One of the main arguments made by Al Gore for climate alarmism has been his claim that global temperatures will increase catastrophically with increases in atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide (CO2). He used a hokey correlation analysis to try to prove his case. There is indeed a relationship between temperatures and CO2 since CO2 levels follow temeratures. But based on sophisticated econometric studies, CO2 levels have no significant effect on temperatures in the real world. Rather, CO2 changes follow temperatures, not lead them.
Now that the alleged end of oil and gas has been postponed far into the future, the only remaining argument for reducing CO2 emissions is that using wind and solar will supposedly reduce the the alleged catastrophic increases in global temperatures. And since recent econometric research has found that changes in atmospheric CO2 have no significant effect on temperatures, alarmists are left with no argument at all–just pleas for endless subsidies and propaganda for increasing the cost of electric power.
So why do we continue to subsidize “renewable” energy (except hydropower)? There is no basis for the infant industry argument after decades of building these monstrosities, and wind and solar power have many adverse environmental and economic effects. Fossil fuels also have adverse environmental effects, but after decades of effort these “conventional” effects have been well controlled, if not over-controlled. So far, little progress has been made in reducing the adverse environmental effects of wind and solar, however. Wind and solar kill birds and bats (crucial to keeping down insect populations); both mar the scenery. Windmills annoy humans with unwanted sound. Disposing of wind and solar installations is difficult and expensive, so wind and solar installations tend to hang around long after they are no longer viable because the subsidies have run out. Solar panels contain toxic compounds which can harm the environment if damaged or not very carefully disposed of.
The equation describing the greenhouse effect of CO2 was determined about a hundred years ago by Arrhenius. It is a logarithmic relationship, such that small amounts (over none) have a much greater proportional effect than larger amounts. This is mainly why any increases we make will NOT lead to a significantly greater greenhouse effect.
The IPCC falsely present it as a linear effect, and this is where the science starts to go wrong. In reality, once you exceed ~40ppm (a tenth of today’s levels) the scope for further warming becomes limited.
Honorable science entails the honest quest for truth. It is not about narrative spin of certain facts into a false or flawed interpretation, the abyss into which Democrats have fallen.
President Trump has been a promoter of wrestling matches, entertaing for many, but not credible to others. He has owned casinos. He has hosted a reality tv show. And endorsed an expensive faux educational program for which he later paid out settlements. He has an interesting track record in relation to truth versus illusion or entertainment.
Thus it is interesting he has become a defender of religious faiths under the first amendment. And of free speech upon which science depends. And he is willing to extricate the US from international agreements that No longer help this country. As a builder, Trump knows how to demolish an unsound structure to replace it with better. He is not deer in the headlights frozen into upholding Nafta, uNEP climate stuff, or NATO. He knows that old arrangements need to be revitalized to adjust to changes that happen over decades. He has a flexible ability to fix things that are broken and to chart a better course.
The CIC has been immensely influential in misleading Americans about the scam of climate change. This administration has been remarkably clear minded in teeing up Fake News as an essential ally of the Swamp. Interesting that a businessman defends honest science more fearlessly than vain legions of academic scientists. They only help the President to be more widely appreciated as a winner.
Decades ago, I could not have imagined such a false, flakey, and failed theory being given heed by a political party and then allowed to persist by a captive press and by academics with tenure. This unholy union of lefty politics, docile republicans, fake news, and self silenced academics has been a three way disgrace, vile disrespect to the integrity of science, and a massive failure to uphold free speech and critical thinking.
It was unacceptably bad, but trivial, when Nixon bugged the DNC at Watergate. What’s much worse now is the Washington Post and other lefty lackeys hinder the pursuit of truth rather than try to expose it. This is a shameful reversal but an enormous political opportunity for conservatives.
I’d like to pile on.
How likely is it that photosynthesis enabling carbon dioxide, at trace levels, will ruin the planet? photosynthesis is what enables all life. Only the Fake News, money, and tribal politics could allow such a ridiculous idea to even be talked about.
Is the planet enveloped by glass, are we living within a genuine global green house? No, there is no enveloping glass to enable a real green house effect.
The ridiculous failed theory is only a cover story intended to justify lifting the price of electricity and sending money to supporters. Political leaders should not distort energy markets on grounds of dishonest or foolish science.