What is the difference between the Loch Ness Monster and Climate Change? Answer: Loch Ness is a harmless bit of flim-flam helping local restaurant and motel businesses and Climate Change is a monstrous lie damaging economies world-wide.
- Carbon Dioxide concentrations in ice core samples are an effect, not a cause of warming
- Physics of the theory collapses at first glance
- The so-called hockey stick curve is a total fabrication
- Medieval warm period was hotter than the twentieth century
Now comes the “Green New Deal.” It’s not that it is unsupportably expensive; it is wholly unnecessary and is drawing focus to the wrong question. We should not be asking, ‘”How can we afford it?” or what can we do within our ability to pay. We ought to be asking “Is it even necessary?” Is there such a phenomenon as man-made climate change? The answer to that is, absolutely not.
Proponents of this bogus science fall into one of the following categories:
- Totally ignorant of the science and shouldn’t be speaking about it in public.
- Don’t know and don’t care but find it a useful political tool.
- Know it is bogus science and implement it for personal gain.
Man-Made Climate Change (MMCC) is a hoax created with aforethought and malice for the benefit of a few at the expense of everyone else. It is given credibility by an agenda-driven media employing talking heads who wouldn’t know a molecule from a molar. Anyone who has completed a high school physics course could, with a little effort, figure this out for themselves.
It ain’t rocket science; in fact, it’s not science at all. It’s a hoax, a lie. Climatology is a complicated science that deals with atmosphere mechanics and any climatologist who parrots MMCC is probably feeding at the government grant trough.
I have a degree in civil engineering and spent 40 years in U.S. and European environmental markets. The purpose of this article is to lay out the argument in terms that everyone can understand.
Anatomy of a Hoax
A powerful new telescope has found living creatures on the moon! That hoax was perpetrated in 1835 by the Sun newspaper in New York, which they admitted to less than a month later after six articles, but not before a committee of Yale University scientists investigated without learning they had been tricked.
Another 19th century hoax was the “Cardiff Giant” using the figure of a ten-foot man carved out of gypsum with the creator charging admission to view the petrified remains of a giant as described in the Bible’s Book of Genesis. An early 20th century tale of the Loch Ness monster nurtured by doctored photos fostered tourism to this Scottish location by people hoping to get a glimpse of a throw-back to the dinosaur age.
All of which lends credence to a variation of P.T. Barnum: “You can fool enough people enough of the time” to make a buck or two.
MMCC is a holdover from a late-20th century hoax that has exacted huge worldwide cost. In 1983, Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, in tough labor negotiations with the powerful coal miners’ union, used the notion that carbon dioxide resulting from fossil fuel combustion could have grave consequences on our environment.
Not one to miss an opportunity to scam money from the U.S. and other developed economies for the benefit of general assembly members, the U.N. monetized this idea with the mother of all hoaxes. In 1988, they created the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). Most telling is that the charter did not begin by asking if this was a valid theory, but dove right in to remedy implementation where the money is.
Far from your run-of-the-mill scam, MMCC is Pandora’s Box stuffed inside a Trojan Horse, and brought the world economy to its knees using science with the same validity as moon creatures, petrified giants and lagoon monsters. We will examine in detail the two major aspects of this hoax, the cost and the science, and will conclude with identifying the folks pushing MMCC and their motives.
Costs of MMCC
Energy and its production is the beating heart of a modern economy; without electricity, transportation and ambient temperatures in our homes and work places, we will regress to an agrarian society. As the sign on the back of an Amish buggy warned, “be careful not to step in our exhaust.”
Concerns about MMCC put a lid on fossil fuel exploration and development, driving up the cost of energy.
There is a profound effect of increasing energy costs. As crude oil peaked at $140/barrel in 2008, consumer spending took a nose dive. With less money available for consumer spending, fewer people were needed for the production of goods and services resulting in the loss of millions of jobs worldwide.
Net effect on the individual is dramatic. A comparison between total energy cost for a family of four during the last four years of Presidents Clinton and Bush 43 saw those costs increase $642 per month under Bush, according to the Department of Energy. In addition to cost of energy for personal transportation, electrical and home heating and cooling, additional expense for business transportation, electrical and heating and cooling were passed along to the consumer.
Obsessed with control over how we shall live, governments used MMCC as a tool to reach their goal.
By way of perspective, the 1973 Arab oil embargo saw the price of crude oil increase from three dollars to five dollars per barrel.
- Combustion of fossil fuels, oil, gas and coal contributes to a build-up of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
- Carbon dioxide (CO2) is defined as “greenhouse” gas meaning that it traps heat in the atmosphere leading to an increase in ambient air temperature.
- A temperature increase for the planet will cause melting polar ice caps with flooding of coastal areas, polar bear extinction, increased severe weather and drought.
- Solutions include solar panels and wind farms, the so-called renewable energies.
The Real Science
Earth temperatures have been fluctuating in response to sun activity for forever. Polar ice cap fluctuations have been observed to coincide between Earth, Mars and other planets in our solar system. A striking example of the effect of sun activity is illustrated by the Maunder Minimum which coincided with the Little Ice Age following the Medieval Warm Period.
In 1990, the IPCC said this is the likely historic temperature of the planet for the last 1000 years:
A comparison with sunspot activity discloses the real driver behind temperature variations. The Little Ice Age was deemed to have ended in 1849 and sunspot activity has generally risen since then, accounting for rising temperatures.
A 2500 molecule air sample will contain 1,952 molecules of nitrogen, 524 molecules of oxygen, 23 molecules of argon and ONE molecule of carbon dioxide.
This is the mathematical equivalent of 400 parts per million of carbon dioxide which MMCC advocates say approaches the level of irreversible change, killing polar bears and inundating our coastal areas. Since carbon dioxide has a specific heat only about twice the other air constituents, it is difficult to see how it could impart a measurable temperature increase to the other 2,499 air molecules. That would be like powering the lights of a major sports stadium through a single household extension cord.
MMCC hoaxsters have relied on four key deceptions to keep their story alive:
- Ice core samples reveal higher concentrations of atmospheric CO2 during warm periods in the planet’s history
- Hockey Stick Curve
- Sea Levels Rising
- It is settled science with which experts agree
Ice Core Samples
Closer inspection of ice core samples disclosed that higher concentrations of atmospheric CO2 occurred at the end of the warm cycles. Oceans are a huge sink for carbon dioxide and, like the open root beer, loses its fizz when left sitting out at room temperature; they can hold less gas when the climate warms. When sun activity heats up the oceans, CO2 is given up to the atmosphere. It is an effect of global warming, not a cause.
Hockey Stick Curve
When the IPCC’s declaration that the 20th century was the hottest in history didn’t square with the Medieval warm period, it was necessary to make it disappear. In 1988, Michael Mann, two years removed from his PhD in physics, fabricated a temperature curve that supported their assertions with a relatively flat shape until it made an abrupt upturn at the 20th century, hence the term “hockey stick” was applied to it. It was used to justify the warmists’ theory of everything. Referring to the IPCC’s Third Assessment Report (TAR), author Christopher Booker in his book, “The Real Global Warming Disaster,” quotes an unnamed observer: “without it, the TAR would have been a very different document, it would not have been able to conclude what it did, nor could the IPCC have convinced world leaders to take the actions they subsequently took.”
The unusual hockey stick shape intrigued a couple of fellows who, though not associated with climate science, were experts in graphical representations. Stephen McIntyre, a financial consultant and statistical analyst was joined by Guelph University economics professor Ross McKitrick. Together, they set about analyzing Dr. Mann’s graphical representation of historic temperatures. They were familiar with hockey stick algorithm at the end of the curve used by people to sell a business prospect. In short, they showed the curve to be without merit based upon dubious assumptions.
Lest we forget the scene in Al Gore’s movie “An Inconvenient Truth,” when he rides a man-lift up 17 feet to dramatize the global warming effect on sea levels.
Whenever MMCC is questioned the answer is always “it’s settled science,” which is an oxymoron. Science is an evolution fostered by continuous input from other scientists giving rise to the term “peer reviewed.” When someone, a scientist, publishes a new idea, it is understood as an invitation for other scientists to criticize or affirm it. Einstein is still being peer-reviewed. They go on to say that 97 percent or even 99 percent of scientists agree. People who disagree are called a derogatory name that ties back to folks who say that the holocaust never occurred. Some have even proposed criminal prosecution for these deniers. Chuck Todd of NBC said anyone who does not believe in MMCC will not be allowed on his TV show.
Who Are the Perps?
It started with the United Nations as a method of transferring wealth from advanced nations to poor countries as previously described. The European Union countries use the information (propaganda) they develop to clamp down on carbon emissions which serves as a control over how their citizens should live, resulting in a lower standard of living. The more people must rely on government for subsistence, the more powerful government becomes. The U.S. was a willing partner in this fiasco until President Donald Trump pulled them out of the Paris accords.
A key feature of this plan is a carbon tax to be levied on developed economies, with proceeds going to poorer countries (read members of the UN general assembly). That gives incentives to restrict fossil fuel development and invest (read sink money) in wind farms and solar panels with much higher costs per energy unit produced.
It also incentivizes participating governments to create grant funds for environmental lobby groups who make political contributions to the cause.
When television discussion panels cover medical subjects, they always have a doctor take part which gives the viewers confidence in what is said. When the subject is law, a lawyer is usually included, but I have never seen a climatologist invited to share climate change discussions.
TV personalities rarely have a background in physics which makes them sound incredibly ill-informed when they talk about this subject. On a recent panel show, one participant opined that the Republicans need to come up with something like the Green New Deal as self-defense. Allowing the most innocuous gesture in this direction would be allowing the camel to get its nose under the tent.
On the jacket of Christopher Booker’s book “The Real Global Warming Disaster” is a quote by Professor Richard Lindzen, described as the world’s leading atmospheric physicist and climate scientist in 2007: “Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early 21st century’s developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree and on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a roll-back of the industrial age.”