Why this new meme on social media is not just wrong, but belittling watts up with that gas x strips side effects


When “John” gets up in the morning he has a clearly defined choice – he can get in his car and drive to work, burning fossil fuels in the process (even with an electric car since the energy has to come from somewhere) or he can stay at home and skip work. Each choice has immediate consequences – if he goes to work he gets paid, if he stays at home he does not get paid and risks being fired. The first choice (burning the fossil fuels) provides for his family. The second does not.

Hospitals can’t economically produce their own vaccines and medicines in-house. For vaccines and medicines like antibiotics to be available to the masses, they have to be mass produced in places like London and shipped throughout the world to save countless lives. It’s not pixie dust that provides the energy for that transportation. The first choice (producing medicines on site) makes them so prohibitively expensive that only the extremely rich could afford them. electricity wikipedia simple english The second choice (using fossil fuels to ship them) is far more efficient and makes them readily available to most anyone.

These are facts that no sensible person could dispute. Now the climate alarmists tell us that all the fossil fuel consumption added up since the dawn of the industrial age have produced a mere 1C increase in temperature so far, and that we should prevent it from hitting 1.5C – all while simultaneously telling us of this hidden heat “in the pipeline” that has yet to manifest itself even of we were to quit cold turkey and not pump any more CO2 into the air. It stands to reason that if this 1.5C goal is to be achieved, dramatic reductions in the use of fossil fuels will be required. In fact they say exactly that: “The world’s politicians have just over a decade left to implement drastic transformations in their energy, food and transport systems that could avoid dangerous climate change, a [UN] report has revealed.”

Nobody burns fossil fuels for the simple joy of combustion, except perhaps for the trivial exercise of setting off fireworks or shooting at a target on a range. Virtually every single use of fossil has an concomitant, very real benefit such as those listed above, and it therefore follows that any “dramatic” reduction in that use sufficient to hit the caps we’re told we have to hit would mean that we have to forgo the vast benefits that the use of such dramatic amounts of fossil fuels would otherwise give us UNLESS something wishful ALSO happens such as figuring out an economic way to sequester CO2, or increase the efficiency of solar cells 10-fold, or bring fusion power on line to make up for all those fossil fuels we have to give up burning.

Given these facts, and this reasoning, are you really going to argue that the “precautionary principle” as you’ve argued it should be applied does not militate that we hold off cutting our fossil fuel consumption unless and until these magical advancements happen (in which case fossil fuels should phase out naturally) or alternatively the climate alarmists start showing some tangible proof (instead of mere words offered in the dust pages of peer reviewed books or reports by bureaucrats) that their alarmist future is something other than theory?

This isn’t the full extent of the duplicity, however. The IPCC couches this mere opinion in quantitative terms to give the illusion that the numbers are somehow the result of an objective, scientific approach. For example, they adopt a scale saying “extremely likely” means greater than 95%, “highly likely” means more than 90% etc. and give a list of assessments such as “it is ‘extremely likely’ that ‘most’ of the observed warming is due to greenhouse gasses.” But you have to read somewhere else in a separate paragraph or footnote where they blandly say that these estimates represent the mere “judgment” of the experts.

No honest scientist would either participate in, nor condone, this kind of a tactic. Honest scientists recognize that opinions are anathema to the scientific process – that is why double blind studies are used in any circumstance where the opinions of the researchers could affect the scientific procedure or experiment. Climate “scientists,” however, wallow in their own opinions.

I actually agree to some extent. The problem is that written history doesn’t go back far enough to establish trends and cycles beyond one or two minor cycles and as I said archaeology and anthropology are full of frustrated fantasy writers (with a few good ones mixed in who are probably embarrassed by the fantasy writers). My original AGW “this doesn’t pass the smell test” moment came on Mann’s hockey stick. When the medieval warm period and the little ice age were mysteriously missing, I knew his stuff was bollocks. gaz 67b for sale Whatever proxy he was using didn’t mean what he thought it meant. Both of those events I knew from history.

When I began looking at the data from geology though, I became an unconvinceable skeptic of the whole CAGW/CACC theory. electricity in the body The rocks told me that we had been far warmer and far colder in the past, that CO2 had been much higher and a little lower in the past, that sea levels had been much higher and much lower in the past, basically that the current conditions were totally unremarkable in the grand scheme of this rock’s history.

When I looked at model outputs, I knew I was looking at a misrepresentation of chaos theory – the strange attractors were missing. I also knew that there was no way on earth the chaos onset conditions were properly initialized in their models as the scale was far too large. The initial conditions of the partial differential equations were way too sparse to even begin to get a realistic answer in the output. And yet, climate advocates in white coats were claiming they could predict the temperature of the world 100 years from now. I knew from modeling chaos that there was no way their initial conditions were well enough bounded to even begin to get the answer close ten DAYS from now. I don’t buy the “averaging over blocks” answer to why they are so sure. (OK, it is why they are so sure, I just don’t think the approach is valid!)

So they changed track and went for the more regional explanation Climate Change, The Climate changes 4 times a year for the tropics Summer, Autumn, Winter and Spring in that order, which we used to call the seasons. Outside the Tropics Autumn and Spring are hard to observe so they say those areas only get 2 observable seasons Summer and winter.

“An urban heat island (UHI) is an urban area or metropolitan area that is significantly warmer than its surrounding rural areas due to human activities. The temperature difference usually is larger at night than during the day, and is most apparent when winds are weak. UHI is most noticeable during the summer and winter. The main cause of the urban heat island effect is from the modification of land surfaces.[1][2] Waste heat generated by energy usage is a secondary contributor.[3] As a population center grows, it tends to expand its area and increase its average temperature. The less-used term heat island refers to any area, populated or not, which is consistently hotter than the surrounding area.”

If anything, the Precautionary Principle should error on the side of a small net warming is a beneficial perspective. Folks in the LIA would have died for a bit of beneficial warming, and there is no doubt that life was tough for those in a cooler world. A return to those conditions, even for 3-4 years of sudden cooling because of a significant forcing event like a short cluster of volcanic events would see a major disruption to life on the planet just trying to feed 7.4 billion every day.

We have barely warmed the planet .8 C since 1880, after burning a half trillion tons of carbon since the industrial revolution began. And that admission is from the AGW movement themselves. We have no real idea how much that warming is due to AGW, because we were just coming out of the LIA and it is possible that most of the current warming is completely due to natural variation. However, I am willing to split the difference and realize that nearly .4 C is not unreasonable given so much human activity and the fact that CO2 is minor bit player as a trace GHG. natural gas jokes So less than a half degree warming from everything related to Man’s activities since 1880, including Urban Heat Island effect causing local wacky weather, (climate change) and widespread land use change causing small additional warming to things. If we accept that there is other causes to warming like UHI and land use, then CO2 has to be even less in the equation. Clearly, the sensitivity of CO2 to the climate system is not as originally thought, and the net overall slight warming we have been fortunate to acquire is clearly beneficial. Our present world we now take for granted wouldn’t work at 280 ppmv CO2 and 1 degree C colder.

At the end of the day, wouldn’t you really rather have an extra degree or two built into the climate system, just so that if natural variation takes another down turn for 30 years, or a cluster of external forcing events causes temporary reductions in suitable weather for northern hemisphere grain production, that the Earth has a chance to maintain adequate thermal inertia to bridge a cold snap? That is what the Precautionary Principle should really stand for. It is an insurance policy on staying alive. That should trump everything else. We can adapt to weather, which we should always be doing, but to willfully harm our economies by sacrificing that which has enriched us is plain wrong. e85 gasoline This all needs a major re-think what our priorities actually are.

There is no *the* answer, even when reduced to the question of CO2 alone. IPCC reports have the range of ECS to doubling between 1.5C and 4.5C and hasn’t reduced that range in decades. That’s a factor of three between the low value and the high value, even if we assumed the boundaries of the range were hard limits (Lewis & Curry’s approach certainly allows the possibility of ECS being below 1.5C).

Science has “answered the question” of whether we would expect warming from increased CO2 atmospheric concentration — we would. electricity cost per watt It hasn’t “answered the question” of *how much* warming will happen in a manner suitable for policy purposes, and given the wide ECS range (and failure to reduce it), it’s clear that the true answer is not known and may never be known.

If physicists claimed the average gravitational pull on earth was somewhere between 10 and 30 meters per second squared, and had failed to reduce that range in decades of research, would you claim science has “answered this question”? (To complete the analogy, we could have some physicists condemn anyone believing an observational estimate below 10 as anti-science deniers.)

Actually from my experience of discussing ‘Climate Change’ with family, friends and colleagues rather than a ‘fundamental misrepresentation’ it is simply a semantic or interpretive error. When discussing climate change skeptical people do not interpret the words ‘Climate Change’ literally, what they actually hear is ‘catastrophic climate change’ or ‘human caused catastrophic climate change’ or similar. Often you will hear responses to “What do you think of Climate Change?” such as, “It’s a load of rubbish, it doesn’t exist, the climate is changing all the time anyway, it’s natural ……” There is a huge difference between ‘climate change’ and ‘Climate Change’ to ordinary folk that don’t have any personal skin in the game as it were and when they see official or news reports of ‘climate change’ they respond to ‘Climate Change’. They are not denying climate changes, only that those changes are most likely natural, cyclical and while humans do have an effect on climate, it is most likely minor and transient.

No the real question is whether any of the climate change we are seeing is BAD whether its man caused or not. Is there really a catastrophic scenario? The answer is most assuredly NO, so in fact it doesn’t matter what amount of it is man made and what amount is natural. This is what drives me nuts about the IPCC apologist Nick Stokes and Steven Mosher who both spend their time defending and explaining the climate craziness, whether or not they both actually believe the data both of them absolutely know that there is no Catastrophic scenario, but neither of them will ever cop to it because both of them swim in circles that would eat them alive if they did. Same with most of the casual supporters, yet both will stand by and watch people’s lives get destroyed by the zealots. This is why I have lost all respect for both of them. Mosher most of all because he claims to be a Libertarian which I share with him, but no Libertarian would stand by and watch the mob take control of the state ever.