The Science is not Settled
By David Siegel via www.ClimateCurious.com
What is your position on the climate-change debate? What would it take to change your mind?
If the answer is It would take a ton of evidence to change my mind, because my understanding is that the science is settled, and we need to get going on this important issue, that’s what I thought, too. This is my story.
More than thirty years ago, I became vegan because I believed it was healthier (it’s not), and I’ve stayed vegan because I believe it’s better for the environment (it is). I haven’t owned a car in ten years. I love animals; I’ll gladly fly halfway around the world to take photos of them in their natural habitats. I’m a Democrat: I think governments play a key role in helping preserve our environment for the future in the most cost-effective way possible. Over the years, I built a set of assumptions: that Al Gore was right about global warming, that he was the David going up against the industrial Goliath. In 1993, I even wrote a book about it.
Recently, a friend challenged those assumptions. At first, I was annoyed, because I thought the science really was settled. As I started to look at the data and read about climate science, I was surprised, then shocked. As I learned more, I changed my mind. I now think there probably is no climate crisis and that the focus on CO2 takes funding and attention from critical environmental problems. I’ll start by making ten short statements that should challenge your assumptions and then back them up with an essay.
1 • Weather is not climate. There are no studies showing a conclusive link between global warming and increased frequency or intensity of storms, droughts, floods, cold or heat waves.
2 • Natural variation in weather and climate is tremendous. Most of what people call “global warming” is natural, not man-made. The earth is warming, but not quickly, not much, and not lately.
3 • There is tremendous uncertainty as to how the climate really works. Climate models are not yet skillful; predictions are unresolved.
4 • New research shows fluctuations in energy from the sun correlate very strongly with changes in earth’s temperature, better than CO2 levels.
5 • CO2 has very little to do with it. All the decarbonization we can do isn’t going to change the climate much.
6 • There is no such thing as “carbon pollution.” Carbon dioxide is coming out of your nose right now; it is not a poisonous gas. CO2 concentrations in previous eras have been many times higher than they are today.
7 • Sea level will probably continue to rise — not quickly, and not much. Researchers have found no link between CO2 and sea level.
9 • No one has shown any damage to reef or marine systems. Additional man-made CO2 will not likely harm oceans, reef systems, or marine life. Fish are mostly threatened by people, who eat them.
10 • The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and others are pursuing a political agenda and a PR campaign, not scientific inquiry. There’s a tremendous amount of trickery going on under the surface*.
Also See: How a liberal vegan environmentalist made the switch from climate proponent to climate skeptic (wattsupwiththat)
What They Haven’t Told You about Climate Change
Since time immemorial, our climate has been and will always be changing. Patrick Moore explains why “climate change,” far from being a recent human-caused disaster, is, for a myriad of complex reasons, a fact of life on Planet Earth.
The Truth about CO2
Global Warming activists will tell you that CO2 is bad and dangerous. The EPA has even classified it as a pollutant. But is it? Patrick Moore provides some surprising facts about the benefits of CO2 that you won’t hear in the current debate.
By J. Francis Wolfe via Listverse
There is very good reason for all of humanity to have a healthy curiosity relating to near-death experiences. Death is the one experience we are all guaranteed to ultimately share. The field of science has therefore made numerous attempts to explain the near-death phenomena that so many people have independently described.
10 • The Temporoparietal Junction May Be Responsible For Out-Of-Body Experiences
Among the more common elements of near-death experiences is the distinct feeling of an individual having left their worldly body. Those who have had an “out-of-body” experience often report floating above themselves while being able to see their body and the people surrounding them. There have even been a few reports in which those who have had an out-of-body experience can identify objects and events occurring during times in which they were considered clinically dead, but there have also been studies demonstrating that this all could be due to damage in the temporoparietal junction of the brain.
The temporoparietal junction is responsible for assembling the data collected by the body’s senses and organs to form the perception of an individual’s body. When this part of the brain is damaged, it is possible that this results in the “out-of-body” experience that so many people have reported.
Though the experience may appear to be incredibly vivid and real, scientific studies have been able to reproduce this phenomenon without bringing the subject close to death, simply by electrically stimulating the temporoparietal junction of the brain.
9 • Excess Carbon Dioxide May Create The Tunnel And White Light
Nearly every individual who has had a near-death experience discusses the existence of a bright, white light and a tunnel that seems to lead to the afterlife. The white light seems to take on an otherworldly quality and is often accompanied by an overwhelming sense of peacefulness and welcoming.
A 2010 study of patients who had heart attacks revealed that there may be a correlation between this type of near-death experience and the level of CO2 in the blood. Out of the 52 cardiac patients studied, 11 reported a near-death experience. The levels of CO2 in the blood of those 11 patients were significantly higher than the patients who did not report having a near-death experience.
The feeling among researchers is that the excess CO2 in the bloodstream can have a significant effect on vision, which leads to patients seeing the tunnel and the bright light.
8 • Lack Of Oxygen To The Brain Causes Hallucinations
Many near-death experiences include the presence of long-dead friends and relatives appearing and perhaps even guiding the individual as they pass from the world of the living to the afterlife. Memories from every part of life are recalled in rapid succession, and there is an overwhelming sense of comfort, yet it appears that scientific research has provided an explanation for this phenomenon as well.
While excess CO2 has an effect on vision during a near-death experience, a lack of oxygen to the brain also plays a contributing role. It is well known that oxygen deprivation can lead to hallucinations and may even contribute to the feeling of euphoria that is often reported. While the sample size available to researchers is limited, studies have indicated that individuals who reported a near-death experience during cardiac arrest also had lower levels of oxygen.
Researchers believe that oxygen deprivation could well result in people “seeing their lives flash before their eyes” or being transported to a place where they are surrounded by friends and relatives who have long since passed on. This remains just a theory, however, as the other available research seems to indicate that multiple factors contribute to the near-death experience, which include the aforementioned CO2 levels as well. It makes sense in this regard that near-death experiences are commonly reported by those resuscitated following a heart attack, as a heart attack occurs when blood is blocked from reaching the brain.
Always depressing to see the level of scientific illiteracy in the mainstream media and in many cooperation.
So Fox News, CBS, The Weather Channel and USA today all had articles on ‘aircarbon’ which purports to pull carbon out of the air through a hose.
They generally try to be as vague as possible, but claim they are making carbon out of the air, and that this will be cheaper than regular plastic.
Thats Bullshit on every level:
Firstly if they are making a polymer out of carbon dioxide, you need to put a load of energy into it. More than you would have gotten from burning the oil and creating that carbon dioxide in the first place.
If they are talking about pulling methane out of the air, they are so full of bull it beggars belief. Methane in the air runs at about one part per million. Just pumping enough air to do this would cost more energy than just making a polymer out of oil.
Thirdly, if they are talking about making this polymer from biogas/ biomethane.. then all their claims about making it out of the air are outrageously misleading!
Some ball park figures:
1kg of oil makes ~ 1kg of plastic.
Methane is about 1 part in a million in air. So to make 1kg of plastic requires 1 million kg of air (1000 tons). Air is about 1kg per cubic meter so to extract 1kg of ‘air plastic’ from the air would take about 1million cubic meters of air. About the volume of the empire state building!!
By Mason I. Bilderberg – 5/8/2014
As you might know by now, i have serious doubts about the
global warming climate change climate disruption theory. Quite frankly, i’m not convinced. At all.
There’s just too much funny business going on with the language and the alleged “science.”
If you want a more comprehensive insight into the reasons for my doubts, i suggest reading two articles i recently wrote: Global Warming: I Have Questions and Global Warming: Heads they win, tails you lose.
One of the topics i hit upon in my second article (Global Warming: Heads they win, tails you lose) is the use of weasel words in the global warming debate.
This is a real hot point with me – the use of misleading language to distort the
global warming climate change climate disruption argument. If you have to lie, distort and otherwise mislead people to sell your wares, there’s a problem.
As a recent example, over at techtimes.com is this ominous sounding headline:
The first two paragraphs read:
Carbon dioxide levels are the highest they have been in the history of mankind, according to a new study.
Researchers from the Scripps Institute of Oceanography in San Diego, California made an analysis of carbon dioxide levels, finding concentrations at their highest level in 800,000 years. Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels were measured at the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii. Investigators found 401.33 parts per million of the greenhouse gas in the air.
To spot weasel wording you normally would look for some kind of qualifier language within the claim. In this instance, the phrase “800,000 years” jumped off the page at me.
So i naturally asked myself, “Self, why . . . why would they limit this claim to a time frame of 800,000 years when we know the earth is at least 4.5 billion years old and we know scientists have calculated carbon dioxide levels going back AT LEAST 500 million years?”
Here is why: to distort the truth.
Look at the graphs below. First thing to note is the Y axis on both graphs represents the level of CO2 concentration in parts per million (ppm). The Y axis on both graphs are of equal size, this allows you to have an accurate perspective when comparing the CO2 levels between the two graphs.
The top graph represents the last 1 million years. The blue squiggly line represents the CO2 levels for the last 800,000 years that are referenced in the techtimes.com article.
The bottom graph represents the last 600 million years. The blue line represents the CO2 levels for the last 600 million years.
Take a look:
Now do you see why the techtimes.com article couched their scary headline within the 800,000 year time frame? Had they gone back any further they wouldn’t be able to write their tabloid headline! (Added bonus: 800,000 years allows them to use the catchy phrase “since the existence of mankind” which helps advance the “blame mankind” narrative.)
Mason I. Bilderberg (MIB)
More on my
global warming climate change climate disruption perspective: