1. 97% of Climate Scientists say that it is happening and will be severe.
The 97% only said that CO2 will affect temperature. Everyone agrees with that. They did not agree the effect would be severe. This is a typical tactic of taking a survey of one thing and making it seem like it means more.
In other words yes, temperature is probably being affected by man but it is not clear the amount is large or will be large and the effects are not proven to be all bad or catastrophic.
Co2’s effect is basic science that has been known for 120 years. The problem is that co2 by itself has a minimal effect on the temperature. The climate scientists take the CO2 effect and multiply it by 3-5 using climate models that are unproven and are disputed by thousands if not the majority of scientists including climate scientists.
Using this much higher temperature change from the computer models they then predict horrible things will happen but the science behind the horrible things is based on the high temperature change which is based on bad science and won’t happen anyway because we won’t get these high temperature changes.
If the climate models are wrong then the predictions of doom based on these overheated models are significantly overstated.
Thousands of scientists have argued that climate change will not be severe or is faulty and not proven including Nobel physicists, NASA scientists.
I have proved using a simple probability approach that it is impossible that the change will be catastrophic. This argument is below in the postscript.
Science is not decided by consensus. It is decided by agreement with predictions. Consensus in science is often wrong especially with a young science.
Ask them if they know of any predictions of climate science that have come out correct? To my knowledge no prediction has actually come true except the idea that overall temperatures have gone up but they have gone up much less than the theory and could have gone up for many reasons.
There was never a vote if Einstein was right or if quantum mechanics is correct. Scientists don’t do it by consensus or polls or anything like that. I like to explain this way. Scientists don’t try to jail people who oppose their ideas or suppress them. The fact science predicts and then works allows those who believe in science to build things, to do things, to save people. If your science doesn’t work then you will not be able to predict and everything you do will fail and be a disaster.
When climate scientists refer to polls or Say this is settled science or try to punish “deniers” they are proving they aren’t really scientists but are political activists.
2. Temperatures have been hot for the last 10 years and are the hottest ever
Yes, possibly. The problem is that the rise is so small it doesn’t fit the theory. The total change is 0.8F for the last 75 years. They predicted more than 2 times that would occur. In science when your theory fails it doesn’t mean that its partly right.
The reason is they don’t know why it failed. In order for a theory to remain viable the proponents have to be able to explain why it failed. They can’t. They have no idea. In many cases they try to deny they are wrong. They keep inventing ideas but the models today still predict temperatures twice what has happened for 75 years.
Real scientists don’t hide, lie or try to in any way obscure if they are right or arguments against their theory.
This may seem strict and pedantic but it is critical to understand.
Temperatures have gone up. They said it would, but because they were off by 50% we don’t know if the temperature rise that did happen is 1% because of co2, 10%, 50% or 150%. We don’t. That is simply science. They don’t know what caused the rise we have or the failure so they can’t tell us what chance their theory is even partially correct.
During the period 1915-1945 temperatures rose almost as much as the amount they have risen during the last 40 years. The problem is that we only produced 4% of the CO2 we have produced in the latter period. (One twenty-fifth.). Something else made temperatures go up so much during this period but they don’t explain why.
Not only that but during the period 1945-1975 temperatures went down. This was a period where CO2 output exploded after the end of WWII. Yet temperatures fell.
Clearly other things affect temperature significantly so the fact they have failed to explain any of these movements adequately means we don’t have a settled science yet. We don’t understand what’s happening and what effect CO2 has.
The problem with climate science is they made huge assumptions. This is where I fell off the truck. They made assumptions about the ocean, clouds, the sun and other things that have enormous effect on the temperature, sometimes 1000 times more than co2 and they knew nothing about those other things. The more we learn the more we learn the assumptions they made were wrong. Just this last week they found that 93% of the heat from CO2 has gone into the oceans far more than they thought.
That might explain why we haven’t gotten the rise they predicted. However, the problem is that they haven’t explained if the absorption by the ocean may continue indefinitely and they don’t know when or if the ocean will ever give up that heat or how it will do so. The same thing is true of the sun, clouds and even the vents in the ocean from the mantle. It was very premature to promote this theory when we knew so little and still don’t know so much.
They claim it’s settled but it isn’t. Not even close. We just don’t know why the temperature has varied in history or even recently.
3. There are huge storms happening
This is the most ridiculous argument.
First, we really don’t have reliable data on storms. We have no idea but in fact if you study events in the 20th and 19th century you will see Mother Nature is not nice. In the 20th century there are innumerable storms, droughts, floods and other events that killed millions of people in single events.
During the period 1875-1878 it is estimated some 50 million people died in a worldwide and powerful drought that nobody has explained. When they say that once in 100 year storms are happening more frequently that is either wrong or is based on false data that we can’t possibly have. Nobody knows how often these events happen.
While death is not the only way to measure storms we don’t really have a way to know how bad those storms or storms we never got word of. Until the satellite era reporting of storms is incredibly bad and inconsistent.
Second, even the studies done about this topic do not show any increase in any kind of event. The one way they have found increasing storms is in terms of the economic damage however, that is all because of the much higher value of everything today. In fact, the damage and death tolls in absolute terms is decreasing dramatically because of our technology.
By 2100 we will be so good at predicting and managing storms no one will die from any storms. It will seem silly that we ever thought about these things.
Lastly, another argument is that in fact the frequency of storms is actually the opposite of what they predict. Higher temperatures are inversely correlated with storms for a rather simple and explainable reason. The major energy in tropical storms is derived from the temperature difference between the poles and the equator. The heat and cold creates pressure regions that force wind. This is part of the natural process of trying to equalize the Earth’s temperature.
However, as the climate warms the difference with the poles and the equator is reduced twice as much as the rise over most of the human occupied areas. So, in other words there is excellent reason to understand why the recent storms happened after temperatures DROPPED. Temperatures dropped in the last few years after the El Niño of 2015 as they always do. The difference between the poles and equator accelerated and storms increased.
Thus I predicted for instance that there would be more storms, yet before the El Niño they were constantly talking about how storms would increase but in fact the US had a record number of years without storms. In other words their prediction failed. Now trying to attribute the storms we just got to Global Warming after they failed for 12 years to demonstrate the trend is proof again they don’t know what they are talking about and are wrong about the cause and the numbers.
4. Asthma, war, and virtually everything is caused by Climate Change
This gets to the problem of post-facto prediction again. You cannot say asthma is caused by global warming unless you predicted it before.
Almost all these kinds of studies demonstrate the complete bogus level of science in this field. Frequently these studies start off assuming the worst case 1000ppm rise in CO2 which is impossible and assume 8F temperature change which is impossible.
In every case they make predictions about the year 2100 putting it safely 80 years into the future that none of us will be around to see if they are right and depends on assumptions of things we will do over the next 80 years that are preposterous.
Science works by predicting and then seeing the result matches. It is extremely flawed to look at stuff after it happens and attribute it to your theory. This is effectively not science.
This may seem counterintuitive but it is essential to understand how science is done. The reason is there are a million reasons why something might happen.
If you didn’t predict it then this is more like how astrology works. Oh yeah, you are more analytical? No wonder you are a Virgo. No. That’s not science. If Climate Scientists want to toss their lot with astrologers I am fine with that.
Almost all of these studies are predicting the future based on absurd assumptions. They don’t mention that.
5. They say the world will be destroyed by warming temperatures
For 60 million years while all life on Earth evolved the average temperature has been 16 degrees warmer. Also, the average CO2 for the 60 million years is 5 times the current elevated level.
We are closer to co2 starvation than saturation. Life has done very well and evolved during periods for millions of years that were both much higher in CO2 and temperature. Thus the likelihood that higher temps will harm life or humans is unclear.
This is an important scientific principal called the Anthropogenic principle. The idea is that it is unlikely that our place in the universe or in time or in any way is special. They seem to be assuming that rising temperatures are automatically worse because things are good now.
However, we don’t know the perfect temperature of the Earth. To assume it is the temperature we’ve had for the last 1,000 years or so is unlikely. Extremely unlikely. In fact in physics it is considered a virtual proof of false theory.
This is further buttressed by the point I made above. For the majority of the last 60 million years the Earth has been much warmer and that’s how we evolved.
Other studies also back up the idea that our current temperature is ideal seem wrong. A Lancet study of 74 million deaths found that higher temperatures kill 23 times fewer people than lower temperature. We also know that 15% more people die in the winter than the summer. We also know that vast amounts of the Earth are arctic conditions. Rising temperatures would increase the arable land, increase the growing season and that CO2 mitigates the effect of lower water on plants. In fact co2 stimulates plant growth.
All of this suggests that studies that show that the world will suffer at all from higher temperatures are probably totally wrong. We may easily be better off with higher temperatures.
Surely there will be dislocations but there will be dislocations no matter what we do. It’s unavoidable. Change is inevitable and all we can do is mitigate what we see happens.
If we see temperatures are rising and some regions become less arable they may have to shift to other crops or give up farming but this is compensated by vastly more arable lands. The probability that we would have serious problems with the total amount of food is zero. Food productivity is one of our most impressive accomplishments as a species and there is no evidence of it slowing down.
Lastly, it is incredibly unlikely we will see the temperature changes they use to predict this doom.
Over the last 75 years we have increased CO2 concentration by 30%. Temperatures have risen approx 0.8F.
They are telling us that in the next 80 years temperatures will rise another 7.2 degrees F or 10 times what we got in the last 75 years. That is what their predictions of doom are based on.
Yet we see no evidence (like sea level) that temperatures are accelerating at all.
Why would temperatures start accelerating? They have reasons but the fact is this is a theory. A theory that has proven so far wrong.
I have stated this many times. We know how the atmosphere acts with CO2. We have 75 years of experience pouring vast amounts into it. So far, the effect is 0.8F.
The most scientific answer to how the atmosphere will react to another 30% increase in Co2 is exactly what the atmosphere did for the last 75 years. Any other prediction is not scientific and certainly not proven. They may have a theory that says we will get 10 times as much temperatures change that theory is unproven because we haven’t seen it. That is fundamental science. They are saying things that are fundamentally unscientific if they insist they know temperatures will climb 7.2F.
6. Sea rise will bury our cities
The sea level thing is more problematic. Slightly higher temperatures may not seem to be a problem and easily mitigated.
If a city or island is covered in ocean then that seems much harder to mitigate.
The first thing is that the oceans have been rising for centuries. There is no evidence of any increase in the rate. In other words we will have to deal with this because it’s been happening and will happen and there is no way to stop it even if we spent $40 trillion trying to stop CO2. We will still get 8 inches of sea level rise in the 21st century just as we did in the 19th and 20th and nothing we can do will stop this.
Now some climate scientists are saying that sea level rise will accelerate. We have no evidence of that. They have also predicted that it will start accelerating for years and trying desperately to find the acceleration but it isn’t there.
Moreover their predictions of sea level rise have been horrifically off. For instance 30 years ago they said some islands in the pacific (Tuvulu) would be covered already by sea level rise. These islands are actually bigger than they were 30 years ago.
There are 7 reasons why sea level rise is mitigated. 1. As the sea level rises the land tends to buoy up like ice in the arctic. 2. Increasing rain from global warming fills aquifers which raises land levels by 0.27mm / year which also helps with life. 3. Erosion of mountains results in silt accumulating at the coasts which increases coast. 4. Dendritis from the ocean accumulates onto the beaches creating more coast. 5. Plate tectonics are lifting some areas and dropping others. 6. Volcanoes produce lava which increases land mass and coast. 7. Humans build land and expand land increasing coastal areas significantly.
For these reasons the actual coast area of the world has increased by 30,000 km in the last 30 years. In other words the effect again is the opposite of what they say. They never mention this. We are actually gaining coastal land. How can that be happening when sea levels are rising?
We are talking about periods of 100 years. Most buildings in the world didn’t even exist 100 years ago. This is a huge amount of time and most buildings will undergo massive maintenance and possibly torn down and replaced anyway. Sometimes scientists will refer to longer time periods or scare about the size of the ice on the planet and how much it could raise the oceans. The problem is that there is no way for this to happen in less than thousands of years. Civilization has only existed for 5,000 years. We will have to deal with many things in 5,000 years. It is ludicrous of us to worry about things so far into the future.
We don’t know what will happen. Oceans may go up anyway. Over this period we may go into another ice age. We don’t know and we can’t do anything useful now about such ideas. Possibly the Earth will get warmer but even when the Earth was 16 F warmer life was fine. In fact, this is when most of life evolved. Some life may have to change, go extinct but that will happen anyway.
We don’t know what should happen and we can’t stop evolution even if we wanted to. We can’t control the world and we don’t know why most of the major events happened for instance why the world is so much colder than it was a few million years ago. Why has the Earth gone into a periodic cycle of Ice ages every 100,000 years? Why was the cycle 50,000 years 3 million years ago? What slowed down the ice ages? We don’t know and we can’t change or know what will happen. We are wasting money and time trying to mitigate things that we don’t understand and can’t change.
7. There are tipping points where suddenly a small change will cause a massive change and destroy civilization
This is an argument that even Michael Bloomberg has used. The idea is that if the current science isn’t bad enough just imagine that something we don’t know will suddenly happen.
The problem with these “tipping points” is that nobody knows why these events happen or if they will happen whether we do something or not. We might be mitigating tipping points by producing CO2.
One unknown consequence of increasing CO2 has been the greening of the world and increasing agricultural efficiency. Since satellites looked 50 years ago we’ve noticed the Earth has gotten 30% more green. Probably 30% of the agricultural improvements we’ve had to feed humans is because of the extra CO2 we have put into the atmosphere.
This means if we backed off CO2 we might suffer starvation and vegetation decreases and more animals dying not the other way around.
If CO2 increases temperatures then this may mitigate a coming ice age. Nobody knows if and when we will plunge into another ice age but if we do and when we do temperatures will fall 16 F from today. That is 20 times more than the 0.8F we have increased them over the last 75 years. We may prevent or delay the next ice age.
We don’t know.
There are thousands of reasons to worry about things happening like these tipping points. Nobody knows what will happen. Nature has a way of doing something different than we expected. Spending huge amounts of money trying to mitigate things we don’t know will happen is stupid. We need them to prove these things are really going to happen or prove more how it is likely because none of these tipping points is accepted yet as science.
8. Even if they are 99% wrong we should do something in case they are 1% right
This is related to these tipping points.
What if they are right in spite of all the things I’ve written above? Some have argued that the risk if they are right is so high we should do all we can do.
I have said I don’t necessarily think that is a flawed argument. I would say that we should do reasonable things. We shouldn’t panic without actual evidence their theories are right.
We also have to stop blaming everything on Climate Change in unscientific ways like I described above. We need to follow the real scientific method otherwise we are spending $40 trillion based on astrology and likely to go bankrupt.
Should we continue to develop the technology? Yes.
Should we continue to get better at mitigating all the changes we see whether attributable to climate change or not? Yes.
Should we continue to research climate, electric vehicles, battery technology, utilizing alternative energy? Yes.
Should we spend $40 trillion to try and switch to alternative energy before it is competitive economically? NO!
9. Everyone thinks it’s true. You are crazy. This is fact.
There is a huge difference between those predicting 6 meter sea level rise, 175 degree temperatures in the Middle East, the end of civilization and 50% or more of all living things gone and people who think temperatures will go up 1 or 2 degrees and it will produce minor inconvenience or even positive changes.
So, the first question is “What is true?”
People believe all kinds of things and outcomes and believe an unbelievable number of things are going to happen because of climate change. They will even argue it’s already happening even though they never predicted these things would happen and nobody has really studied how or why.
None of this is known. Practically nothing is actually known.
Also, the crazy thing is to do something without strong evidence it is happening the way the doomsayers say it is happening and that we have a mitigation that will work.
Europe has invested an incredible amount of money in alternative energy. The result is a massive failure. Already they are claiming 40,000 people died from energy poverty last year in Europe who couldn’t heat their homes or for other related reasons because energy costs 4 times what it costs in the US.
Virtually none of the alternative energy projects have worked. This is a huge scandal and incredibly costly. Germany is building 30 coal power plants to compensate for the failed policy making them put out more and more CO2 faster than the US which has been lowering its co2 output by switching to LNG as a majority of our energy production.
The Paris accord would have the US build power plants in the 3rd world to help them compete with the US up to $1 Trillion. We already have a middle class that is in revolt. These are insane ideas. We may crush those countries if they adopt these plants or crush ourselves. It may not work.
Because the production of CO2 is on such a massive scale to significantly change this would cost trillions and trillions. Unless it pays for itself by being the better solution we could waste vast amounts of money that hurt our future more than the benefit.
This is especially because of the scale. Even if we were able to cut massively we will probably make only an insignificant difference in the temperature of 2100. Some have estimated that we could spend $40 trillion and get a temperature only 0.2F lower in 2100.
Are you seriously thinking this is worth it even if you were sure of the numbers?
I am not saying this to delay decisions. I honestly think it is incredibly stupid to spend this kind of money on something with such unsure consequences.
There is also the argument that science makes things much easier and cheaper as time goes on. What costs $1 trillion to do today may be profitable to do in 10 years. In my opinion we should not do anything until we can be far more certain of the science and the consequences.
We need to make this science more like real science. We need to get rid of the zealots and return to calm scientific thought and analysis. We need to concentrate on predictions and making this work today not 100 years in the future and scaring us. Let’s not jump to predicting things 100 years in the future until we understand things better and have a real science with a real ability to predict.