Global Climate Change
(General,Politics)

All you haters prepare to hate. I’m going to take a position on this hotly debated subject. If you react emotionally to this, you’re participating in the religion of climate change, not the science. Real science isn’t emotional.

This is not an exhaustive treatise on why climate change us bogus. I’m just going to briefly outline some obvious high points.

  • Carbon dioxide is a trace gas (0.0391 %). At that percentage, it could not possibly be that important as a greenhouse gas. Not to such a degree that even significant changes to atmospheric CO2 would be of major importance
  • Water vapor is by far a more effective greenhouse gas. It ranges from 0.2 to 4% in the atmosphere, far more than carbon dioxide.
  • There is no “optimum” temperature for Earth. Earth’s temperature has varied all over the place in the last many millions of years. That’s why we have ice ages and thaws. Global climate change is based on the idea that today’s global temperatures are somehow “optimum” for Earth.
  • The measurements in the IPCC report included readings from numerous Siberian stations. This is all well and good, but after the fall of the Soviet Union, they went off line. But no compensation was made for this in the figures, thus making former and latter figures like comparing apples and oranges. True scientists without an agenda would have known better.
  • The most blindingly obvious influencer of our climate is the sun, which is a very active star. This ought to be obvious to even the elementary school science student. Greenhouse gasses have nothing to compare to the role of the sun in shaping our climate.
  • Plotting solar activity back through history, climate change follows solar activity. The graphs make this clear.
  • Ice ages and thaws follow solar activity, not CO2. Check the graphs.
  • CO2 changes follow not lead climate change, and probably have more to do with the activity of life forms on the planet than anything else. By “activity” I mean things like exhalation and flatulence.
  • Climate hysteria is driven by money. Try getting a grant for research into how climate change isn’t a thing. Now tack on “climate change” to the grant proposal for any other piece of research, and watch how fast you get funded. Huge corporations and people early to the table stand to gain riches beyond compare by promoting climate change and things like “carbon credits”. Folks like Al Gore know this and are already in the game. These people don’t do this out of altruism. It’s money and power.
  • The vaunted IPCC report is deeply suspect. Most of the signatories were not climate scientists. And of those whose endorsement is cited, a significant percentage of them never agreed to endorse the report. They participated, so their endorsement was assumed and falsely attested to by the ultimate authors.

Is mankind having an effect on global climate change? Probably. But the effect is so minimal it might as well be zero. Our sun distorts our global climate far more than CO2 ever could.

And again, the amount of enmity and venom from climate change fanboys against deniers clearly indicates that the fanboys have a religious, not scientific conviction. Which means you could probably show them any science you wanted, and it wouldn’t matter. It’s faith, you see.

People who have this unswerving devotion to “science” and scientists always amuse me. Scientists get it wrong all the time. Don’t believe me? Check the history of science, and you’ll find politics and religion have had and still do have far too great an influence on science than they should. Still doubtful? Look up “dark matter” and find out how the idea came about. If there was ever an example of unscientific “science”, dark matter is it.