Climate change
skeptics rely on
real science
for logical
climate conclusions,
and those conclusions
may change if the
underlying science
changes.
Skeptics don't predict
the future climate,
because the causes
of climate change
are not yet known --
just a list of suspects,
with their effects unknown.
Also, humans have a
terrible track record
for predicting the future.
Following are
four logical conclusions
about climate change,
that skeptics believe in,
because they are based
on real science,
not unproven theories,
beliefs, or faith:
(1)
Climate change in the past
20,000 years was huge,
starting with mile-thick
glaciers over Detroit
and Chicago, that have
since melted.
There was enough
water runoff from
glaciers melting
throughout the world
to raise the sea level
by about +400 feet !
Man made CO2
greenhouse warming
definitely did NOT cause
the first +399.5 feet
of the total +400 foot
sea level rise.
Whether man made CO2
greenhouse warming
caused ANY of the last
+0.5 feet of sea level rise,
is open to debate.
(2)
The average temperature
of our planet is slightly warmer
than in 1880
-- the government bureaucrats
claim +1 degree C. warmer,
which is not very much
of a change over138 years.
Temperature measurements
are far from precise,
so the actual average
temperature change
could range from
no change,
to +2 degrees C.
of warming.
We don't need
measurements
to realize the
global warming
since 1880 has
harmed no one.
Most of the warming
has been mainly
during the night,
in the six coldest months
of the year, and
in the northern half
of the Northern Hemisphere.
That's a pleasant
climate change
for the few people
who live there!
(3)
The cause(s) of global warming
were unknown natural causes,
during the 4.5 billion years,
before 1950.
Man made CO2 may have caused
some of the warming after 1950,
although how much of that warming
was caused by greenhouse gases
remains a mystery.
The UN's IPCC attempts to "solve"
that mystery by blaming CO2
for "over half" of the global warming
since 1950
-- but that's just a wild guess,
not a fact, because the "over half"
claim is backed by almost no
real science.
The only real science is
laboratory experiments
that identify CO2 as a
greenhouse gas.
It is merely assumed,
from lab results,
that CO2 would cause
mild, harmless
global warming
in the atmosphere too.
Mild, harmless global warming
would scare no one,
but the climate change cult
wants people to be scared !
So they invented a water vapor
positive feedback theory,
out of thin air, in the 1970s.
Their theory arbitrarily triples
the assumed effect of
carbon dioxide alone.
It's a fake, unproven theory
but is used by climate models
for making (wrong) predictions
of the future climate.
I say "fake, unproven theory"
because the climate models
predicted roughly triple the rate
of global warming that has
been observed since 1950.
The observations,
starting in 1950,
reflect overall
climate change
similar to what
the lab experiments
suggested,
with no evidence
of any warming
amplification from
a water vapor
positive feedback.
The fact that there
was global warming
from 1950 to 2000,
doesn't mean man made
CO2 was the cause
of the warming.
Actual global warming
from 1900 to 1950,
is blamed on natural causes.
Actual global warming
from 1950 to 2000,
is blamed on man made
carbon dioxide.
But ...
there's no scientific proof
that the two warming periods
in the same twentieth century
( actually 1910 to 1940 & 1975 to 2000 )
had completely different causes !
Despite no scientific proof,
that's exactly what
the climate change cult claims:
They claim the warming is
different this time!
The climate change cult
claims climate change
claims climate change
before 1950 was natural,
but climate change after 1950
is controlled by man made
CO2 emissions ?
The climate change cult
never even tries to explain
how CO2 suddenly became
the 'climate controller',
or why it happened
( because it did not happen ! )
One fact not in dispute
is that the rate of warming
since 1950 has been mild,
and harmless ...
and the rate warming
in the past 15 years
has been very slow
-- warming less than
an honest, conservative
margin of error
for the temperature
measurements.
If you wanted to be
a climate zealot,
by blaming 100%
of the global warming
since 1950 on
man made CO2,
and then you assumed
CO2 levels would continue
to increase 2ppm per year,
then you'd have
a worst case estimate
of the potential warming effect
of CO2
... and the worst case result
which would be slow,
harmless global warming,
so slow it would take 200 years
for another + 1 degree C.
of global warming !
(4)
There are thousands of
real science experiments
showing a higher CO2 level
in the atmosphere
accelerates the growth
of plants that humans
and animals use for food.
Greenhouse owners use
CO2 enrichment systems
for doubling to tripling
the CO2 levels inside
their greenhouses.
Based on real science,
it is logical to favor
a doubling to tripling
of the CO2 level
in our atmosphere,
to optimize the
growth of
"C3" plants
"C3" plants
used for food.
Of course the benefits
of more CO2 in the air
require the fossil fuels,
that release the CO2,
to be burned cleanly.
Real pollution is released
from burning fossil fuels,
and that real pollution
could offset the benefits
of adding more CO2
to the air.
Real pollution in Asia,
for example,
is largely a result
of using coal
for individual heating,
without modern
pollution controls,
and from using
antiquated electric
generating systems.
A real pollution problem
from burning fossil fuels
exists in India and China,
but gets very little attention
from "environmentalists".
The so-called "environmentalists"
should be ashamed of themselves
for their self-serving, anti-science
attack on beneficial CO2,
the staff of life on our planet,
while simultaneously ignoring
the real, harmful pollution
from burning fossil fuels:
The particulates / aerosols / smog
especially visible in some Asian cities.