I’m not a scientist, and I don’t play one on TV. I do understand math, and have a good understanding of statistics, but don’t ask me to calculate anything because it’s not happening. What I do know that science is always the search for truth to whatever the data and observations tell us; its not about making a hypothesis and finding data to fit it, and presenting only the data that proves it.
When liberals and progressives argue with me, they usually start with pejoratives such as “Climate Denier” or “Fossil Fuel Industry supporter” or some other kind of nonsense they’ve come to use in their “arsenal of comebacks.” The sad reality is, liberals and progressives have little or no understanding science in general. While they have a tendency to use talking points, many of them from advocacy groups that pay scientists for them, they could’t tell you the basis for any point in particular.
From my perspective: The climate has always changed. It will continue to change. The planet has gone through major swings of temperature changes that are far more challenging that man could ever create. As a policy maker, I would tend to lead towards the science when deciding energy policy, to a point. Any good leader would always ask the hard questions such as “What is the hard evidence that mankind is making drastic changes and does it constitute a need to act now?” And the answer will be, “The climate models tells us this.”
Climate Models are computer programs that use the math of physics to replicate the physical process of the atmosphere. A model contains a lot of information that are based on observations and understanding of the land air masses, the oceans, the sun and other components. Because the Earth has continents that are not equal across the oceans, and the earth does not rotate in a perfect circle, nor orbits in one, the planet’s climate is influenced not in any equal way but by they combinations of these. While it is true that the effects of the biosphere impact the climate, that is still poorly understood against natural variation. Indeed, climate models have a hard time distinguishing natural variation and are built on certain assumptions about what constitutes human induced change.
The primary focus by the scientists have been on the green house gases of Carbon Dioxide and Methane (there are others, but these are the primary ones which the advocacy scientists target energy policy.) The more of these gases that we expel into the atmosphere, the more energy that will be captured from the sun and heat the surface of the planet. The effect of global warming is an increase in water vapor, which causes a feedback look for the planet to become warmer, since water vapor makes up 97% of the green house gases.
This seems pretty logical, except for the fact the physics of the atmosphere in a computer model are not only incomplete, but many of the results that have been produced have failed to reproduce major changes in the planet that have occurred in the past century. For example, computer models failed to capture the change in temperature from the 1940’s to the 1970’s where it got cooler. They also failed to predict El Nino’s and La Nina’s with any accuracy on decadal or even century timescales. So you can imagine that predicting the future would have very little if any skill. Sure, they show a general temperature increase, but in cases where there are discrepancies in the models, the scientists claim they may have not understood some processes as well, or perhaps it was volcano activity, or something.
However, these same models have been used to produce scientific papers and the results of these models are being accepted as fact for the future. That’s right, what the Earth will look like in 100 years if we don’t stop producing CO2 in abundance. In order to prop up the notion that CO2 and mankind is affecting the planet, and lending support to the models themselves, the governments of the world via the UN set up the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which is dedicated to provide the best science available to policy makers.
The IPCC however, has a problem. Its not made up entirely of scientists. Its also made up of government officials, environmental advocacy groups, and political operatives. There have been many problems with the IPCC reporting and how they present the science to support the facts they wish you to know. In reality, the IPCC does little to bring anything of substance to policy makers accept to parrot the environmental advocacy, and in some cases, the evidence to prove the bastardization of the process has become more widely available.
With the age of the internet, more and more citizen scientists and policy examiners are now able to dissect and analyze with good scientific and political prowess to demonstrate the flaws of this waste of government bureaucracy and hypocritical nonsense. I say that because there is a growing trend among the participants of the organization to classify damages being caused by climate change as a result of industrialized countries that affect third world countries and to even suggest that the big boys start paying the little boys in reparations, to be determined later. They have already decided with whatever science they accept (and I mean there is science out there they do not accept that challenges many of their conclusions or falsifies the science they do use) as true is settled. They have moved on to mitigation and resolution.
Over the next few months, I will share more about my views with various articles and links to websites that demonstrate the problems with this theory. Believe it or not, there are actual climate scientists that believe or are in the process of evolving to the side that we may have jumped the gun here and need to do more science and study. That course of action is more reasonable and supportive than the fantasy that driving my car is pushing us to some sort of tipping point of doom.