified given the absolute lack of knowledge by so many alarmists … not that there are not ignorant radicals on the other side as there are always such people in any large group, but … the facts remain facts in regards to science, and consensus should never rule the day, no matter how much it may make sense to the uneducated or even to the highly educated people who espouse these views. Thus, I have included solely facts as the pretext for this article, hoping at least, that somewhere out there, are reasonable people who are willing to look for common ground so that we can once again work together to fight a common cause … that is unless you are by chance, someone who actually does want to suck on exhaust pipes every time you breathe and drink brackish water whenever your thirst compels you to drink … but if you are out there, I certainly have never met you … despite the constant outcry by the alarmists that anyone who relies on complete data sets is a “science denier” and that apparently, this somehow or another means that we all fall into that category.
Carbon is an element, in fact a primary element in the composition of this planet. To ban all carbon would be to ban all plant life and animal life. Somehow or another, banning plant and animal life does not seem conducive to being beneficial to life on this planet.
Carbon Monoxide is an odorless and colorless toxin that is deadly when inhaled in large quantities. Carbon Monoxide is NOT Carbon Dioxide and the two should not be confused or convoluted.
Carbon Dioxide is a Greenhouse Gas. For those that failed elementary school science classes … if they even have such a thing in schools anymore, Carbon Dioxide is part of the symbiotic relationship between plant and animal life. Plants “breathe in” Carbon Dioxide and “exhale” Oxygen. Animals (including people) breathe in Oxygen and exhale Carbon Dioxide. Getting rid of all of the Carbon Dioxide would kill all of the plants on this planet, again, not really conducive to making the planet greener.
There are roughly four hundred parts per million of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere at present. That is 0.0004% of the atmospheric composition … and of that four hundred parts per million, roughly thirteen percent is contributed by mankind. 0.000052% of the atmosphere is comprised of Carbon Dioxide contributed by humanity … (still) hardly enough to change the world around us.
Carbon Particulate Matter is Carbon in the form of particulate matter and is often the most common thing meant when people talk about pollution. It is physical matter comprised of carbon particles … the name should be the clue there for those that may have missed it. Carbon Particulate Matter is often considered carcinogenic (a cancer-causing agent) due to its having been exhausted and the particulate matter being inundated with other matter that can cause lung cancer and other respiratory and additional physical ailments … most commonly in the form of cancer.
Greenhouse Gases are responsible for the Greenhouse Gas Effect … which is what allows us to keep and maintain an atmosphere on this planet. If all greenhouse gases were to be taxed out of existence (and yes, there are people who believe in “taxing” volcanoes and other naturally occurring pollution and that it is a viable means to get rid of this pollution … though I am not sure Mother Nature remembered not to leave home without her American Express Card to pay all these taxes) The fact however, should not be lost on these people, that getting rid of the Greenhouse Gases would end the Greenhouse Gas Effect and leave our planet without an atmosphere of any kind … leaving us in roughly the same shape for supporting humans as Mars is currently. In short, destroying the atmosphere will not make the planet greener or help it to support life.
Speaking of Mars, it would seem as if Marvin and his buddies have been out gallivanting around in their Sport Utility Vehicles as the warming (and cooling) on Mars have directly paralleled the warming and cooling on our Earth. (C’mon, you have to know who Marvin Martian is? Or is that just showing my age?)
Scientific Theory does not allow for “Consensus”. There certainly may exist a consensus among scientists, but it should certainly never preclude the need (or desire) for continued testing. Nothing in science is ever explicitly proven. By the very nature of the Scientific Theory, theorems and even proofs (going back to mathematical terms I know) can only remain “not dis-proven” and are never considered to be wholly proven … which is only a small part of what differentiates science from mathematics as a field of study.
The consensus was at one time that the earth is flat, but this consensus did not hold up to scrutiny.
The consensus was that germs did not exist …
and the man who first proposed this theory died in an insane asylum where the scientists had him imprisoned because his theories of a bunch of invisible little bugs carrying around and spreading germs and disease and the need to wash ones hands before giving birth or other less strenuous medical procedures did not match the scientific “consensus” of the day.
The scientific FACT based on all of the available evidence is that there is no ideal or permanent nature of climate or temperature for the earth itself, but only optimal temperatures and conditions allowing for humanity to flourish, and humanity has historically done exceedingly well during periods of warming, and not quite so well during times of cooling. (Look back at periods labeled historically as “Optimal” for human development and these have all been during periods of warming) Furthermore, if nature is allowed to run its course, the climate will change to the extent that it is extremely difficult for humanity to survive on the planet with or without anthropomorphic cause.
The mountains and valleys (or hollows) surrounding the Bay of Alaska are ample evidence of heating and cooling trends powerful enough to melt and refreeze glaciers countless numbers of times over the millennia creating the beautiful scenery that is there today … so going back to the older question, what is the “proper” climate for the Bay of Alaska? Would it be in one of its countless frozen states or thawed states? Does the very existence of the recorded and scientifically verified history of literally hundreds if not thousands of millenia of constant thawing and freezing not indicate at least some cyclic nature in the global climate as it changes? And if the climate has been continually changing for as far back as we can “see” scientifically, should we not be prepared for climate change regardless of what we may or may not do as a species? At least if we are to survive?
Ice levels in the antarctic are at record levels, though there are certain areas wherein ice is melting at an alarming rate … although this also happens to be in an area that is just above more than twenty active volcanoes as well. I am guessing that just maybe, these volcanoes may be heating things up a little bit more than Bubba’s Burp and Fart Fest. (Hey, I could not resist at least one jab at bubba!)
Niagara Falls has eroded its way to its current location, so if mankind adversely impacting the climate is so bad, why are so many efforts underway to effectively stifle the natural flow for the drainage of the Great Lakes? Should Niagara Falls be allowed to naturally erode the soil in front of it if we are so concerned about allowing nature to progress naturally? Or is it only selective portions of nature which need to be kept natural with other particulars of nature being under the guidance and control of our omniscient and benevolent government masters for our protection from ourselves and the harsh realities of life?
Cow farts release more methane into the atmosphere than all of the methane released by humans combined … throughout our entire history … and methane also happens to be more than twenty times as potent as Carbon Dioxide as a greenhouse gas, yet man made dumps, landfills and other operations create vast resources of methane that are released unchecked into the atmosphere. (Save the environment … Eat a cow! Now that would be a campaign I could sink my teeth into … at least if I had any teeth left)
Speaking of which, the number one greenhouse gas is actually water vapor, but again, I do not see anyone protesting the crayfish cookoffs or the Italian families boiling up pasta? Where is the outrage? What of the Champagne industry where carbon dioxide is actively created as part of the process to create the product? Save the environment! Ban Champagne! Nah, too many rich people would get peeved and quit funding these studies!
For that matter, the “computer models” not only have to be continually adjusted, they actually completely ignore and leave out the two primary greenhouse gases while placing the entire emphasis on the tertiary greenhouse gas. This is akin to trying to make a banana split with no bananas … and no ice cream, but hey, at least there is a cherry on top right? Another analogy is that we will have a discussion of the Carcinogenic impact of Lead Paint over Asbestos shingles … but we will totally dismiss any discussion of Lead or Asbestos and they will not be included in the computer models! Scientific?
One can not feed incomplete data into a dataset or a computer model and expect the returns to be accurate … and if the returns are accurate, someone needs to look at the data again more closely because … again with the banana split … no bananas and no ice cream do not make the lone cherry a complete banana split. In short, you cannot leave out the two primary factors and rely only on a distant third factor of a problem and create viable, relevant or factual solutions or results.
I could go on to literally fill multiple volumes of books with everything that is wrong with the current efforts to explain global climate change, but that should be enough to get the conversation started. Do we need to be better stewards of the planet? Absolutely! No doubt about it! Are we going to get to that stage with incomplete data sets and alarmists and the people on the fringes making all of the calls and decisions? Not very likely.
The Fact remains that if you want to find common ground to work together with me, I have viable technologies and solutions, as do a great many other people. At least most of the people that I know, are more than happy to discuss different opinions and conclusions based on the same sets of facts without considering it to be any kind of personal attack. We, like you, are concerned about the environment that we leave for our children and for our posterity. However, the other inconvenient fact also remains … if you want to run around calling names and espousing emotion-laden diatribe full of hateful rhetoric, chances are pretty good you will never have opposing ideas presented to you, never be able to fully defend your beliefs and it is very likely that your conclusions and methods will be flawed. There is ample room for a difference of opinions while we work together to resolve the very real problems faced by all of humanity in the world today but like it or not, you have to work together to make it happen!