Almost daily some newscaster, activist or leftist politician tells us of the dire consequences of climate change like the “fact” the world will end in 12 years but for the Green New Deal. The actual near-universal fact is that the parrots have little or no understanding of the subject.
Should a reporter ask Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, Beto O’Rourke, or a young college activist to explain “climate change,” the reply would equivalent to: “Well I’m no scientist, but scientists agree that …” then repeat their frightful warnings.
So what’s climate change about?
Carbon dioxide (CO2) is a naturally occurring gas and virtually every animal/human on earth exhales it at every breath. Plants then breathe in CO2, experience growth, then “exhale,” completing the circle.
Humans can survive in an atmosphere containing much higher percentages of CO2 provided the atmosphere contains sufficient oxygen, which is also necessary for life. Fact: without CO2, almost all life on Earth would cease.
CO2 has the property of a so-called “greenhouse gas”; it tends to absorb and retain heat, which would otherwise radiate into space. This property is the basis for speculation that too much CO2 causes negative changes in the global climate.
Approximately 4 parts in 10,000 of the atmosphere are CO2, which amounts to about 3,000 billion tons that’s already present. The left enjoys citing that human activities add about 20 tons of CO2 atmospherically each year. This sounds apocalyptic until compared to already existing amounts. However, all other effects being ignored, the CO2 in the atmosphere would double in about 100 years and quadruple in about three centuries. Even then CO2 would represent less than 2/10ths of 1% of the atmosphere.
What is the effect of such increases? The truth is no one has any legitimate answer. Climate change predictions are based on models that are largely guesswork and have been tested nowhere for validity. For accuracy, such models would need to account for, but do not, many poorly understood factors such as the variable output of the sun. Nevertheless, politicians are fond of citing the results of such models when it suits a political agenda yet are never embarrassed when their calamitous predictions don’t occur.
In 2008 Al Gore predicted the disappearance of Arctic Sea ice in 10 years, yet in 2019 there’s as much ice as ever (https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/12/16).
Similarly in the1990s, much-quoted NASA “scientist” James Hansen predicted New York city and much of that coast would be under water in 20 to 40 years (https://dailycaller.com/2016/04/12).
Over 20 years later there’s no such evidence of any such event.
Irrespectively, we now have Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, New York bartender turned congresswoman and newly minted environmental expert from the Al Gore school of exaggeration, declaring our world will end in 12 years unless we: stop driving our cars, flying airplanes, and producing fuels and electricity, and we must abolish cows and completely rebuild every structure in the country.
No one is claiming or should claim that environmental pollution should not be studied. The problems caused by greenhouse gas emissions are likely to occur over a century or more, not over 10-15 years. However, pure science does not support anything like the drastic actions proposed by blustering politicians.
Here are a few thoughts when pondering the subject:
• Scientists do not agree. Although we’re told scientists agree on global warming/climate change, it simply isn’t true. John Coleman, a climate scientist and founder of the Weather Channel, flatly denies climate change. (https://www.facebook.com/derekmke/videos/550767082090547?sfns=mo) Wikipedia lists more than 50 prominent scientists worldwide who disagree with the alarmists. Scientists who agree with the global warming alarmists tend to receive far more government research dollars than those who disagree with the concept.
• Over the last 35 years, NASA measurements have shown a significant increase in plant growth worldwide, presumably due to increases in CO2 levels, thus a positive greening effect.(https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2436/) The ultimate effect of this is unknown but should serve to buffer negative effects of CO2 increases.
• Polar bears are not dying. Surveys of that population have documented an increase worldwide from about 22,000 bears in 2005 to 30,000 in 2017 (https://www.thegwpf.org/as-polar-bear-numbers-increase-gwpf-calls-for-re-assessment-of-endangered-species-status/). With bears thriving, it’s time for Al Gore’s camp to stop trying to scare the masses by promulgating false information about bears stranded on ice floes.
• The U.S. is not the world’s largest greenhouse gas polluter. That distinction belongs to China, which emits about twice the level of America. The U.S. accounts for about 15% of emissions worldwide.
• Since 2006, U.S. emissions have decreased. Future technology will be a powerful tool in maintaining and increasing the decline.
Many have seen the video of children, pushed out by their teacher, confronting Sen. Dianne Feinstein, declaring their deaths in 12 years due to AOC’s prediction of global climate change. I’m in the camp that instilling a fear of death into a child, for pure political purpose, is a particularly egregious form of child abuse.
John Weaver is a Valencia resident. “Right Here, Right Now” appears Saturdays and rotates among several local Republicans.