(under construction)
Purpose of post: Just having some notes here so that I can refer people to them.
Disclaimer: I am not an industry plant. I have lived more than half my life on batteries, solar, wind, and all sorts of self-produced energy. I collect rainwater. I produce almost no waste. I don't like money. I don't like being played for a fool.
'You have to admit, Holmes, that a supernatural explanation to this case is
theoretically possible.'
No. Agreed. But, it is a huge mistake to theorize before one has data.
Inevitably, one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.
--- Guy Ritchie, Sherlock Holmes, 2009.
Preface:I'm not disputing there has been a warming trend to climate for the last 200 years or so.
It is well within any "normal" climate fluctuations that we know of, though.
What I'm disputing is that it's caused by human activity.
1) 100 years of (dubious) measurements do not a climate trend make.
See, climate is, well, it's as complicated as it gets. Astronomy is dead simple. So are nuclear physics (up to a point, for both, but really, compared to climate, they are).
Climate is the ultimate chaotic system. The butterfly effect actually refers to it.
We don't understand "chaos theory". We don't understand climate.
We can define "taurocoprography" as "the writing of bullshit" :·)
2) We are smack in the middle of an ice age.
Interglacial period, still an ice age.
Take this graph:
and this:
No, just to put things in perspective a bit, I mean.
There's a million graphs that could widen the perspective, but unless I'm challenged here (I can always change my mind, mind you) I'll stand by my previous statement, 100 years of (dubious) measurements do not a climate trend make.
Also, can anyone please explain to me, from the above graphs, we are obviously at one of the coolest points in the planet's history. Sometimes it's been cooler, but mostly, it's been warmer (yes, it's an ice age), and it's still here.
So why is a minimal temperature increase a "catastrophe"? It can, and will, get a lot warmer. And slightly colder. Repeatedly.
3) The atmosphere.
What's air made of?
Short story, nitrogen (80%), oxygen (20%), everything else, next-to-nothing%
Carbon dioxide has increased from some 300 to just less than 400 parts per million in the last couple hundred years or so. It has been close to 100'000 parts per million in other ages, and the planet hardly burned down.
Not only that though.
Which comes down to 0.00128 per cent of recent changes in CO2.
Not only that though.
Now, think about this. I mean, actually think, don't read the "news" and say, ah but it's in the news, it must be true:
There is not
a shred of scientific evidence anywhere
that these amounts of CO2 can possibly cause any "greenhouse effects".
Honestly, there isn't.
It's a theory. Hardly proven. Go on. Show me the proof.
Oops. You can't. But that nice lady on TV said, it's settled science....
So. It looks like there has been a slight warming trend to climate for the last 200 years or so. It is well within any "normal" climate fluctuations that we know of, though.
Considering... all of the above.
Now, is it caused by human activity?
All scientific evidence points to... no.
Is it well within naturally-occurring climate parameters?
All scientific evidence points to... yes.
Ah, but it's settled science (the wrong way around), and we must act now because otherwise
4) The "scientists".
This is the bad bit. I don't particularly like distrusting people. Call it more of a survival trait.
There is a bit of a problem with subsidized science.
Let's have a possible scenario: I got a theory (that may or not work out to be plausible if studied) about, say, beans.
I do my work, at the end of the year... it's still dubious.
Now, I have two choices. One, I publish findings saying it's dubious (that won't get me much funding) or, I publish findings that say, beans, man, biggest threat to the planet ever (that may get me a fat funding).
I'm an honest scientist, I don't have a mortgage to pay, no girls/boys, no kids, no life, I just may go for the first option. As life goes chances are, most people (scientists are people you know) will go for the second... but hey. We're not exactly talking peanuts, either.
4b) "Consensus"
So we (reportedly) have "consensus" on the unproven theories. We have even more consensus on the resurrection of Jesus for that matter (by the "experts" on the matter), which doesn't quite prove much does it. And I wouldn't count consensus by interested parties for much anyway.
5) "But it's a good thing anyway, isn't it".
We are spending more on carbon conferences - and pseudo-scientists - than on containing Fukushima leaks (and all the rest of serious pollution actually going on).
And kill more trees to print newspapers that warn us of deforestation... and use more electricity on FB posts about saving electricity... than, well you get the point ;·)
Meanwhile, while everyone is out chasing carbon dioxide, which is not, until proven, a pollutant, everybody else feels free to actually pollute the earth to unacceptable levels, and does it out of the spotlight. Not a good deal.
More about that... but maybe you get the idea already.
6) What do you call a deer with no eyes?
(ʇsıʇuǝıɔs ǝʇɐɯıןɔ ɐ)
