Link: https://www.trailtimes.ca/ Please see link above for source text, embedded hotlinks, and comments
Ten basic truths that fly in the face of the man-made global warming & climate change narrative Russ Babcock September 1, 2019 1. Since the 1920’s, trends in extreme weather events show neither higher frequency nor higher severity. Yes, they cause more damage and are more costly because we’ve put more infrastructure in their way in the last 100 years. Well kept records actually show (not just ‘indicate’) that frequency and severity are both down a bit from decadal averages of the last century. 2. The average global temperature over the last 100+ years has risen by only 0.9 degrees centigrade. At least half of that rise occurred BEFORE our ubiquitous use of motorized vehicles, planes, machinery, etc. and BEFORE we were harvesting and using copious amounts of hydrocarbons (aka fossil fuels) to meet our energy needs. Roughly the same temperature rise before and after the declared ‘cause’ existed. 3. The oceans are not rising any faster than they have been for at least the last 300 years or so - since the beginning of the end of the “little ice age”, well before anthropogenic generation of CO2. Oceans have risen about 19 centimeters in all of the last century. 4. Whatever the capacity for CO2 to trap heat, that impact diminishes on a logarithmic scale, because the infrared wavelengths (heat) that CO2 absorbs is essentially at saturation levels already. It is scientifically reasonable then to expect the worst impact should occur at the early stages of increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations. The impact that increasing CO2 has thus far had on global temperatures has at worst been very small, and real-world physics tells us that future impacts will be even smaller. I say at worst, because no one, not even our brightest meteorologists and physicists, can definitively quantify the relationship between CO2 and atmospheric temperature.
1
5. The world consumes about 100 million barrels of crude each and every day, and this consumption has been steadily rising since we first discovered it and learned how to use it. One might think we’d be cooking by now if mankind’s use of hydrocarbons was as sinister as the alarmists would have us believe, especially given that earlier increases in CO2 levels are more impactful than later increases. Since 1980 (nearly 40 years ago), when we were first able to measure lower atmospheric temperatures accurately via satellite and without earth surface interferences, the month-on-month average lower atmospheric temperature has increased by about 0.27 degrees centigrade. That is no where near being catastrophic in nature. 6. Water vapour is not only a far better absorber of infrared (heat) but it is generally present at atmospheric concentrations several magnitudes higher than that of CO2 at typical summer temperatures. Why isn’t water vapour given multiple times the demon status of CO2? 7. The only ‘indication’ of future catastrophic temperatures are the results of computer models. Without these models, we’d have only the indication that the global temperatures are still fluctuating well within the bounds of normal and natural historical ranges. No fear in this climate reality - the only climate reality. Climate is changing, just as it always has for millions of years. 8. These computer models were designed in the first place to ‘prove’ that anthropogenic global warming is a legitimate fear. In essence, they mimic an assumed mathematical relationship between CO2 concentration and atmospheric temperature. Their purpose has never been to research causes of changes in weather, changes in global temperatures, nor of changes in climate. 9. The predictions of these models have thus far been demonstrated to be significantly over-stated, when actual temperatures are compared to model-predicted temperatures. They don’t even agree with each other. 10. These models are predicting steeper and steeper future temperature rises as they are ‘adjusted’ to correctly reflect actual historical and current data while remaining consistent with their predicted higher global temperatures in the future. ‘Fudge’ might be a better word than “adjust”? It occurs to me that this steepening curve might be the impetus behind the escalating fear-mongering. Have you ever heard an alarmist explain how CO2 can do what they claim it will do? Ever ask yourself ‘Why not’? We might also consider asking how the above 10 truths can be rationally reconciled with the claims of the alarmists. After all, aren’t we entitled to these answers? Especially given that our governments are planning to tax us to 2
Kingdom Come with carbon taxes and alternative-energy subsidies, while destroying Canada’s hydrocarbon industry and thereby many other dependent enterprises. All this self destruction in the name of setting a good example for the rest of the world? And then when we consider the ridiculous and arrogant notion that we can legislate climate change, that’s really stretching things. Even if all of Canada was to stop burning hydrocarbons completely, it would have negligible impact on global consumption, and zero impact on global temperatures or climate change. We’re a bit player in the grand scheme of things. This entire fiasco is mind boggling. Russ Babcock Genelle, British Columbia, Canada
All of nature is more amazing than some humans. These examples are evidence of a wonderful climate today and proof there are bad extreme green governments.
3