So I have had a couple posts drafted about “Climate Change” and “Global Warming” and “Greenhouse Gases” for a long time.
For anyone unfamiliar with where I stand on the subject, here is a quick post about the guy who invented the “hockey stick” theory for “global warming” that Al Gore jumped all over! Michael Mann is now suing a Canadian writer and threatening to destroy America’s most precious freedom!
Here is another on “climate change” and why I hate correlating it to pollution. I just want to promote that we decrease pollution and I don’t want to jump on any scientific bandwagon to do so. I want to use common sense and say “Hey, breathing in chemicals is bad for my health and all life on earth, let’s stop making so damn much of it!”
What’s my problem with Climate Change?
First, the idiot politicians, starting with Al Gore, who are using it to tax the shit out of the middle class. More recently, Alberta elected a socialist d-bag I will now refer to as Rachel Nutley and Canada is being run by an unemployable drama teacher living off his father’s inheritance, now referred to as Justin TruDOH.
These two quacks went to the Paris climate conference last month with the nation’s entourage. I don’t know what to say about this except who the #&!% do you asshats think you are? You are travelling on tax dollars and you are sending more Canadians than Americans, British and Australians combined. Hell we only have 13 less representatives at the event than the French and they are hosting it!
The French aren’t paying for 383 flights, 1000 hotel room nights or 3000 meals. What the hell were these idiots thinking? It is hilarious that the City of Vancouver says that the costs won’t be that substantial because most of it is being paid for by lobbyists. In what world is that better?
We all know what I think of the voters in Vancouver (and Montreal and Toronto).
This is “settled science”
Some ass-hat actually said this to me on Facebook this week. Do you even know what science is?
- Scientist observes something in nature… apple falls from tree
- Scientist comes up with theory… Galileo 1564-1642 “gravitational theory” (based on Aristotle’s work)
- Other scientists try to disprove the theory
- If they can, they come up with new theories
- If they can’t come up with an alternate theory then the initial one becomes accepted
- Ideally, some scientist provides a proof… Isaac Newton’s 1687 “law of universal gravitation” which we then use to discover Neptune.
- Scientists continue proving the “Law” or IMPROVING it… Einstein’s 1915 theory of general relativity
Understand, with this model, we have made leaps and bounds in the scientific community but you also have to understand that we don’t always believe scientists, or we didn’t in the past. For over 1000 years scientists knew the earth was round but people thought it was flat until even after Christopher Columbus tried sailing around it.
So what kind of ‘settled science’ have scientists tried passing off as fact because no other scientist could disprove it?
Phrenology? Phlogiston? Spontaneous generation? Luminiferous aether? The planet Vulcan? and now Global Warming?
How about the expanding Earth theory vs. the theory of plate tectonics? We talk about plate tectonics because it makes so much sense but there is actually no proof that plates shifted to move continents. It is just the best working theory of our day… today.
Keep in mind that since ancient Greeks like Aristotle (384 BC – 322 BC) proposed the geocentric model, and nobody could come up with a better working theory, mankind universally believed that the Earth was the center of the Solar System. That made sense and was “settled science” for 1500 years!
It was so ‘settled’ and the Roman Catholic Church so believed in it, that Galileo, who was friends with Pope Urban VIII from his college days, was almost burned at the stake for publishing his work. He was forced to recant his theory and lived the rest of his days under house arrest. Nice science eh?
Remember that Galileo was the first man to actually have proof since he was using a new invention called the telescope to actually document his theories. But that kind of stuff can’t sway a small mind from following the political aspirations of some charismatic asshat… like Gore, Obama, Nutley and Trudoh.
Don’t argue data in the comments below… send those comments to Tony’s blog… he eats that shit up and really loves this research and knowing more about the science than the scientists.
Are you smarter than every scientist in the world?
About their science? Not even close.
Do I have more common sense? In my thumbnail.
Someone is going to post a list of Scientific groups from NASA to Greenpeace saying how “settled” the science is but I can’t dismiss findings from people like Gunter Ederer who claim that NASA has manipulated their own data sets to make the earth look like it is warming when their actual numbers show it is cooling.
It is not like our government has never lied before.
For the record, guys like Coby Beck have lists all over… these liberals are going to have some tough back-peddling to do because they just jump on bandwagons and kiss their credibility goodbye.
I will listen to guys like John Coleman (founder of The Weather Channel) before a politician, or scientist who depends on a politician for grants. But here is a man with something to lose by speaking his mind…
I have studied this topic seriously for years. It has become a political and environment agenda item, but the science is not valid.
~ John Coleman
I am not saying that “Greenhouse Gases” don’t exist, I am just saying that I can’t believe that they can heat up the earth. This actually defies common sense.
This is probably the stupidest hoax I have seen in my lifetime. The very idea that the atmosphere is being filled with a greenhouse gas is not nuts. By definition, this is stopping radiation emitted by the earth from leaving and thus warming up the planet.
So let’s stop emitting CO2 into our atmosphere. Wait a second, doesn’t our world need CO2 for something? Oh yah, Photosynthesis! That is right, CO2 get used by green plants to produce O2, which is Oxygen. Who needs Oxygen again? I do! And so do these Psycho Liberal Housewives who have nothing to do all day except get on social media and propagate political propaganda about “greenhouse Gases”.
Alternate Theory that actually makes sense?
So let’s try this out for size… you cover all the glass in your greenhouse with tin foil to reflect heat, just like a greenhouse gas.
“Global Warming” liberal whiners would start to complain because the heat from inside (body heat, plant heat, earth radiation, etc.) is being trapped inside and can’t escape. I do not disagree (that the heat won’t escape or that they are whiners.
The flaw in this theory is that you somehow believe that the sun’s radiation is still going to get in. The tin foil is going to stop that too. Please tell me that you agree that the atmosphere gets more heat via radiation from the sun than back from the earth.
If you agree with this, how on earth is your greenhouse gas allowing sun heat in but not earth heat out? The fact of the matter is that greenhouse gases are going to cause an ice age and not anything remotely similar to global warming… if they do anything at all.
If you don’t believe me, stop being such a damn idiot… okay, maybe that was harsh. How about you stop being such a hypocrite? Here is a proof from NASA (and we know how much you love them). It is not anything they will admit changes their theory of climate change, but a great proof for people like me looking for an alternative that makes sense.
Greenhouse gases saved us in 2012 from huge solar radiation which COOLED the earth. They claim that there was so much heat in the upper atmosphere, being bounced back by greenhouse gases, that satellites were slowing down.
I am not saying that “Global Warming” isn’t a theory, I am saying that it isn’t a very good one and the science backing it is very flimsy… we simply haven’t got enough historical data to say what historically has happened.
In my own personal life I have been to the Columbia Icefield where the Athabasca Glacier has had documented recession since 1840. You can go there and see the signs of where the ice was at specific years. This did NOT start in 1992 as these “Global Warming” pundits would have us believe.
Do I believe in climate change? Of course I do! I live in Canada where the climate changes every hour. But I sure as hell have no effect on it and I don’t believe that the other 7 Billion of you do either!
The global temperature is dropping anyhow so who cares? Canadians do (except Nutley and Trudoh).
It is Weather assholes! Stop trying to get government grants by coming up with science that proves it is our fault. We are talking about weather! It changes. Hence, “climate… change”. Did you see that correlation?
Is it only in Canada that we have meteorologists who predict the weather 7 days out and are running an incredible inaccuracy rate of 100% for never predicting the right weather?
Let me see if I have this straight… you understand that we as humans do not have the technology to predict what the hell is going to fall from the sky in 7 days but you think that we are breathing too much and melting the polar ice caps? Seriously? You are a little full of yourself to think that we have that kind of power if I do say so.
“The flaw in this theory is that you somehow believe that the sun’s radiation is still going to get in.”
All visible light is radiation on the electromagnetic spectrum. The fact that we can see sunlight at all proves that the sun’s radiation is getting in. If greenhouse gases blocked the sun’s radiation, as you claim, it would be getting darker as greenhouse gas concentrations increased.
Heat transfers through the vacuum of space as electromagnetic radiation, which is not the same as the way heat exists inside an atmosphere. On Earth, heat can be transferred by conduction and convection, two processes that are impossible between the Earth and the sun because there is no atmosphere between them to convey that heat. But once the sun’s rays heat the surface and the atmosphere, that heat transfers through conduction and convection.
If the Earth could readily convert that heat energy back into electromagnetic radiation, then it would be able to pass through the atmosphere.
It is a good argument Alex… more science than the “climate change” fear mongers have at any rate… but are you agreeing with them that humans are causing more CO2 and that the rise in CO2 is causing the earth to get warmer and that all life will cease to exist because of it?
Please read more of my climate blogs and let me know how you feel…
No, I’m disagreeing with your “alternate theory that actually makes sense,” because it doesn’t make any sense at all. As I’ll go into in more detail later, I know I’m not qualified to answer your questions with any degree of certainty. I’ve done no research. I know only what I read from other people’s research. But I think you’re missing the mark on some basic and well-known scientific principles. Not findings related to climate change, just basic Earth Science.
Your “greenhouse covered with tinfoil” analogy doesn’t make any sense because that’s not how a greenhouse works. If you covered the inside of a greenhouse with tinfoil, it would cease to be a greenhouse, because light from the sun could not enter through the opaque material. While you’re right that radiant energy would not heat the inside of the greenhouse anymore, it’d be because the intervening layer was opaque. If you want to float a layer of tinfoil in the atmosphere, then you’ll be right. Until then, this doesn’t have any bearing on the actual situation. The greenhouse covered in tinfoil would be cool for the same reason it’s cooler in the shade than it is in the sunlight.
Since you asked for my specific positions:
1. Do I agree that humans are causing more CO2? Yes. Producing any amount of CO2 is more than none, and clearly we are producing some.
2. Will the rise in CO2 cause the earth to get warmer? It may contribute. The greenhouse principle is certainly sound and logical, and mean temperatures are increasing. Not by a lot, but they’re going up. We don’t have enough data to say whether the increases are part of a naturally occurring cycle, a result of human activity, or, as is often the case with complex system, a mixture of several variables.
3. Will this exterminate all life on earth? Probably not. But my opinion doesn’t matter.
I am a person on the internet who has not done any firsthand research and has no reliable data. Experts who do nothing but study the Earth for their entire careers cannot agree on the extent to which climate change is affecting the earth, what causes it, and whether it can be changed. All I or anyone else has to go on are the reports that are published and disseminated to us, a boiled down McNugget of information doled out by the media that often bears little to no resemblance to the actual study. I’m self-aware enough to know that I don’t get to have an opinion, at least not one that should be worth anything to anyone but me. If I wrote my opinion on this subject down on a sheet of paper, it wouldn’t even be worth the paper it was written on, because someone ruined it by writing on it.
That doesn’t change the fact, however, that your theory showed a severe lack of understanding of the basic scientific principles involved in this issue. If you want to challenge scientific status quo, that’s great – we need people like you to do it. But you have to understand the basic principles first in order to do so effectively.
Do politicians manipulate people based on fear-mongering and/or incomplete understanding of the scientific principles they espouse? Of course. But if the policies they and your so-called ‘bored liberal housewives’ are pushing call for the stopping of practices that pollute the planet and making more efficient technology that wastes less, then why not go for it?
Blaise Pascal, when asked if he believed in God, said that whether there was a God or not, the potential benefits of believing in one (an eternal life in paradise) was worth having to be nice to people for a few decades. If it turned out that there was no afterlife, he’d have lost nothing, but if there was, there was everything to gain. Why not apply the same thinking here?
Maybe three decades of research will show that we worried over nothing, and we didn’t have to stop pumping toxins into the atmosphere or make cleaner energy or get better use out of the technology we already had. Oh well, we still cleaned up the planet and created new innovative fields of technology (and a ton of jobs in the process).
On the other hand, 30 years from now we could discover that yes, this is a big thing, and could be catastrophic. If that happens, I want to live in the world where we started working on a solution now.
As I see it, investing in measures to stop climate change are reasonable because we have nothing to lose, and everything to gain.
Alright Alex… even though your comments have doubled the word count of this post, I feel kinda obligated to respond because you put more thought into them than anything I have seen in a while…
So first off, nice writing.
Secondly, you absolutely have an opinion that counts. If you aren’t convinced of the science, you should absolutely vote with your convictions. You don’t think that these global climate change politicians are raking it in for big business and tax grabs like I am, but you at least seem to have an open mind.
As for your idea that I object with the “pushing call for the stopping of practices that pollute the planet” you re dead wrong!
Read my opinion here… https://shayneneal.wordpress.com/2015/10/29/climate-change-vs-pollution/
As for your Blaise Pascal reference, I totally understand with where you are coming from but I am on the other side of the fence. I want to stop pollution. If the earth wants to get CO2 to 700ppm then let it. I have no say in that and can do nothing to stop it. I totally believe in the science that has proved that increasing CO2 has zero effect on the temperature… the science may actually prove that increased CO2 is cooling the earth down.
If I look back in 30 years would I be more proud of being prt of the group that allowed the expenditure of $8 Trillion dollars proving that the earth was heating up and developing alternate energy sources that had ZERO chance of helping or would I rather be part of a movement that totally debunked the theory (which has already been done by Al Gore https://shayneneal.wordpress.com/2015/12/07/lets-talk-science-how-is-global-warming-being-tested/ ) and in debunking, freed up people to find solutions to pollution, hunger, human rights violations, world financial crisises and health disasters around the globe?
I was emailed by someone who is much too politically correct to post on my site… or chicken shit, whatever… but the fact remains that I did not do my research when ranting about how much we were spending in Paris on our bloated government.
I had posted that 383 Canadians were requiring 383 flights, 1000 hotel rooms and 3000 meals when it was much closer to 5000 hotel nights and 15,000 meals.
Let’s be subjective and say that flights were $1000 return, meals were $20 each and hotels were $150 per night. If anyone got cheaper prices than this they are the most frugal public servants on the damn planet. Add to this that they probably average a $25 bar tab each night while some will skip the bar and some will have drinks comped by every lobbyist in town, some will be buying drinks for every other politician they meet.
This totals $1.3M Canadian (or about $5000 American). The average hotel room is closer to $400 per night, the meals are probably $50 each and this change alone brings the total to $2.6M and I would suspect this number comes out to be well over $4M when all is said and done.
Pingback: Let’s talk science – How is Global Warming being tested? | Plan B Mentality·