Global Boooooooring (Part 2)

In my last BRILLIANTLY written article “Global Boooooooring” I spent most of the time explaining how the “science isn’t settled” just because a bunch of scientists say it is. As much as it pains me, I have more to say about the subject.

When I was a wee little lad in, hmmm…I dunno, second grade, I learned that one of the main reasons the Great Salt Lake, in Utah, is salty is because it is the remains of what was a huge lake, Lake Bonneville. Apparently 14,000 years ago the majority of the lake dried up and all the sediment from Lake Bonneville was left over in the Great Salt Lake.

lake bonneville

About the same age I learned about Woolly Mammoths and the ice age.
Long story short, I have been acutely aware of “Climate change” since second grade. (I say “acutely” because of how much of “acutie” I was.)

DQ -1

I know!!! Adorable, huh?

If you recall from my last article, of the 12,000 peer reviewed papers only 65 said that humans are the primary reason for climate change. Now, 2nd grade Danny thinks the people who wrote these 65 papers are stupid pooh-pooh heads (the current Danny thinks the same thing, but with more of an “R” rating). You remember Lake Bonneville? According to the source of all knowledge, Wikipedia, “With the change in climate, the lake began drying up.” That begs a question: Why was there a change in climate all those years ago? I don’t recall learning about all the SUV’s the Woolly Mammoths drove.

You may also recall in the last article that 97% of the 12,000 papers believed that humans probably contribute something to climate change. These authors would be thrilled to learn that both 2nd grade Danny and current Danny could buy into that. I’ll buy into the argument that humans have an impact on the environment. Am I willing to gamble $2.23 trillion (of US economy) and the economy of the world on it? Absolutely not.

Quick tangent: According to the other source of all knowledge, Google, the earth is 4.54 billion years old. We have been measuring its temperature for what, 200 years? If my calculations are correct we have been measuring the temperature for .000000044% of the time the earth has been in existence. Who are we to say what the average temperature of the earth is? Just because 72 degrees is comfortable for us does that mean it’s the average temperature of the earth? I dunno.

“But Danny,” you whine, “I saw the movie ‘The Day After Tomorrow’ and they showed scientists drilling ice out of Antarctica to measure the earth’s temperature – they can go back hundreds, maybe even thousands of years.”

And?

This winter has been one of the coldest winters in years. Unless you happen to live where I live, Utah. It was super cold for about a week in December and it’s been warm since. Can you honestly tell me the record cold in New York can be measured and somehow applied to Utah? If you can, I’m willing to learn. End of tangent.

Let me give you two little facts:

1- Global warming stopped seventeen years ago. Al Gore didn’t invent the internet, but he sure as hell invented “global warming”…until it stopped. Now everything is blamed on “Climate change.” In the summer, if it’s hot “Climate change!!!.” In the winter, if it’s cold “Climate change!!!.” Whatever happens “Climate Change!!!” (Whew…it makes me really happy that seasonal depression only happens four times a year). Oh wait. I misspoke, according to the article cited global warming “paused” seventeen years ago. The word “paused” heavily implies it could start up again at any moment. It’s super scary. The only reason it isn’t “super-duper scary” is that the environmental alarmist have been sooooo far off in their predictions in the past. In 1986 the best and brightest wrung their hands and predicted how much warming there would be between 1997 and today. They were slightly off. By roughly 300%.

You read correctly. 300%. I don’t care how famous you are or how many letters you have after your name, no credentials can compensate for an error that big.

Twain

While I’m on it, no one in the scientific community predicted the “pausing” of global warming between 1997 and today. And yet we are supposed to follow, zombie-like, the suggestions (nay, demands) these jackasses are ramming down our throats. If we follow the cry that “We have to do something,” we are going to radically change the economies of the industrialized nations, thus harming the poorest of the poor in developing nations. Which brings me to fact number two.

2- None of suggested proposals will do anything to curb the (non-existent) rise in global temperatures.

Cap and Trade, a carbon tax, The Kyoto Protocols, climate reparations for poor countries. All different approaches, all the same outcome: Not one will reduce global temperatures. Many proponents of these policies have publicly conceded they will do nothing to the climate. It is complete and utter B.S.

More then just B.S. To me, these policies are immoral.

“But Danny,” you whine “how is it immoral? Are you suggesting we do NOTHING?”

It is immoral.

How is it moral to drive around in our air conditioned cars, or sit in our air conditioned home or office and then bitch when they do the same in developing countries?

How can we smugly tell an African country that they can’t drill for oil or mine coal because an international climate control protocol tells them they can’t? Many of these developing countries have a GDP a thousandth of the United States. Further development of these countries will lead to freedom, prosperity and hope. That’s good for everyone. That’s good for the world. Yes, we can feel morally superior as we drive our SUV’s and drink our bottled water, as long as we feel horrible about it. Passing these proposals means the deliberate oppression of the worlds poor, ensuring people will continue to live in poverty and will continue to die.

It really, really chaps my ass.

The last thing we need is another “symbolic gesture” or “good start.” What we need are concrete facts, and years of accurate and verifiable predictions. Until then this should NOT be a political issue.

Crank the A/C. It’s getting hot.

 

LIFEZILLA:  No animals were harmed in the writing of this article.  A cat got stepped on, and someone shot a duck.  But that’s it.

King Germ

Have a Nice Day

Peter Pan

5 responses to “Global Boooooooring (Part 2)

  1. I am no global warming/climate change expert, so if you could please enlighten me, I would be ever so grateful. What is the argument here?

    1. Global warming is a hoax. We have all been duped.

    2. Global warming exists, but humans are not the cause, nor do they perpetuate its condition.

    3. Until 2 +2 + 4, I don’t want to hear about global warming.

    4. Even if global warming were factual, which it clearly is not, we cannot change the course of destiny. Why worry about things we cannot change?

    5. I hate Democrats and stupid Liberals and the fact they feel it noteworthy to discuss makes the issue even more moronic.

    You say: “What we need are concrete facts, and years of accurate and verifiable predictions. Until then this should NOT be a political issue.”

    I understand the desire for concrete fact, but how are we supposed to get there? We didn’t always have a cure for polio…until we did. Nuclear energy didn’t exist…until it did. Science doesn’t happen overnight. Penicillin didn’t just drop down from the heavens and land in our laps. It takes years of study. As far as I am aware, theory is an explanation based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning. It has been tested on some level and confirmed as a principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena. There is a difference between a scientific theory and a scientific law. Not every theory becomes law.

    A theory is examined and tested by several scientists before it is considered scientific law. It stands to reason that there would be much debate in this area. It does not necessarily mean that because there is no overall general consensus that any notion of climate change is hocus pocus.

    Theories and laws evolve over time and long periods of close observation and study of specific criteria. There is a clear distinction between facts, which can be observed and/or measured, and theories, which are explanations and interpretations of the facts. Scientists can have various interpretations of the outcomes of experiments and observations, but the facts, do not change.

    Example:
    Fact: The temperature of the earth is different.
    Fact: Glaciers are melting.
    Fact: Ozone layers are remarkably different now than they were five years ago.
    Theory: We believe humans, and their blatant disregard for CO2 levels (which destroy the ozone layer) are the cause.

    All scientific laws begin as theories. Take evolution. Is it a theory or a law? That depends on who you ask. There is room for discussion, even in science.

    Lastly, I found it very cute the way you threw in your two cents about efforts to study or combat climate change cultivate poverty and are therefore, immoral. Let’s be honest. This is not about the poor, or poverty. One has nothing to do with the other. Your interpretation lends nobility to those whose ideas contradict and study of climate change. It is adorable. I understand why some suggest feel it a waste of time, or don’t find the issue pertinent, but say that. Don’t feign worriment for the poor as the reason you don’t buy into the science of climate change. Your beliefs about climate change do not stem from your heartache for the poor or poverty worldwide, but it does give you a little bit of a warm fuzzy if you spin it like that. I will give you an A for effort there. But, make no mistake, if we were so concerned with poverty, we would end it.

    That isn’t science. It’s a fact.

  2. I had to laugh at Tisha’s 5 point summary of your blog, and I did it out loud. Well, I am no expert on climate change, either, but the topic is something I teach, so… maybe I am a little bit of an expert. Or at least, I know a lot about what the experts say because I read it and study it every semester to find the latest studies and most valid theories. The truth is, I still don’t know what to believe. But this is what I tell my students:
    (1) We probably have more impact on climate change than conservatives would have you believe. If a single volcanic eruption can cool global temperatures for 3 1/2 years (Mt. Pinatubo, 1991), than it is not a stretch to believe that pumping tons of carbon into the air could have lasting, widespread global impacts on climate.
    (2) We probably have less impact on climate change than liberals would have you believe. The earth goes through warming and cooling cycles all by itself, and did long before humans were pumping their crap into the air.
    (3) It is a scientific fact the earth is warming and it is a scientific fact that there is more carbon dioxide in the air than in the past X-amount of years (insert number according to study). The two facts may suggest association, but causation is not proven. It is possible that warmer temperatures may lead to increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
    (4) Regardless of what we’ve been told, the earth has been warmer in human history: in the Altithermal period 7,000 years ago, it was warmer than it is today.
    (5) There are so many things that may be contributing to climate change besides increased greenhouse gases, including orbital variations (Milancovitch cycles), sunspots (Maunder minimum), feedback cycles (positive and negative), changes in ocean circulation, etc. In addition, most climate scientists believe we are still in the Pleistocene Ice age, and simply in an interglacial period between ice advances, and there WILL be another ice advance. Scientists do not know what initiates an ice advance and what initiates a warm up, but in the past, climate has changed dramatically in just a few years or decades.
    (6) Some of the “solutions” proposed to combat warming could have unintended disastrous consequences, such as adding particulates to the air to reflect sunlight (could be the catalyst to global cooling) or to sequester greenhouse gases underground (could have long-term environmental damage).
    (7) Any steps we take to combat carbon emissions would make little difference if we don’t get China and India, the two biggest carbon offenders, to do the same (which will likely take years or decades).
    (8) Scientists do not really know what is going to happen, and anyone who says they do know with certainty is not credible.
    (9) Regardless of how much we impact climate change, and in spite of the evidence I’ve given here that I might be unconcerned with climate change, the increase in greenhouse gases has other negative impacts on our environment and it is in our best interest to aim for better air and cleaner fuels. The less crap we put into the air, the better for everyone, and if we do it the right way, we can encourage cleaner industry around the world without putting people out of jobs and destroying economies. The key is to stop fighting about climate change and find common ground for the sake of just having cleaner, healthier air for everyone.

  3. Oh, and I wanted to point something out. Tisha, you are extremely intelligent and I appreciate your informed and educated opinion on every issue you comment on, so please don’t be offended by this one correction: carbon dioxide does not destroy the ozone layer, but CFCs do. The destruction of the ozone layer is a minor contributor to climate change. In fact, since the ban on CFCs in the late 70s (and much later for the developing world), the rate of ozone depletion has slowed dramatically, and there is some evidence that it is “healing” already. It may be another 50 years before it is in a similar condition before widespead CFC use, but the depletion was not as dramatic as scientists once forecast. The primary concern about carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is that it contributes to the greenhouse effect (absorbs terrestrial radiation rather than allowing it to escape our atmosphere) which leads to warming. Carbon dioxide is a necessary part of our atmosphere and life would not exist if it weren’t there, but of course adding more of it through carbon emissions is the big concern.

    • No offense taken. None, whatsoever.!!!As I said, hardly an area I call myself well learned.

      I would much rather someone correct me and learn than not. You’ve obviously read a book or two on the matter. I know very little.

      I just couldn’t quite figure out which argument he was making. Is it? Isn’t it? Or what causes it? Etc.

  4. Whats the big worry about the planet? The planet is going to be fine. It has experienced multiple extinction level events (ELE) and it bounced back over millennium with barely a look back.
    Humans however will die off in the next ELE and all that money accumulated during the period of time something could have been done will disappear just as surely as the computers that hold those 1’s and 0’s will blink out.
    So really the earth is going to be just fine!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *