Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur
I'll accept any any all evidence that has been peer reviewed by experts in the field of study....I do not consider opinions by a writer who has no expertise in climate science evidence....It is not evidence.
|
My objections to the dogma of the climate-change cult, are just those things which seem obvious to even the most unaffiliated. And I am incredibly disappointed with the people wanting to have government solve a problem which hasn't been proven to exist, or to ever exist.
Pretty much everything the global-warming alarmists have ever said has easily proven to be false. They have been yelling climate catastrophe for decades. Saying that hurricanes, tornadoes, forest fires, floods, droughts, etc, will all occur much more often. Yet, the opposite has been true. They claim the polar bears are going extinct, but they are doing just fine. Let alone the fact that the polar bears survived the Eemian just fine, when temperatures were much much warmer than they are today(or are even likely to be).
They keep going on rants about climate refugees and shouting about half of the species on Earth will go extinct. Some have even proclaimed that humans will go extinct, or that they will be forced to the polar regions to escape blistering heat and drought. They scream that the sea-levels will rise and coastal cities will be inundated. Yet, there isn't any real evidence that any of those things will actually happen. At least not on any of the time-scales which makes them an actual threat.
The only things which can actually be proven in regards to climate-change, is recorded temperatures, and sea-level rise. But yet, temperatures haven't been going up at all in nearly two decades. Regardless of the fact that the media jumped on the idea that 2014 was the "hottest year on record". Of course, it didn't actually turn out to be the hottest year at all. Even more, sea-level rise has actually slowed down in recent years.
For decades they have given us predictions of "runaway global-warming". Yet, when the warming didn't materialize, did they say they were wrong? Could it be that CO2 isn't nearly as big a driver of climate as they imagine? Could it be that atmospheric CO2 going from .030% to .039% probably isn't going to change much. Could it be that the primary driver of the climate is something we aren't quite sure of? I mean, didn't temperatures rise significantly from 1910 till about 1940? What caused that rise in temperature? CO2? Or something else?
Global mean temperature 1860-1997
Might it be remotely possible that we still have a long ways to go before we really know how the climate works? Might it be remotely possible that the vast majority of climate-scientists are just shooting in the dark in regards to their climate models?
Will people like Michael Mann and his infamous "hockey stick", admit that he misrepresented or distorted the data for his environmental activist purposes? Will the regular people begin to recognize that the vast majority of people who become climate scientists, tend to be environmental activists. Will these activists masquerading as scientists ever admit that they were wrong? Will they ever admit that they have an agenda?
They won't, and to some extent they can't. Their funding relies on them appearing to know more than everyone else. They must have confidence in their models. So what do they do? They just say "the heat must be going somewhere, so it must be going into the ocean".
You basically have these people who have never been right, who continue to rant about how if we don't do something about our CO2 emissions, that life on Earth will basically come to an end. More importantly they repeat incessantly that any change to our climate or our atmospheric CO2 levels is necessarily a bad thing. They refuse to even entertain for a moment that the climate is going to change regardless of if we burn fossil fuels. They refuse to even think about the possibility that a changing climate, or higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere could be of any tangible benefit whatsoever.
They continue to perpetuate this idea, either intentionally or because they haven't thought through the implications of what they are saying, that the current climate is for all intents and purposes "perfect". That any departure from what we have today(or what we had in the recent past) would be destructive on a massive scale. It is just completely narrow-minded and/or delusional thinking.
That isn't to say that I believe global-warming alarmists are bad people. In fact, I would say that global-warming alarmists are the same type of self-righteous, holier-than-thou people as the people who are trying to propagandize everyone not to smoke, or not to drink, or not to do drugs. They are same people who repeat lies about secondhand-smoke, and pass laws to ban even "tobacco vaporizers" from any public space(including private businesses).
These people think they are looking out for the interests of individuals. Protecting them from corporations and the profit-seekers, and even trying to protect you from yourself. In this case, they truly believe that their efforts are for the purpose of "saving the world" or at least "making the world a better place".
These people pushing climate-change are environmentalists. These people hate fossil fuels, and to some extent they even hate modern civilization. If they weren't out trying to convince us of the global-warming boogeyman, they would be out creating some other boogeyman. At one time it was pollution, then it was the bees, or the trees, or plastic in the ocean. For that matter, a great many of them also hate wind turbines because they kill birds. And they definitely hate GMO's, and want to stop the Japanese whaling ships.
The only reason anyone is listening in regards to AGW, is that it is the first thing these hippies have said in decades that is remotely plausible, and governments are terrified of instability. Plus, politicians love these kinds of issues, because they get to buy votes by throwing around money.
My position is simply "hold your horses, nothing is going to happen anytime soon, the science is still unclear, the earth isn't nearly as fragile as we have been told".
Basically, lets wait until the climate models are better, and can give a more accurate prediction of what the problems are, if any problems exist at all.
Lets keep in mind that solar and wind power make up less than 1% of our total energy consumption. And they will continue to remain a trivial part of our total energy production, because there is no way to store the energy they produce. There is basically nothing we can realistically do other than a lot of "feel-good" projects that will make no difference, but cost a lot of money.
Outside of rhetoric, there will be nothing that can be done for decades. Solar panels on people's roofs can at best reduce demand for fossil fuels roughly ~10%. That means unless you want to send us back to the stone-age, around 90% of our energy will continue to come from fossil fuels for at least half this century, and probably through to the end of the century(if not longer).
With all that said, lets take a quick look at Africa during the last glacial period vs Africa today vs Africa of the "holocene climate optimum"(about 7,500 years ago).
http://www.oocities.org/marie.mitche...imateZones.PNG
You'll notice that the colder Africa is, the more of a desert it is. The warmer Africa is, the greener it becomes. This is actually already happening.
Sahara Desert Greening Due to Climate Change?
http://www.thegwpf.org/images/storie...ller-sahel.pdf
Here is another good article.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/bjorn-lo...ism-1422832462
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
