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”.
“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
