1. the history of climate picture: let's refer to the most recent warming period since 1830 ("modern warming," as some people call it). keep in mind that, according to IPCC,the human influence on climate is discernible only after 1950.
the data shows about 10 c warming during the "modern" period. yet, in order to understand "warming," we need to compare the "modern" period with previous periods, below:
we get the "Minoan," "Roman," and "Medieval" periods –much warmer than ours ("Minoan" was 4 0c hotter than today, "Roman" by almost 20 c and "Medieval" by 10 c). all the peaks in the chart are within homo sapiens' presence within human history (and they lived through it).
the chart shows that the world was warmer than today for 97% of the last 10,000 years!
another interesting conclusion: our climate has cooled about 0.6 in the last 2,000 years!
stop for a second, is it warmer? is it cooler? you can see it all depends where you make the cut to compare. better yet, is our present temperature dangerous? certainly not, since we've lived and flourished under a 4 degree celsius warmer temperature during minoan times!
simply put: there's no catastrophe.
2. the "man-made" warming argument is settled partly by point 1.
climate changes with, or without humans. furthermore we're going through a brief "cooling" since 1998.
3. the temperature/C02 correlation.
see the graph above, inside the red square: temperature (red curve) moves down as C02 (black curve) moves up. the sun activity/temperature correlation (though generally underestimated) should be factored in:
again, the blue curve (temperature) doesn't coincide with the blue curve, so it counters a possible causation from C02 emissions to global temperatures.
4. the whether vs., climate argument:
an important point in the climate discussion is the distinction between weather and climate.
more precisely, climate (the whole) refers to an average number of weather moments (extended to about 30 years), whereas weather (the part) is a shorter variation of atmospheric moments (days-weeks, etc). whenever we measure colder weather (again: we don't feel climate since one cannot feel an average). what we feel are temperature differences in real time (humidity, pressure, temperature, wind, etc.). recording temperatures means recording particulars, not averages.
climate advocates what one may call event as average fallacy. it consists of showing examples of weather as a proof of climate, when in fact an event should not play double duty (as part and as a whole) as when the heat wave in Paris and Spain in the summer of 2019 was used as evidence of climate change.
be it a cold or a hot wave, neither can be used as a particular event and at the same time as an average.
5. catastrophe or "impending" catastrophe?
there's a difference between "catastrophe" (a sudden widespread calamity) and "impending" catastrophe. impending "means about to occur," the qualifier deflates the "suddenness" out of "catastrophe," making it not a present, but a future event.
that explains why climate change advocates dropped "change" for "catastrophe," which only makes it even more difficult to prove. why?
there's no sudden global calamity to be found. the calamity cannot be regional (since this equivocates the part for the whole). ex: a sequence of fires in California (a particular region), or a Katrina in the Atlantic, or a cyclone in Madagascar, or a drought in Kenya and Sudan. these are all particular events that have to factor in the bigger picture.
all these are regular expected climatological events deflate the suddenness our of the "catastrophe". for example: take a look at the history of drought in Africa: the African continent is susceptible to droughts partly because of geography, but often due to poor agricultural practices.**
look at the deforestation between Dominican Republic and Haiti? only 2% of Haiti is forested.
the differences cannot be explained solely by changes in climate.
6. the 97% consensus on climate catastrophe:
there's no such thing as 97% of consensus in science period.
the 97% burden of proof is a myth (catastrophists wished they had that sort of consensus)
but even then, does general consensus yield truth? the answer is no.
there are plenty of instances in the history of science where consensus has proven wrong.
7. C02, warming, and the inductive problem:
philosophy treats causation a bit differently than science; not that science doesn't get it, only that philosophy raises the bar of causation. take C02 and global warming.
*is warming a necessary cause for C02? only if C02 cannot exist without warming, which is not true, according to NASA, C02 is actually a cooling gas!
*is warming a sufficient condition for C02? only if warming guarantees C02, which is not true, since cold planets such as Mars has 94% C02 and –60 0c surface temperature.
8. the intractable problem of failed predictions:
Paul Elrich, noted biologist, author of The Population P, fpredicted a global famine by 1975. "It's too late," he said. FALSE.
In 1970, James P. Lodge Jr., director of the NCAR, predicted a "new ice age" by 2000. FALSE.
Prince Charles, no scientist, in 2009: "we have 96 months left." FALSE.
Professor Peter Wadhams, forecasts "ice free Arctic in two years." FALSE.
US Navy predicts summer ice free Arctic "as early as 2016." FALSE.
Al Gore, in 2009, predicts polar "ice cap may disappear by summer 2014." FALSE
French foreign minister Laurent Fabius in 2014 gives "500 days" notice to avoid climate chaos. FALSE.
the list goes on and on,
9. a theory is reliable ONLY if its models are predictable!
if prediction repeatedly fails, we have reasons to believe that the predictive models don't work (unless there's a non-scientific agenda behind the constant appeal to fear).
No comments:
Post a Comment