How to Stop the False Demonization of Carbon Dioxide (and boost world economic growth)
(second draft - October 15, 2015)
ENVIRONMENTALISM:
They demonized DDT and other pesticides in the 1960s.
Then acid rain, and the hole in the ozone layer.
They demonized both global warming and global cooling in the 1970s !
Most said warming, but some said cooling and got a lot of attention in the mid-1970s.
People lost interest in all of the bogeymen except global warming -- I have no idea why -- the other problems could have been dangerous to humans -- they weren't, but they could have been.
Global warming, however, is harmless and desirable.
If our planet warms, more square miles could be used for farming = good news.
If our planet is warming from changes to greenhouse gasses, which is contradicted by most of the data:
(1) Nighttime low temperatures would be higher,
(2) Daytime high temperatures will be about the same, and
(3) Those changes would be lowest at the equator, and highest near the poles ... and reducing the temperature differential between the tropics and the poles would result in milder weather conditions and fewer harsh storms.
(1) + (2) + (3) add up to good news too.
Geologists say CO2 levels in the past have been up to 20 times higher than today, with no runaway global warming.
That's why environmentalists ignore geologists.
No need to publicize scientists who study the past climate, when doing so would contradict their CO2 scaremongering.
The coming climate change catastrophe is a environmentalist fantasy.
It is a fantasy repeated so often by politicians that it has (falsely) convinced a lot of people rising CO2 levels in the air will cause a catastrophe.
Leftists use crises, even imaginary crises, to expand government power.
The truth is more CO2 in the air is good news -- CO2 greens the Earth, so more CO2 is better.
POLITICAL BACKGROUND:
Environmentalists don't care that rough estimates of Earth's average temperature have changed only a degree or two F. in the past 150 years -- well within the measurement margins of error (which they also ignore).
They don't care that minor changes of the average temperature are perfectly normal for our planet.
They don't care that the average temperature of Earth in 2015 is almost the same as in 1995, per satellite data, the only global data available (average of independent RSS and UAH data compilations, which are ignored by NASA, even though they own the satellites collecting the raw data!).
Environmentalists never debate their scary predictions of the future climate, or the climate physics model they use for those predictions.
They look down their noses at skeptics, and dismiss them by declaring the science is settled, and 97% of scientists agree ... followed by vicious character attacks.
But science is never settled -- that's the first thing every real scientist learns.
And the 97% number is from a bogus survey that shamelessly ignored contrary data -- 97% does not become true because it is frequently repeated!
In fact, MOST scientists do NOT agree that a climate catastrophe is coming -- not that science should be based on surveys of what may, or may not, happen in the future!
Environmental activists (the global warmunists) don't care about science at all -- they are currently discussing among themselves how much money rich nations will pay in "climate reparations" to poor nations.
Climate reparations (called something else) are part of the original UN goal when creating their Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Their other goal was to make the UN a 'world government' in charge of the world's environment -- a goal that would be a nightmare for economic growth.
WHY ARE CLIMATE FORECASTS SO BAD?:
The science of climate change has a lot more questions than answers.
So we don't have a good climate physics model defining exactly what causes climate change.
A good model is a “summary” of a process that's well understood.
I hope scientists will eventually figure out the causes of large, and often abrupt, climate changes that Earth has had in the past.
The five known ice ages were different lengths, and unevenly spaced over our 4.5 billion year history -- no single theory so far explains all of that.
Someday a better understanding of climate history may make it possible to build a good climate physics model.
And a good climate physics model could be used to develop better Global Climate Models (GCMs), providing more accurate long-term climate forecasts.
Or maybe not.
What if climate change turns out to have mainly natural causes?
What if those natural causes are not regular, repeating cycles?
It's possible to know exactly what causes climate change, but not the timing of when the climate would actually change !
Geologists agree Earth's climate has been changing for 4.5 billion years.
Most scientists do.
The only exception seems to be climate modelers, who seem to imply climate change was unimportant until 1940, when the ramp up of manmade carbon dioxide (CO2) began.
Which was accompanied by global COOLING from 1940 to 1976 … not the global WARMING claimed to be caused by rising CO2 levels in the air every year!
That historical fact delights me!
There has also been no global warming since the early 2000s -- the trend since then has been neutral ... not the global warming claimed to be caused by rising CO2 levels in the air every year!
Five-Steps to Sell
a New Climate Physics Model
A very difficult task.
Climate change is bad science combined with Alinsky-style ridicule and character attacks … blessed by the Pope … and defended by the trillion dollar heavily-subsidized 'green' industry.
There is huge opposition to changing the climate physics model foundation currently used for the demonization of CO2 (CO2 is the "climate controller").
That model has been the foundation of very inaccurate climate projections for 40 years -- over 95% of the projections overstate actual global warming, often by huge amounts.
The underlying CO2-is-evil climate physics model has to be refuted, and replaced, by a better climate physics model.
I think of a new physics model as a new product -- a new product not wanted by people who believe CO2 is evil.
I recommend a gradual Five-Step Marketing Process to create some demand for a better climate physics model.
The first step is to convince some people to stop being scared about CO2 and global warming, because both are good news !
Global warming is good news
(slight warming since 1850 followed many cool centuries, from 1300 to 1800, that people did not like), and
More CO2 is good news too
(green plants grow faster with more CO2 in the air, which also benefits the people and animals who eat plants ... and CO2 has little or no effect on the average temperature, according to geologists).
A Five-Step Marketing Plan:
It will take a gradual process, and a year to several years, to reverse the long-term belief that CO2 is evil among some people who are currently "global warmists".
Interest in a new climate physics model can best be spread by new "converts" -- people who had been "believers", and were never subjects of character attacks in the past.
Most people will defend their existing CO2 is evil beliefs, so the potential customer base is small.
Goals:
- Get enough "customers" to demand a new "alternative" climate projection, for comparison with the current, inaccurate climate projections based on the old climate physics model (CO2 is a satanic gas that will end life on Earth as we know it)
- Convince at least a few climate scientists to develop new "alternative" Global Climate Model climate projections, based on the new climate physics model.
(Marketing Step 1)
Goal: Get some people calm enough to be open-minded.
If at least one well known mainstream media source can convince enough people Earth's climate is always changing, and changes since the ramp-up of manmade CO2 that began in 1940 were not unusual, some people will relax enough to reconsider their CO2 is evil beliefs.
The first message to any open-minded audience: We've had 40+ years of inaccurate GCM climate projections -- creating a demand for Step 2.
(Step 2)
Goal: Identify the problem the new product will solve.
Convince enough people GCM climate projections have been inaccurate because they are supported by an inaccurate climate physics model, and they may say: 'if you're so smart, what's wrong with the physics?' -- creating a demand for Step 3
(Step 3)
Goal: Create a demand for the new product.
Thoroughly refute the current climate physics model (CO2 is the climate controller) first.
Don't overwhelm people with a new physics model before the old physics model is discredited.
Convince enough people the current climate physics model is wrong, and they may say: 'if you're so smart, show us a better climate physics model' -- creating a demand for Step 4
(Step 4)
Goal: Sell the new product.
Present the new climate physics model versus the current model.
Convince enough people you have a better climate physics model, and they may say: 'why don't you get a climate scientist to incorporate your new physics model into his GCM, and give us an alternative (new) long-term climate projection' -- creating a demand for Step 5
(Step 5)
Goal: Allow the scientist to presents his "alternative" climate projection, based on the new climate physics model.
If that "customer" can convince enough people the new "alternative" climate projection is worth considering, people may say: 'I guess the inventor of that new climate physics model was a smart guy -- and the people who always claimed climate science was settled, were probably wrong!'
SHORT and LONG-TERM RESULTS:
Steps (1) through (5) could take a year, or many years, if even possible.
It would take more years to determine if the new "alternative" GCM climate projection was better than the old projections (which we already know have been inaccurate).
I believe the best short-term result would be merely convincing some people that climate science is not settled … and the "alternative" GCM climate projection should be debated.
My personal pessimistic speculation: For all this to happen, I believe there would have to be little or no global warming during Steps (1) through (5) -- obvious warming would make too many people think the old climate physics model was okay, and the new product would fail.
The demonization of CO2 has been entrenched over many decades.
Changing the CO2-is-evil belief will be very difficult.
It would probably take a year, or more, just to create a demand for a new climate physics model.
If several different people propose several different new climate physics models, there could be confusion rather than "sales".
I'm so pessimistic I believe the support of "Mother Nature" will be needed -- a cool or cold decade would help refute the existing climate physics model.
"Mother Nature" does not obey any climate models, so does anyone really know what Earth's climate will be like in the next decade or two?
No.
But we do know the current "CO2 is the climate controller" climate physics model has led to bad climate forecasts for 40 years, and belongs in a 'cylindrical metal file' (garbage can).
It should be easy to develop a new and better climate physics model -- just make CO2 less important than in the current climate physics model.
Climate projections could not get much worse than those based on the current CO2 is evil climate physics model.
Selling a new climate physics model to the public, and to at least some climate scientists, is an important job.