Man-made Climate Change and is CO2 really the Driving Factor?

I think most people will agree that climate change exists. Scientists have found fossils of sea animals at the top of some of the tallest mountains. Remnants of civilizations have been found at the bottom of oceans. When dinosaurs walked this planet, Carbon Dioxide levels were 5 times during the Jurassic period in comparison to what they are today. Hence why trees absorb CO2 since they have always been a form of life on Earth. Oxygen levels increased enough to open the door for more air breathing land animals. Not to mention the multiple ice ages that occurred.

So, for the sake of argument, there has always been some type of natural climate change. Now, we’ll talk about “Man-made” climate change. The idea that with the industrialization and the burning of fossil fuels, raising methane-emitting livestock and our day to day activities have caused this current increase in the average temperature of the entire planet. Human activities have increased this average temperature and the sensitive eco-system’s ripple effect is causing the polar ice caps to melt, causing a rise in the sea levels and well, you know.

The Obama Administration announced that climate change is our number one threat. Notice there is the interchanging of “Man-made climate change” and just “climate change”. It’s kind of like how the anti-Trump folks used “illegal immigrants” and just plain “immigrants” interchangeably. They are two different things. Natural climate change is something we have zero control over. The term “Man-made” or Anthropogenic climate change suggests that it is something that we can control.

I will call the people that believe in man-made climate change as “believers” and those that are not sold as “skeptics”. It’s not by accident that it sounds like that I am talking about a religion. It has all the feel of an organized religion and the jury is still out if it qualifies as one or not.

We are told by the believers that 97% of climate scientists say climate change is real. Is it that simple though? Believers like to take some artistic freedoms when quoting “facts”. Do these scientists believe in “natural climate change” or do they all believe in “man-made climate change”? Because for us skeptics, there is a big difference.

I guess I would not care that a bunch of people believe something that I do not, except the believers expect everyone to take some action in order to counter the effects. If the believer’s had their way, the coal and oil industries would be out of business.

I recently went back and forth with a person that claimed to have knowledge on “anthropogenic climate change”. I asked him the normal questions, like don’t volcanoes and the ocean have a much bigger impact on the climate than humans? And what is the percentage of carbon emissions from humans as it compares to all natural emissions? According to this believer, humans emit 150 times more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than all the volcanoes in the world. Humans contribute 4% of the total carbon emissions. The ocean being the number one offender of Co2 emissions. I was also told that the earth can only absorb 40% of the “extra” carbon emissions, over and above natural emissions. That leaves 60% of the “extra” emissions that stays in the atmosphere and contributes to warming the planet and in turn upsets the Earth’s natural balance.

The Carbon emissions are measured in Gigatons. A Gigaton is a unit of explosive force equal to one billion tons of trinitrotoluene (TNT). Humans emit a total of 6 or 29 gigatons a year. The ocean/plants and soil emits about 300 gigatons.  This whole explanation can get very convoluted and that is how the believers like to sound smart and since they sound smart, they must be right. The only problem is for CO2 to have any effect on global warming, they would have to be at much higher levels than we have today and the jury is still out on that too.

I mentioned the Jurassic period and that the CO2 levels were 5 times higher than the current levels. I will use this argument during a climate change debate. The person I debate will sometimes say that humans were not alive during that period, so it is a moot point. Mammals and the emergence of the direct ancestors of humankind (if you believe that) began during the Pliocene epoch or period. The CO2 levels during the Pliocene period were around 315-380 parts per million (ppm), basically the same levels as today. Because of this similarity, NASA did a study in 1997 comparing the Pliocene period and it’s climate to today’s climate and the whole future of “global warming”.

The focus was during a warming period of the Pliocene and what may have caused this warming. The warming period occurred approximately 2.85 and 3.15 million years ago. In much of their study they used deep ocean core samples of microfossils and pollen records from land-based cores. The data from these samples which they were able to determine warming periods and moisture levels and then ran this data through computer models to see their effect on overall warming. The link to the study is listed below.  I will cut to the chase with an excerpt from the findings in the report.  

“At present, our results do not support the suggestion that Pliocene warming was caused by carbon dioxide increase since such changes are not consistent with the SST (sea surface temperature) distributions derived from deep sea cores. There is evidence that changes in ocean circulation and the amount of the heat oceans transport may be one potential cause of the warming.” - NASA Pliocene Global Warming study

I have seen Bill Nye, who appears to be the mouthpiece for the man-made climate change movement, say multiple times that it is “settled science”. Like I said earlier, the believers use “man-made” climate change interchangeably with “natural” climate change. But, his argument is based on the “settled science” that “high levels” of CO2 causes climate change. I put “high levels” in quotations because what believers are considering high levels of CO2 is also up for debate. The current levels, which at the time of this article (2017) is about 400ppm.

NASA did not see the CO2 levels during the Pliocene period as the cause of the warming. Does that sound like settled science?

Of many of the believers I speak with, most if not all of them, say that the earth will survive regardless of what action we take.  Their concern is the existence of man and if humankind will survive 100 years from now. If the believers had their way, they would close down the coal and the oil industry. If you eliminate these industries along with the affordability of this fuel, how will that impact people? If people lose their jobs and can no longer pay bills or now that we eliminated lower costing fuels, can the poor afford to heat their homes?  If the ultimate goal is to save human lives then should we not consider the current lives on this planet and if the drastic policy changes suggested by the believers will result in the loss of lives?

I’m all for alternative fuels and preserving our environment, but we need to have a balance. If we go around crying that the sky is falling and saying that “climate change” is the number one threat to humans. Who are we helping? People 100 years from now, or people today?

Final thought: Our planet is 4.5 Billion years old and we have about 60 years of climate data. Does that sound like enough data to accurately establish a trend? Are we looking at a grain of sand and making determinations for the entire beach?

~ Sean

 

https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/features/199704_pliocene/

 

Hillary's Campaign Damaged Her Supporters' Psyche...

  I recently read an article posted by a left leaning friend of mine regarding how the writer of this article could not be friends with someone who voted for Trump. The writer feels it is justified because Trump is about "bigotry and hate". The emotional reaction of the Hillary supporters after Trump won the election showed how committed her supporters were and still are.

Hillary’s whole angle early on in her campaign was emphasizing the fact that she was a woman and that it was time for a woman to become President. It worked for President Obama. His campaign motivated the black voters and he easily won two elections. This appeared to be Hillary’s hope that lightning would strike a third time and that she would be the first female President. Regardless of her proposed policies or the direction that she wanted to move the country to. Just vote for her because she is a woman.

As it started to become obvious that Trump would become the Republican nominee, Hillary’s campaign started to focus on Trump’s speeches. Trump resurrected the illegal immigrant issue that had been placed on the back burner for years. The Hillary team and the DNC put it into their spin machine and it turned into Trump being “anti-Immigrant”. They would conveniently drop off the “illegal” part and it took on a life of its own. The same people that gave Bill Clinton a standing ovation for saying almost the same exact words are now accusing Trump of being a “xenophobe”.  His stance on illegal immigrants then was translated by the left that he was a racist and since he is a racist, he must not like blacks either.

“We are a nation of immigrants, but we are also a nation of laws. It is wrong and ultimately self-defeating for a nation of immigrants to permit the kind of abuse of our immigration laws we have seen in the recent years and we must do more to stop it.”

                                   - Pres. Bill Clinton, State of the Union Address, 1995

Trump also courted the Evangelical right in order for him to win over a faction of the Republican Party. The spin machine translated that into Trump was now anti-gay and anti-woman. Hillary harped on these narratives. It became the main points of her speeches. Trump is a bigot, a racist, anti-woman and anti-gay. He’s even the next Hitler who will orchestrate the next holocaust. Trump was accused of fear mongering, yet isn’t that what Hillary’s campaign was doing against Trump?

Protesters were causing violence at Trump rallies and the Media, DNC and Hillary’s campaign would blame Trump. Police cars were set on fire and Trump supporters were assaulted, but the spin machine was working overtime.

The late night shows went on and on about how horrible the country would be if Trump were President. The Media talking heads were so sure that he could never be President. The Hollywood elitists would use what influence they had over their fans to relent against Trump.

All of this was building up within the hearts and minds of Hillary’s supporters.  Of course, Hillary just wanted to become the President. She didn’t seem to be concerned about what damage she was doing to her followers’ psyche. Her campaign would even quote Republicans that disliked Trump. People they were against normally now have some credibility because they don’t like Trump either.

The closer we got to the election the bigger the tidal wave of anti-Trump rhetoric became. The left would marginalize the tens of thousands of attendees showing up at Trump rallies all over the country. Convinced that his supporters were a bunch of racist, backwoods hicks because Hillary said so. Those of us that were not blinded by the overwhelming anti-Trump news reports from all forms of media, saw the large crowds for what they were. People are tired of the direction our country and society is headed. Police are bad, rioters need a space to riot, political correctness has replaced the freedom of speech, our weakening stance in world affairs, the growing racial division, etc. The silent majority needed to step up and be heard.

“You can put half of Trump supporters in what I call the ‘basket of deplorables’. Right? Racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, islamophobic, you name it.”

                                                         - Hillary Clinton, 9/9/16

If you lived in the cities and surrounded yourself with like-minded folks, you did not see this coming. It was nothing to turn on a radio or TV and hear how well Hillary was doing in the polls “Hillary now leading by double digits”, “Trump is losing ground in key states”, “Trump cannot win with only 25% of the party behind him”. It was music to the leftist’s ears. Nothing you read or heard would lead anyone to think that Hillary could lose the election, nothing. Well, maybe if you took a ride into the country to check out the foliage or shop at a farmer’s market and saw all those pesky Trump signs in people’s front yards. They must be anomalies, because Hillary is a slam dunk.

I found it ironic that of all of the celebrities, Michael Moore saw it coming. He read the writing on the wall that every other one of his cronies were ignoring. Moore knew that the power of the working class was strong and they were at their breaking point. Moore’s plea to the working class on his “Trumpland” national tour was his feudal attempt to change the tide and drum up more support for Hillary. Moore gave a very moving speech that touched the heart and soul of the working class Trump supporter. It was even used to drum up more support for Trump. Definitely not Moore’s intentions, but even he understood what was happening. And “Trumpland” has a whole new meaning now.

“That’s why every beaten down, nameless, forgotten, working stiff who used to be part of what was called the working class, loves Trump…The human hand grenade that they could legally throw into the system that stole their lives from them...”

                                                - Michael Moore, “Trumpland”

Election Day came and the impossible became possible. For the left, their nightmares became reality. It made no sense. Everyone, I mean EVERYONE said that Trump would NEVER be President! How could this be?! That feeling of hopelessness. That emptiness. The shock. The inability to see beyond January 20^th, 2017.

You can thank Hillary Clinton and her damaging campaign for those feelings. You can thank the Media political pundits that obviously have no idea what they are talking about. You can thank the late night hosts that convinced you that it was impossible and with a laugh, gave you a false sense of security. Thank all those folks that were so blinded by their own agenda that they covered up your eyes to what was actually going on. Brexit was a wake-up call that you let go to voicemail because you were too busy watching John Oliver or reading the Washington Post.

The moral to this story? Talk to your friends that do not share the same political views you have. Debate with them, nicely. It will either strengthen your beliefs or maybe question them. Watch and read news sources that are not on the liberal reading list. Get the most complete picture possible of what is going on that you can. Venture out of that bubble and learn to accept the fact that things are not always going to go the way you want them to or the way you think they should. Presidents will come and go. Politics are only a small factor in why you are friends with someone. Your day to day lives as a human being in one of the greatest countries in the world is a lot more important than if your friend believes in manmade climate change or not. Or if they think “trickle-down” economics works or not.

Remember, we are all Americans first.

Sean