Breakdown of the Climate Debate

by oracleofreason

I felt the need to expand on my original essay on climate skepticism since I think I left out some details and wanted to elaborate on the reasons why I do not subscribe to the idea of anthropogenic global warming. According to basic physics increasing carbon dioxide (CO2) warms the Earth’s surface in which the effect is tantamount to each doubling of carbon dioxide increases in global temperatures by a fixed amount of 1.1 degrees centigrade per doubling all else being equal. There is no serious argument among climate scientists about this. In a system as complicated as the Earth’s climate, however, all else is never equal. The warming caused by increased CO2 results in other changes to the planet’s climate system that add to or counteract warming. The argument between climate skeptics and alarmists is whether the net effect of changes in carbon dioxide is if they increase or decrease warming and by how much.

The entire debate on the issue of global warming and climate change is about the size and direction of the feedback loops which is an increase or a decrease of a weather-related events resulting from temperature elevation. In 2001, the IPCC issued it’s Third Assessment Report which stated that feedback loops were adding to the warming (positive) and the effects would multiply the warming three to six times the 1.1 degree centigrade. The three to six estimate came from the UN as per unvalidated computer models which are not evidence and the organization’s assessment was later invalidated due to multiple errors. Climate skeptics state that the IPCC has never presented evidence to justify the conclusion that the multiplier is three to six times the 1.1 degree centigrade and some predictions that we should have already seen have not come to fruition. Recently there have been mathematical and even climate observation arguments that the feedback multiplier can’t be much over one times the fixed 1.1. If the feedback loop multipliers were as high as six we would have weather catastrophes. But they are not that high which is why we are not.

Some of the consequential changes from warming or increased CO2 are beneficial. For example, as a result of CO2 increases have resulted in major increases in crop yields which means upticks in the food supply. Forest growth is up worldwide in which trees are growing at a faster rate than ever and more algae is present in oceans which means more fish are being produced. Of course, CO2 increases have resulted in reduced storm activity too. Though not all of the effects of increased CO2 are beneficial the alarmists are claiming that increased carbon dioxide is all bad but if the above examples I list point out it clearly is not.

The most important point about this whole issue is not about the climate at all but political control. Back in the 1970’s Dr. James Hansen went on record stating that the Earth was on the brink of another ice age and that government action was needed to prevent it. When the globe started warming, the statements with global cooling were replaced with global warming. Despite most of the arguments for catastrophic global warming having been discredited some groups in the UN is still push to have the international body take over most if not all aspects of industrialized society. For example, during the last IPCC conference held in Doha, United Arab Emirates, a proposal was made that UN approval would be needed before any new product manufactured or industrial process could be used anywhere in the world.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is now set up regulate every aspect of the U.S. economy. Two years ago the agency affirmed the link between fossil fuels and increased CO2 levels, are a hazard to human health and is now justified in regulating any use of fossil fuels in the United States. The agency has issued standards on the construction of any new coal-fired plants and forces the shut down of existing ones. Obama made this point in his 2008 campaign in which he stated that coal-fired plants could be built but they would have to pay for the increased carbon dioxide they emit. These policies are the result of political findings, not scientific ones.

The Father of the Bill of Rights and 5th President of the United States James Madison remarked once that crisis is the rallying cry of tyrants. Barack Obama’s former Chief of Staff now Chicago Mayor Rahm Emmanuel once quipped that no crisis should go to waste and the United States is witnessing tyrannical policies resulting from a hoax crisis that centers around man-made global warming that are grounded in the evil environmentalist ethic of sacrificing mankind to nature.