Most of these global warming/climate change type people don’t even know that the Earth is currently in an interglacial warm period that will probably end with another ice age in a few thousand years.
Let’s follow the science (and the money).
I have a high-school friend that inherited his family farm.
It was quite successful as a grain farm and a founding member of grain co-op.
He owned approximately one quarter-section.
He diligently rotated his crops and made money.
Now, he’s retired in the family farmhouse and has sold all his aerable land to the local Energy Company who are installing solar panels on all the land.
Here is my quandry; if the solar panels help to reduce the CO2 being emitted into the atmosphere, I’d like to see the carbon-accounting. By replacing the \carbon sink\ of growing green plants with solar panels, is there AT LEAST a one-for-one exchange of atmospheric CO2 reduction?
One must necessarily go as far back as the solar-panel manufacturing process and the COP2 emissions needed to create and install the panels as well as taking into account the conversion of energy generation for petro-fuels to the solar capture of energy.
I don’t think it balances; the green field (carbon sink) reduces CO2 better.
When I asked my buddy if he sold it because it was the green thing to do, he said, “I’m old and I’m tired. They will pay me $2200/acre. Their money is green, so maybe I did do it for the greenies.”
Happer and vanWijngaartens work has basically put paid to the argument about CO2 and its GHG effect. Getting the political powers to accept reality against their interests, however, is like moving mountains. The einsteins on the SCOTUS already turned their backs on this reality once before.
Oh, it’s “global warming” again. Nice. What the hell ever happened to “climate change”?
I can’t get past the whole issue of planet extinction to begin with. The planet has been far warmer. It has been far colder. It has had both far more and far less CO2 in the atmosphere. So why is it assumed that if the planet warms, that is a bad thing. That seems to be the biggest flaw in their argument. They have not proved the planet can’t be a few degrees warmer.
As I see it. The planet warming allows the planet to feed far more people because vast lands in Russia and Canada become available for farming. Plants grow wild. Animals live on plants. People love the warmer weather. Its a win, win, win.
It may be true that those who own beach front property will loose it in 2 hundred years. But warmer air holds more water. Deserts will shrink, tundra will become usable. The earth will grow so much food that everyone and every species will thrive. And of course we have been here before.
If you want to worry about something. Our demise as a planet will assuredly happen by a rock hurling through space. One clearly hit mars. And eventually, maybe a billion years from now. One will hit us too. That is our end. While it is not likely to come tomorrow. Mathematically it will happen. And we have until then to figure out where to go. Or how to stop it.
And by the way. The earth itself is not our only worry. If the moon is hit, we are in as much trouble. And if another planet is hit or even glanced, it will surely cause havoc on our stable solar system. This little global warming scam is nothing compared to the real threat.
.
The last rule of the “scientific method” is to reevaluate the facts, process and bring in new information. If you can not question it it is not science.
Ping
There is no science supporting the climate change movement as it is a quasi religious cult with an unquestionable dogma. CO2 is a trace gas in our atmosphere at only about 400 parts per million. Most CO2 is from non human sources and is essential for all green plants on the planet. It is preposterous to believe that the entire climate of this planet hinges on only a few parts per million of a single trace gas in our atmosphere
LOL
Global warming caused by humans.
With the ever weaking geomagnetic field, we are going to see increasing violent weather, massive hailstones and lightning strikes that defies belief.
I’m looking for property in Texas Hill Country that has a decent cave on site. You know - for an earth-sheltered home....saving energy and all that Green stuff.
For folks who didn’t jump to the article, the gist of what it says is that CO2 *in and of itself* has an exceedingly slight warming effect at current concentrations - that’s a fact that’s been known for a long time.
The complication is that we don’t know what sort of feedback effect goes along with the relatively insignificant rise in temperature caused directly by an increase in greenhouse gas concentrations. The climate system is so incredibly complex that the dominant feedback effect could be either positive or negative, and can’t be determined from first principles. So the best climate scientists can do is model it - and how much faith one puts in those models is the key question.
Noteworthy is that all the models (there are at least 50 of them) “run hot” - they predict temperatures higher than what we actually see. That all the models are inaccurate stands to reason - the climate system is incredibly complicated. That all of them have been off *in the same direction* for decades indicates dubious scientific credibility - some should run hot, some should run cold, unless they’re all making bogus assumptions, and even though that’s been clear for decades, they haven’t bothered to detect and correct those incorrect approaches.
Of course they still get funding for their work.