The guy posing as president recently declared that “climate change” is now an existential threat (again) and he must take immediate action because the congress has had no success with passing more legislation to deal with this crisis. It’s a “clear and present danger” his teleprompter tells him, and he “won’t take no for an answer”.
Those of us believing in the separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution could be making sound arguments that the Executive Orders Biden is proposing are unconstitutional. Arguments can also be made as to the effectiveness of wind turbines and solar panels as alternatives to electricity generating plants powered by coal, natural gas or atomic energy. But in doing so we let the alarmists set the terms of the debate, and we are missing the main issue, which is the belief that carbon dioxide, caused by burning fossil fuels, is causing the atmosphere to retain dangerous levels of heat. Republicans in Congress and any commentators with a platform should be pounding home the facts that refute this hypothesis because there are plenty of scientific and statistical facts available to counter this theory.
So here is the straightforward statement to use as a basis for knocking down the entire anthropogenic global warming/climate change nonsense. “There is NO scientific evidence that the combustion of fossil fuels causes an increase in global average temperature.” I am not the only one making this claim and it has been made before on sites such as this one, but you have to search to find it. Don’t bother with the networks or their websites, including Fox News. Even they won’t go there.
So, let us examine the evidence the warmists have put forth as proof of this man-caused global warming.
Increasing levels of atmospheric CO2 are breathlessly trotted out as the cause of alleged warming, with the claim that the increase from 280 parts per million (ppm) in the 70s to the current 400 ppm has been followed by a corresponding increase in world temps. This is due in part to alarmists thinking that a change in climate is something that has started in their lifetime. Yet it is acknowledged that climate has been changing for millions of years, with cold periods (ice ages) followed by warm periods.
William Happer is an award-winning physicist at Princeton University. In 2009 he testified before Environment and Public Works Committee that CO2 levels of even 400 ppm put the earth in a “CO2 Famine”. He stated that for most of earth’s life levels were around 1000 ppm, yet, “the oceans were fine, plants grew, animals grew fine.” He also pointed out that the current warming period that began around 1800 at the end of the Little Ice Age, was long before any appreciable increase in CO2. In short, CO2 levels of 400 ppm are not causing higher world average temps and there is no scientific proof to the contrary.
One of the main sources used by the scaremongers is the infamous Hockey Stick graph of Michael Mann. The graph line is supposed to show that the earth’s temperature is fairly stable without a trend in either direction for hundreds of years until about 1900 and the start of man’s burning of fossil fuels. But missing from the data behind the line is the Medieval Warming Period, when temps were as high or higher than even now. Also missing from the line is major change in temps due to the end of the Little Ice Age from 1300 to about 1850. In fact, the temp variation during that time is not even displayed, as there was an actual drop of about 2 deg. Centigrade and the biggest drop on the graph is .2 to .3 Deg. around 1450. So, is it likely that the end of an ice age would result in temps rising? Not many SUVs belching carbon dioxide from 1850 to 1900. And it is worth noting that a hacked email from the East Anglia Climate Research Unit Director Phil Jones to Michael Mann provides proof of unscientific and inaccurate data usage. That and other emails don’t exactly show much confidence in their data. In the end, a graph based on incorrect use of proxy temperature records and incorrect statistical analysis is not science.
The UN’s IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has relied heavily on climate models as a predictor of the increase in earth’s temp caused by increasing levels of CO2. These models, over one hundred of them, are perfect examples of the acronym GIGO, or Garbage In, Garbage Out. Computer models like these require inputs and one important input is water vapor, the most predominant of the greenhouse gases, yet the modelers paid little attention to clouds when programming their models. The aforementioned physicist Dr. William Happer has determined that about 90% of greenhouse warming is caused by water vapor (clouds) and CO2 is nothing but a bit player, even at 400 ppm. An article by David Reynolds in March at The American Thinker website, explains this well. The other indisputable fact is that those models have not even tracked past temps accurately, and they have been in use for decades.
In 2016 John Christy, a scientist at the University of Alabama, Huntsville, testified at the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology. He presented the results of a basic empirical test to answer this question, “Do the climate models simulate what has occurred in the atmosphere since the advent of satellite measurements?”, (which were supported by data from weather balloons. Christy stated that of the thirty-two models, only one, a Russian model, tracked the actual temps for the period studied. In fact, on average, the models overestimated warming by 2.5 times that measured. So we have manipulated computer models with poor inputs that can’t even track the historical climate record being used to forecast the next hundred years. A computer model, even a properly programmed one, is a forecasting tool. It is not science.
You have heard the argument that “the consensus among 97% of scientists is that the earth’s warming is caused by carbon dioxide”. The companion phrase used is, “the science is settled”. Any actual scientist will be happy to inform you that consensus is not proof that a theory is valid and more importantly, science relies on and demands challenges to a proposed theory. Remember when Pluto was a planet? Here is a link that explains the 97% manipulation of statistics.
The scientific method requires a) putting forth a hypothesis, b) performing experiments to test the hypothesis, c) comparing observed results against the hypothesis. If the results don’t confirm the theory, it’s time to scrap it. Richard Feynman, one of the world’s most eminent scientists explains this more clearly. “In general, we look for a new law by the following process. First, we guess it. Then we compute the consequences of the guess to see what would be implied if this law that we guessed is right. Then we compare the result of the computation to nature, with experiment or experience, compare it directly with observation, to see if it works. If it disagrees with the experiment, it is wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It does not make any difference how beautiful your guess is. It does not make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is – if it disagrees with the experiment, it is wrong. That is all there is to it.” So, we can conclude that consensus and so-called settled science are not words you will hear from actual scientists.
If you are interested in actual scientific data, presented by real scientists, there is more available than what can be covered in one article. For starters, check out the writings of Anthony Watts (wattsupwiththat.com), Richard Lindzen, Judith Curry, Steve McIntyre, founder and editor of the Climate Audit blog, John Christy of University of Alabama, Huntsville, and Marc Morano (ClimateDepot.com). Also, the book Power Hungry, by Robert Bryce, is an excellent explanation of why wind and solar can never replace fossil fuel generation.
In an article at The Blue State Conservative website on 1/28/2022, Selwyn Duke provides a perfect question anyone can pose to their global warming friends, “What is the ideal average temperature of the earth?” And when your friend develops that deer-in-the-headlights look, Duke suggests following up with, “If we don’t know what the earth’s ideal average temperature, how can we know if a given type of climate change – whether naturally occurring or induced by man – is good or bad?”
Try it, and watch your favorite alarmist turn into a babbling fool. At best, they will just walk away
If you enjoyed this article, then please REPOST or SHARE with others; encourage them to follow AFNN
Truth Social: https://truthsocial.com/@AFNN_USA
Facebook: https://m.facebook.com/afnnusa
Telegram: https://t.me/joinchat/2_-GAzcXmIRjODNh
Twitter: https://twitter.com/AfnnUsa
GETTR: https://gettr.com/user/AFNN_USA
Parler: https://parler.com/AFNNUSA
CloutHub: @AFNN_USA
Between Global Warming(Climate Change’s old name) and the fiasco in the Covid vaccines, the left has just about destroyed science, at least in enough of a way to make everyone not broadly entrenched in the leftist ideology a pure skeptic.
Mann’s hockey stick was proven inaccurate decades ago. Gore’s picture of a polar bear was proven to be a joke, since polar bears swim.
There is no evidence backing global warming, and since the climate always changes, all the left has are lies. Just political science, which is already based on lying to the public.
Calling it phony science is an insult to phony scientists every where. It is a complete and total scam. Is it better to have cleaner air and water? Certainly. The rest, who knows? But is any of this more than chicken little? Unlikely.
Exactly.
^^^what he said^^^
Excellent article. I ask a similar question to all the Chicken Littles out there, what is the correct climate for the earth, is it the ones before, during or after each of the previous ice ages? When hasn’t the climate changed? They can’t predict the temperature at my house next Tuesday morning within 3 degrees, yet they want us to believe they can tell us the earth’s temperature in 70 years within 1 1/2 degrees??!! Gimme a break. There is no “average temperature” of the earth. It’s a myth. There are infinite points on the earth. Which determine the accurate reading of the earth’s temp? As you mentioned, satellite temperature taking is much more accurate and has only been around for about 40 years. ANY temperature readings prior to that are guesstimates or based on faulty, unreliable instrumentation. Ice core samples and tree ring readings are voodoo, not science. 40 years or 150 years of temperature readings does not constitute a trend of any kind in a timeline that spans billions of years, if you believe the Chicken Littles estimates of the earth’s age. Climate science is political science.
It’s a pretty tough sell in today’s environment to try to convince people that the pronouncements of our scientific priests don’t constitute the ‘proof’ or scientific evidence that you’re asking for in that statement. Far, far too many people have been trying that approach with little success so I just don’t see how to win the AGW argument by repeating it again or even at the top of our lungs.
Actually, constant repetition is exactly what the left uses to spread lies and nonsense….like insisting men can give birth… and it does work, unfortunately. Since they are saying things like this as justification for increasing their power, they won’t stop either.
While I think that the efficacy of the method eventually declines, witness how Communist Russia eventually lost their empire due to the inability to ‘persuade’ the peons of the wisdom of being ruled, the mechanisms used the left and what they allow to be used by the right are different, and not subtly so.
What the left does is to use their own echo chamber to repeat, reinforce, and amplify their messages and to ridicule and demean the right’s messages and messengers that runs contrary to what they deem acceptable.
What you propose is, I think, akin to a person standing on a soapbox on a corner in downtown NYC during rush hour while hundreds of the left’s agents attending to, criticizing the speaker, and eventually diverting, anyone that shows some small interest what the person is saying.
The two processes are, I think, lack any real equivalence.
What are you proposing, that we shut up about the truth? We only have the truth. We should be shouting it from the highest mountain tops. Without truth, we have nothing. So-called green energy is a myth. Converting our energy grid to this myth, turns over our energy structure to the communist Chinese. Should we shut up about that or keep trumpeting it?
What I’m suggesting is that we pick our fights with an eye on the objective and not to solely respond to the other side’s provocation. We should fight… and in the process also craft a narrative that people will respond to but, when the passions are high and the other side has worked themselves into a trance state, I don’t know if I’ve ever seen the rational approach work. Nor, for that matter, is there any rational reason to expect it to work.
The communists and leftists have a pretty good handle on how and when to use their techniques, heck Alinsky wrote set of Rules for this type of fight, but the right is just clueless on how to win the fight.
The left uses ridicule and we resort to ‘truth’. They gain control of the means of public discourse and shut us out and we are like the child that doesn’t understand that the world isn’t fair and we become inconsolable and, with tears streaming down our cheeks, collapse to the ground and mutter the equivalent of “It’s not fair… it’s not fair!”
While all the time the left continues to run circles around us, continue to take ground away from us because we think that they should play by our rules and argue rationally.
There’s a time to use rational arguments and there’s a time to use other methods to defeat an enemy but I think you use rational arguments to lock in and hold a victory. We just need the victory first and, speaking from experience, arguing the ‘facts’ isn’t going to get us that victory.
My intention was not solely to recommend congresspeople and other prominent voices merely make the statement. There is no reason that the facts refuting the scaremongers unscientific lies can’t also be made clear at the same time. And there is a massive amount of scientific evidence available for anyone who wants to get it, especially a congressperson with a large staff.
The old sales maxim about “sell the sizzle and not the steak” fits here. We need to figure out an approach that gets us to victory but the gallant charge of the light brigade as we gird ourselves with ‘the truth’, while it might be awe inspiring, isn’t going to get us that victory.
We get on our soapbox and shout the truth to the masses, or attempt to do so, but they have their own high priests and every major communication forum that call us blasphemers and false prophets and, taking their direction from Alinsky’s Rules, they ridicule us.
I believe there is a path with words and arguments but that approach requires something akin to selling the ‘sizzle’ as opposed to selling the ‘steak’.
“…the entire anthropogenic global warming/climate change nonsense.”
Love it!👺