Commentary #6: Global Warming

[Mark Rippetoe]

Commentary 6: The Religion Of Global Warming - YouTube

Bumping this so it doesn't get lost:

Really, think about this: A 4.6 billion-year-old planet with an 8000-mile diameter, with a molten core (heat, etc.), with an atmosphere that is only 50 miles/240,000ft thick (being rather generous), that orbits a star only 93 million miles away with 330,000 times the earth's mass and that emits enough radiation to burn your naked ass in 30 minutes, is having its weather unalterably changed over the course of the next 5/10/15 years (whatever it is now) by the presence of a weak greenhouse gas, CO2, that happens to now be at its lowest level in damn near the entire history of the planet -- a history punctuated by global glaciations while that weak greenhouse gas was far higher than it is now -- and that also happens to be the basis of plant life (and therefore atmospheric oxygen), a gas whose greenhouse effect is dwarfed by that of water vapor (on a planet with a surface area that consists of 70% water), and that geologically is currently in an interglacial period. The models that generated this political bullshit have predicted nothing correctly -- not sea level change, polar ice cover, or weather.

And everybody believes it anyway, to the extent that they are handing the management of the world's economy to elderly megalomaniacs with an agenda based on their own personal power. You're not even allowed to question it -- otherwise sensible people have agreed with the ridiculous premise that CO2 is a deadly poison that must be eliminated from the surface of the earth. Every August, everybody runs around like it's not supposed to be hot. Every time there's a drought, everybody acts like it's the very first time it's been dry too long. "Hurricane season" started in June, and how many hurricanes have devastated the coastlines already inundated by the molten ice caps? How many times over the past 20 years of this shit have the hurricane predictions been correct?

Really, the children are in charge now, seeking validation for "caring about the planet," running around yelling about "carbon" -- the 4th most abundant element in the physical universe --being a deadly poison. Their managers are common criminals whose entire agenda is money and control, and we are letting it happen. It is the result of the shitty science education we received in the government schools, and it probably cannot be stopped.

[francesco.decaro]

Rip what is your opinion on Bjorn Lomborg's take on the whole climate change thing?

I read a little bit of his latest book, he's been a "denier" first and then became pretty moderate about it for many years.
I believe his take is that what has been considered holy truth is nothing but the simple answer scientists have given to stupid or poorly performed questions.
They asked scientists to project what would happen if we do nothing at all for 50 years, and guess what, things get worse, and then they asked them what we would have to do for that to not happen, and that's where all the net zero bullshit comes from.
That's not a realistic expectation because it doesn't take into account human ingenuity and incentive for progress. That's where all these apocalyptic projections always fail. Same as the Malthusian theory of overpopulation, it didn't take into account the technological progress of food production and conservation, and overall increase in quality of life. It's like having a stock that's been up 10% in a week, and you do a projection of what would happen in 10 weeks if no variables changed, you'd be filthy rich right?!
So the projection might be true, but the conditions upon which they are based are simply unrealistic.
The conclusion is that the climate change effect on our lives COULD BE an issue but all the data we have shows we will handle it just fine and no apocalypse needs to happen.
In fact, Bjorn is building a team of top researchers to propose legislations and action from governments that require cheap and immediate solutions to much much bigger problems (mainly poverty) which in turn will actually improve the population's approach to the environment. Poor people cannot worry about anything long term, so if that's your goal you want to first create as many richer people as possible, because data shows that when people's quality and quantity of life increases, everything else get better.
The irony is that the measures taken based on this faulty premises, will actually create war, famine and poverty, which will actually make the environment worse realizing a self-fulfilling prophecy.

[Mark Rippetoe]

No, no, no, you and Bjorn are proceeding from the same premise, which I have falsified. CO2 is not driving climate change. Prove that it is, please, if you want everybody to accept the changes necessary to "stop climate change." This has not been done, or even attempted.

[Jovan Dragisic]

CO2 is not driving climate change.

It is so funny that people believe it does. You can really tell people anything and it really seems that the dumber the statement, the more likely they are to believe it.

[Farmer]

No, no, no, you and Bjorn are proceeding from the same premise, which I have falsified. CO2 is not driving climate change. Prove that it is, please, if you want everybody to accept the changes necessary to "stop climate change." This has not been done, or even attempted.

Do you believe climate change is happening? just not from CO2 emissions?

[francesco.decaro]

No, no, no, you and Bjorn are proceeding from the same premise, which I have falsified. CO2 is not driving climate change. Prove that it is, please, if you want everybody to accept the changes necessary to "stop climate change." This has not been done, or even attempted.

I see, just to make sure I'm not paraphrasing, this is from Bjorn's book:

"CLIMATE CHANGE IS REAL, it is caused predominately by carbon emissions from humans burning fossil fuels, and we should tackle it intelligently"

"WE HAVE KNOWN for more than a century that more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will lead to higher temperatures. The carbon dioxide typically comes from burning coal, oil, and gas, and as the world has dramatically increased its energy use from these fossil fuels, carbon dioxide emissions have kept increasing, almost tripling in the last half century.
(The source provided here is "Arrhenius, 1986")

Carbon dioxide gas leads to global warming because it lets in the sun’s heat but blocks some of the earth’s heat from escaping and therefore, a bit like a greenhouse, warms us up. What matters for the earth’s temperature is the total amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Each year’s emissions add to the total amount, although the world’s oceans and forests suck out the equivalent of about half of these new emissions"


He goes on to talk about how other issues are more important and focusing only on cutting carbon emissions is counterproductive. So it's still a message that makes sense, but the premise of global warming/climate change is mostly that of CO2 presence in the atmosphere. I guess it's a better way to be heard if you play moderate.
Plus, he debunks many myths and points out how the media falsely portrays the narrative, for example how the polar bear extinction was the major evidence for global warming but once data came out showing there was no or little causation between the two and the main cause was man hunting, it magically disappeared from public awareness.
Same thing with heat waves which actually kill less people than cold weather. How sea level rise also creates more land through accretion, and how the Earth actually got greener.
Stuff like that.

[Mark Rippetoe]

Do you believe climate change is happening? just not from CO2 emissions?

When has the climate not been changing? Do you think the sun stays constant? Think beyond your lifespan for just a second, and name any large multi-variate system that has stayed constant for even a thousand-year period.

I see, just to make sure I'm not paraphrasing, this is from Bjorn's book:

"CLIMATE CHANGE IS REAL, it is caused predominately by carbon emissions from humans burning fossil fuels, and we should tackle it intelligently"

"WE HAVE KNOWN for more than a century that more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will lead to higher temperatures. The carbon dioxide typically comes from burning coal, oil, and gas, and as the world has dramatically increased its energy use from these fossil fuels, carbon dioxide emissions have kept increasing, almost tripling in the last half century.
(The source provided here is "Arrhenius, 1986")

Carbon dioxide gas leads to global warming because it lets in the sun’s heat but blocks some of the earth’s heat from escaping and therefore, a bit like a greenhouse, warms us up. What matters for the earth’s temperature is the total amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Each year’s emissions add to the total amount, although the world’s oceans and forests suck out the equivalent of about half of these new emissions"

There were several periods of global glaciation during the Silurian and Devonian when the atmospheric CO2 was 5-6000 ppm. Explain, Bjorn.

He goes on to talk about how other issues are more important and focusing only on cutting carbon emissions is counterproductive. So it's still a message that makes sense, but the premise of global warming/climate change is mostly that of CO2 presence in the atmosphere. I guess it's a better way to be heard if you play moderate.

Wonderful. He's being "moderate" to stay in the game, even at the expense of the truth.

[mkm5]

So, it was near 90 degrees here over the weekend. We went for a swim in Lake Michigan which was a brisk 38 degrees, and now it's snowing pretty heavy today.

Fucking climate change.

Oh wait, that's just spring in northern Michigan!

[Chiaki Nitya]

In my area they recently starting clearcutting forest areas, destroying ecosystems and habitats, to install new "solar farms". Because nothing says you're pro-environment like destroying the environment.

[francesco.decaro]

There were several periods of global glaciation during the Silurian and Devonian when the atmospheric CO2 was 5-6000 ppm. Explain, Bjorn.



Wonderful. He's being "moderate" to stay in the game, even at the expense of the truth.

Well, I think his goal of trying to get governments to spend even a dime on getting people more rich in poor countries is as crazy as that of stopping the apocalypse, but it is a good intention and it does get people's attention.

Based on that simple explanation he gave, it seems like the conclusion is that CO2 in the atmosphere has always been and will always be rising because no matter what, some of it will remain "trapped" there and accumulate, but it obviously doesn't make sense or the Earth's temperature would have been rising since it's existed.


So is there no data that shows that over the last century the Earth's temperature has risen? Or is it just insignificant data compared to longer time periods and there's no evidence it's effecting or will effect us?