Eight years ago, I became aware of the issue of catastrophic, man-made, global warming (CAGW). Since what I read was saying that the world as we knew it was going to end, I thought I’d better do some research.
I tend to believe experts. So, what I was looking for as I investigated were suggestions for helping to lessen the problem and for how my family and I still could come out OK, regardless of what the future held.
It came as quite a shock to me that it was only the scare that was man-made. The Theory was built on misapplied science and a
mountain of BS (I’m being kind). “The science is settled” was built on a tiny piece of the Alarmists’ argument, and nobody disputed that sliver of the Theory.
“The Debate is over” was pure political posturing, since there had been zero debate. And, as time went on, I came to realize that the Alarmists were cowards – they wouldn’t debate because they would lose, and they knew it.
After considerable reading on both sides of the issue, one question kept coming up for me: “If the Alarmists have such a water tight argument, then why do they need to lie and call names?
- Michael Mann analyzed some tree rings. Trees are affected by temperature, CO2, precipitation, if an animal poops nearby, and a bunch of other factors, but Mann reported his results as if temperature was the only factor. And when he drew his Hockey Stick graph, he replaced tree rings after 1980 (they showed a decline) with instrumental measurements which were up. The different scales between the tree rings and the thermometers made the rise look horrifying.
- Keith Briffa came up with his own Hockey Stick, which depended on a single magical tree to get results similar to Mann’s graph.
- Eric Steig analyzed Antarctica and used the western peninsula (with live volcanoes) to smear warmth over large parts of Antarctica away from the Peninsula. (“There are lies, damned lies, and statistics!”)
- Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” showed CO2 causing temperatures to rise and fall over geologic time. In reality, it was the other way around – CO2 followed temps by 800 years on average. (Gore’s A.I.T. has a court order against it in the UK saying that it can’t be shown in schools unless the dozen or so falsehoods are pointed out up front.)
- The US official temperature record has been adjusted continually, and always in the same direction. Recent instrument records were raised while older temps (eg. The 1930s) were lowered. One study showed that these adjustments accounted for about half of the apparent US warming over the last 100 years!
There are numerous other examples.
The Alarmists love to say that there are only a handful of “peer-reviewed” studies challenging CAGW, and that those were funded by Big Oil companies. However, in the ClimateGate scandal, it was shown that the “Team” at CRU had conspired to keep critical studies out of the professional journals; they ousted editors and threatened to destroy journals which ran opposing views. Today, most peer-reviewed journal articles ar skeptical of CAGW. (BTW, “peer-reviewed” in the Climate Science sphere often means “pal-reviewed.”)
And, as for Big Oil, some of those companies actually support the Alarmists, while US government research grants only go to research projects looking for a human cause. The GAO reports that, since 1990, the US has spent $165 Billion on CAGW research and other global warming related activities, including $22 Billion in 2013.
That’s a lot of taxpayer money being wasted – money that we have to borrow. It turns out that that’s just the tip of the iceberg. The CAGW Alarmists have been using it to push a broader anti-energy agenda. They fight coal, they fight oil, they fight gas, and they fight nuclear. These fuels support our prosperity and our way of life.
The CAGW crowd is pushing windmills and solar arrays. Both of these are what is called non-dispatchable: they are not available at the same times and amounts as the demand. What this means is that wind and solar MUST have dispatchable (ie. Coal, gas, or nuclear) backup sources.
Looking at the costs is revealing.
Natural gas is the cheapest, by far. And, while it looks like wind is competitive, if you add in the cost of a backup source, wind is more than double gas costs.
Ironically, while the Greens say that fossil fuels and nuclear are environment unfriendly, they forget that wind and solar kill about a million birds and bats each year, by collisions with windmills or cooking from reflected sunlight.