Whenever people on Facebook mention catastrophic climate change I instantly feel gassy. Suddenly, they’re accusatory scientists specializing in all the causative data — ready to crucify conservatives for having the temerity to contradict them. But do they really know what it’s all about, or are they just full of hot CO2?
Conservatives are often called science deniers, idiots or worse. Coming from arrogant liberals who regularly lambaste President Trump for name calling, the hypocrisy of their name calling is ironic.
However, many conservatives are actually quite scientifically literate. They’re rightly skeptical of the politically motivated doom patrol’s claim that the sky is falling because of human activity — with good reason. The data shows life is actually better now, and warming isn’t a catastrophe.
While the mainstream media focuses on the argument that climate scientists are just underpaid overworked idealists with good intentions, there is usually zero mention as to where their funding comes from. Heritage Foundation’s Stephen Moore followed the money trail and noted that the climate science industry — which burns through hundreds of billions of dollars annually — is largely government funded by liberal donors.
For years, catastrophic climate science skeptics have had to endure the erroneous assertion that 97% of scientists agree on the subject of man-made climate science. The most obvious question to ask here is who interviewed every scientist in the world to find out what they agree on exactly? The answer is — they didn’t.
Joseph Bast and Roy Spencer investigated the 97% scientist consensus claim a few years ago and offered evidence that it’s a product of small sample sizes and flawed data collection. In an article published by Forbes, energy expert Alex Epstein writes “Unfortunately, in the case of 97% of climate scientists agreeing that human beings are the main cause of warming, the researchers have engaged in egregious misconduct.“
WHAT REAL SCIENCE SAYS
Let’s take a quick look at some scientific facts just so we’re all on the same page. The media often divides CO2 into over simplistic categories of good and bad kinds. This is categorically false.
Carbon dioxide is a molecular compound but there aren’t multiple categories of it. If you split CO2 apart or fuse it with other molecules it’s no longer the same molecular compound. There is, however, man-made CO2 and naturally occurring CO2. But neither are categorically good or bad because the resulting CO2 is the same molecular compound in both cases.
Carbon Dioxide is what human beings, living animals, and rotting dead vegetation exhale. Moreover, CO2 is what planetary plant life consumes during the photosynthesis process.
During this process of carbon Fixation plants inhale CO2 as a nutrient and exhale oxygen as waste. Animal life then inhales that oxygen and exhales carbon dioxide. Consequently, CO2 is a natural product in the carbon cycle essential to supporting this symbiotic cycle of life on Earth. Without Carbon Dioxide there would be no life on the planet.
Mostly we think of land based trees and grass when we think of plants, but plant life isn’t relegated exclusively to land. In fact the majority of planetary plant life is aquatic. This shouldn’t be surprising considering 75% of the Earth is covered in water.
To the uninitiated, one of the most prolific forms of aquatic plants are phytoplanktons. These macroscopic plants fix more than half of the Carbon Dioxide in our atmosphere. In other words, a majority of the oxygen that you inhale is produced through the carbon fixation process from oceans. In fact, an estimated 258 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide are fixed (converted) by photosynthesis annually.
This estimation does not reflect the other processes of carbon fixation outside of photosynthesis such as chemosynthesis and microbial inorganic carbon fixation. It is currently unknown how much CO2 is converted to oxygen by these other fixation processes.
Here’s where the truth about human caused climate change gets separated from myth like wheat from the chaff. In 2017 the USGS Estimated “the global emissions of energy-related carbon dioxide totaled 32.5 billion metric tons.”
This means the planet consumes at least 225.5 billion metric tons more than humans produce — that we know about. There’s so much carbon fixation taking place — that all decaying plant life and animals (including human activity) don’t come anywhere close to producing enough CO2 (man made or otherwise) to overwhelm our planet’s enormous appetite for carbon dioxide despite what Elon Musk argues. He is flat out wrong.
THE OBLIQUITY HYPOTHESIS
Human created CO2 driven climate change is an area that has received a lot of media scrutiny and criticism. However, another area of science has barely made the headlines — obliquity.
A climatologist named Milutin Milankovitch posited that within an alternating time frame of 40,000 years, the tilt of Earth’s axis varies between 22.1 and 24.5 degrees in a cycle called obliquity. Obliquity, creates extreme seasonal shifts in hemispherical regions as seen by climate scientists but is being ignored entirely.
Currently, the northern hemisphere is tilted towards the sun for longer periods than it has been in the previous 40,000 years. Earth’s current obliquity is actually warming up the Northern arctic ice faster than ever.
Conversely, if the southern hemisphere is tilted away from the sun longer than it had previously been — it’s likely to see a cooling trend. A cooling trend is exactly what is being observed in Antarctica right now according to NASA and WUWT and the continent has been growing as a direct result.
The NASA article goes on to suggest that climate modeler Paul Holland, of the British Antarctic Survey, essentially admits the CMIP5 climate model which world leaders rely on to make policy decisions regarding climate change, is principally wrong because “Almost all of the CMIP5 models produce a decrease in Antarctic sea ice.”
REAL SCIENCE IS NEVER SETTLED
There are an awful lot of unknown variables, and scientific data being ignored in order to perpetuate an obviously politically driven policy direction. When President Trump says that climate change could be man-made, but science doesn’t know — he’s correct and wise to be cautious about making definitive claims because true science is never a settled subject. Real science is ever evolving and embraces new data — it doesn’t ignore it.
In an interview last year, Climate scientist Dr. Judith Curry stated the following, “Solar indirect effects and multi-decadal oscillations of large scale ocean circulations have been effectively ignored in interpreting the causes of the recent warming.“
If 97% of scientists erroneously believe that humans are driving climate change by producing more CO2 than the earth can handle, then why doesn’t Biden’s plan include building artificial means of converting CO2 into oxygen like these artificial leaves instead of seeking to destroy American energy?