Who does have it “right” on climate change?
Quoting phony statistics, and citing bogus “science” that does not stand up to scrutiny or any replication of results, certainly does not make anybody “right”.
Now, nobody denies that climate can and does change, and in fact, may be in the middle of just such a change right now. But there are such a multiplicity of reasons that can affect that change, that to single out one or two factors in the atmosphere as the culprits and cause agents, is to boggle the mind, or a rational mind, anyway.
Carbon dioxide, and even methane, are present in such minute quantities, it is similar in scope to say that a mosquito sitting on an elephant’s back is in control of the elephant. For the most part, the elephant doesn’t even know the mosquito is there, and wouldn’t respond to whatever command from the mosquito in any circumstance.
Neither carbon dioxide nor methane has even a tiny part of the effect that water vapor has on atmospheric heating and cooling, because of some very peculiar characteristics of water. Water has a “triple point” at which it may exist simultaneously as a solid, a liquid, and a gaseous vapor, none of which applies to either carbon dioxide or methane under normal earth conditions of temperature and pressure. It is this “triple point” and the fact that in its solid state, ice can float on liquid water, because it has a LOWER density as it becomes solid, that accounts for virtually all the weather phenomena we are acquainted with.
There is a whole compendium of scientific study that deals with the physical states of water and its effects, and the thermal effects as it changes from one state to another, making water a wholly unique substance, and apparently insufficiently appreciated by these “scientists” that claim that mankind has much of an effect on the vast expanse of nature even as it exists just on planet earth.
Climate change is vastly more complex than these simpletons make it out to be, and certainly, no amount of taxation or regulation is going to have any appreciable effect one way or another.
Ah! The Universal Solvent!
The Entire Theory of Global Warming and the Economic Models the Fed use are incredibly similar. The biggest difference is the solutions being pushed/chosen.
True at earth's normal atmospheric pressures and temperatures. CO2 has a triple point as well, but would only be present high on a mountain in Antarctica if that. But the reason that CO2 has outsized importance for its concentration is water's triple point.
That is because CO2 is always there and water vapor condenses high up leading to net global cooling. The water cycle is part of earth's warming and cooling systems and CO2 has a mostly warming role.
I love your post.