Correlation does not equal causation. If the start of a rise in mean global temperature occurs simultaneously with increased emissions of CO2 from industrialization, it does not mean that the latter caused the former.
The burden of proof is on the supporters of AGW to demonstrate the validity of their model, not on the skeptics to prove them wrong.
in the current debate on climate, the AGW hypothesis is unfalsifiable -- if the mean global temperature rises, it's AGW; if it cools, it's AGW. Any observation can be accommodated to AGW. A model that can be expanded to explain everything explains nothing.
CO2 levels in the geological past have exceeded several thousand parts per million, long before humans even existed. So clearly, a natural mechanism for an increase in CO2 content must exist.
The most dire predictions of AGW come not from any observation, but from extrapolation of computer models. Chaotic behavior makes reliance on such models questionable.
In contrast to the claims of this article, there are multiple alternatives to AGW for climate change, including variations in solar radiation, the role of cosmic rays in nucleating cloud formation and global cloud cover, wobbles in the Earth's obliquity over geological time, volcanic pulses that inject massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere and other geological effects, such as meteorite impact. None of these factors are accounted for in climate modeling because we cannot estimate the magnitude of their influence.
Finally, there is the social aspect of all this. Science in this country is largely funded by the federal government, with grants and contracts being distributed on the basis of peer review. Go against your peers at your peril; it is simply much easier and politically savvy to find errors and faults with the grant proposals of the naysayers and skeptics than it is with those of members of the "consensus." Money makes the world go around.
In my lifetime, I have never seen such a poorly justified, scientifically barren, morally corrupt episode as the current campaign of climate change panic, screeching and idiocy. It's a real psychological case study. Future generations will laugh at our credulity.
Just building on your thoughts and trying to view earth dynamically rather than as a test tube the way warmers do.
More CO2 also helps plants grow more quickly. For example, plants grow better where bodies deteriorate. So the added plant life seperates the carbon from the oxygen.
Then there’s the other point — heat causes more evaporation of sea water. Evaporation = clouds. Clouds block sun rays and cool the air. Rain causes more plants to grow. More plants can improve moisture in the region.
Then there is the earth’s crust itself. Heat strains the fault lines. Fault lines crack open volcanoes. Volcanic ash not only blocks sunlight leading to global cooling, but also it helps increase vegetation [although there are temporary areas of devestation].
There are stabalizing factors.
My gawd—that is the best rebuttal I’ve ever read.
Well done.
Bookmarked.
A very odd thing happened last weekend. The death was announced of the man who, in the past 40 years, has arguably been more influential on global politics than any other single individual. Yet the world scarcely noticed.
Had it not been for this man, we would not last week have seen 150 heads of government joining 40,000 delegates in Paris for that mammoth climate conference: the 21st such get-together since, in 1992, he masterminded the Rio "Earth Summit", the largest political gathering in history. Yet few people even know his name.
Some years back, when I was researching for a book called The Real Global Warming Disaster, charting how the late-20th-century panic over climate change came about, few things surprised me more than to discover the absolutely central role played in the whole story by a Canadian socialist multimillionaire, Maurice Strong.........."
---------------------
Greenpeace was founded in Vancouver, Canada in 1971.
---------------------
July 28, 2015: A co-founder of Greenpeace tells the truth on CO2
Dr. Patrick Moore, who was one of the original founders of Greenpeace who left the organization in disgust of their current political zealotry, and Greenpeace is now trying to have him erased from history for daring to do that. He has now produced this interesting video in conjunction with with Prager University that is sure to put some people into conniption fits.
Global Warming activists will tell you that CO2 is bad and dangerous. The EPA has even classified it as a pollutant. But is it? Patrick Moore provides some surprising facts about the benefits of CO2 that you won't hear in the current debate.................."
Dec. 5, 2015 - James Delingpole in Breitbart Big Government: Greenpeace Co-Founder Patrick Moore: Skeptics Are The New 'Thin Green Line'
"....The COP series of conferences (staged once a year in a variety of exotic locations) are a giant bubble inside which only true believers are allowed. That's why people like me don't get press passes. (The official reason given was that, due to the increased security following the Paris terror attacks they'd had to reduce their press quota.) The UN doesn't want cheeky little boys pointing out that the climate Emperor is wearing no clothes. All it wants is more tax, more regulation, more wealth redistribution and more global governance of the kind envisaged by the (recently deceased) Canadian Marxist and one world government enthusiast Maurice Strong when he launched the first major climate summit (and Agenda 21) in Rio in 1992....."
Not many greenies get this. But one who does is a man who has about as much environmental credibility as anyone alive: Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore.
...Greenpeace hates it when you mention Moore because he has since gone to what it considers the dark side. But you only have to look at this glorious gallery of pictures of Moore in his green radical youth. He was the real deal - sitting astride baby fur seals in an (unsuccessful) bid to stop them being clubbed to death, fearlessly steering his rubber inflatable boat into the path of Russian whaling shifts, narrowly missing being blown up when French intelligence agents sank the Greenpeace ship Rainbow Warrior in Auckland harbour, New Zealand..........."
“..with those of members of the “consensus.” Money makes the world go around.”
My 18-year old daughter was just telling about a “discussion” she had in High School with a Bernie Sanders type.
“So you want to talk “facts”? So how come the satellite data for the last 12 years shows no global warming? But 95% of the “experts” say that there is!? - The satellites can’t be bought off!!!”
“If the start of a rise in mean global temperature occurs simultaneously with increased emissions of CO2 from industrialization, it does not mean that the latter caused the former.”
In the ice core data, the increase in CO2 lags; ie FOLLOWS the temperature increase.
Funding — the BIG difference with MMGW compared to the past. Then, political control and taxation of the masses stemming from it.
MMGW theory is much more a money- and power-grabbing scam than science.
Ditto that.
King of Government Subsidies and the Carbon Kick Back Scheme:
Elon Musk: Climate change should be addressed by using taxes to stop companies burning fossil fuels
Thank you for this. It is an excellent and well thought out response.
I hope you won’t mind if I pass this along to others, with proper accreditation of course.
Do NOT use such BIG words on the low info crowd.
Two possible sources are warming oceans and volcanism. If the warming oceans are creating the current CO2, then they would have to warming much more and much faster (50 times faster). If volcanism, then there is an explanation needed: why now? Interestingly there have been spurts of CO2 in the last 20k years, but about 1/2 the current rise, and they stopped. The current one is not stopping. We have 20k years of pretty decent (annual resolution) ice core and leaf stomata and sediment records to back that up.
Excellent points.
The author also sets himself up for contradicting himself with the Einstein quote. The Einstein quote says that overwhelming consensus is irrelevant, inferring that it’s political. Einstein is thus providing support for the 2-3% of skeptics, not the 97% consensus bullies.
The use of the comment shows that he’s only interested in using the Einstein quote because he can twist it to “demonstrate” that _Einstein_ supports his view.