The US withdrawal from the Paris Accord may be the worst thing that ever happened, ever. The Democrats may need to put the Russian investigations on a back burner in view of this disaster. The Paris Accord is claimed to be absolutely necessary to save the planet. The price to the US is incredibly high, but when the whole planet is at stake who’s counting. Certainly not the other countries that are relying on our generosity. Our withdrawal means the $3 billion pledged to the Green Climate Fund by the US before Trump took office will not be paid. Of course, globalists and other countries are upset. When you sit down to a Thanksgiving dinner everyone around the table would probably be upset if the turkey decided to leave. For the amount of money we were expected to contribute, one would think we would be presented with a clear case on what it will buy and why it’s necessary. Not so. There’s a lot of hype, some frightening projections, but nothing more. As we have seen with so many issues breathlessly reported by the press and special interest groups, when the dialog is at a fever pitch, we hardly ever get any real answers, and that’s not by accident. The unproven theory is repeated over and over until skeptics are drowned out. And so the withdrawal from the Paris Accord brought out a good crop of end-of-world forecasters, a few Henny Pennys and a bunch of critics who never like anything the president says or does. However, after Earth Day demonstrations and events earlier this year, the reaction seems almost muted. Not really, but how many times can you look up to see if the sky is falling and realize nothing happened?
Earth Day 2017 was a great lesson in how to argue your case when the data is weak. The day brought out the best and brightest of our scientists. The tone of the day however, may have been more like the year 1633 when Galileo was arrested and convicted of heresy for not going along with the consensus that “the Earth was the stationary center of the universe”. The Roman Inquisition was persuasive, and Galileo recanted. Most academic “climate deniers” who rely on funding from “consensus” scientific organizations have been silenced. But the good news is so far, arrests aren’t being made for being a climate skeptic.
There are two obvious problems with the Paris Accord: It’s really costly and no one has shown it’s necessary. Otherwise, it’s probably okay. The first issue was addressed by President Trump when he withdrew, and is clear. The second issue, that of necessity has been intentionally obscured for years and needs to be understood. Essentially, the question of necessity or lack thereof, can be summed up in four points:
- Without any human activity, for millions of years, the Earth has cycled through extreme climate conditions and produced off-the-chart levels of greenhouse gases.
- Global warming has occurred countless times before human existence and with much greater intensity.
- CO2 levels have been many multiples of today’s level – – all naturally occurring.
- Moreover, when CO2 levels were much higher than current levels the Earth fell into an ice age.
Eminent climate scientists should explain how these things came about before human existence, instead of lecturing us on the evils of being climate deniers. If one gives it a few seconds thought, the question should immediately occur “How did all that happen without one car or plane and before humans pumped one ounce of CO2 into the atmosphere?” If you question the conclusion that everything that happened naturally for millions of years is now suddenly the product of human activity, simply because we produce CO2, you are labeled a “flat-Earth skeptic”, or worse.
Clearly, human activity contributes to CO2 increase, but the impact relative to natural causes is speculative at best. Scientists are convinced that because of enormous industrial activity, CO2 levels have increased to an unheard of 400 ppm, and claim this is disastrous and unnatural in spite of numerous naturally occurring higher CO2 levels, e.g. over 7,000 ppm. Consensus scientists claim CO2 levels of 400 ppm will send us into a greenhouse world. Really? You need to ignore the history of the Earth to accept that since records show at a time when CO2 levels were almost double today’s levels, and at one point as much as 10 times higher than those of today, the Earth went from a greenhouse world to an icehouse world. For two thirds of the last 400 million years CO2 levels were considerably higher than present levels, and yet the Earth has been in an Ice Age for much of that time.
The Earth is currently in an interglacial cycle, which began more than 10,000 years ago. Global warming began at that time and continues today. That’s the very definition of an interglacial period. Global temperature increases since the industrial revolution are clearly less dramatic than those at the beginning of the current interglacial. The most spectacular temperature increases would have occurred when the glaciers began retreating 15,000 years ago or at the time of the submersion of the land bridge across the Bering Strait some 8,000 years ago. All the hype about the seas rising 20 feet, doesn’t approach the drama of those events.
During every previous interglacial the seas have risen, greenhouse gases have increased, and atmospheric CO2 has increased. Current CO2 levels, sea water levels, global temperatures are unremarkable relative to historic levels. Except for the last 100 years or so, fossil fuel combustion played no role in climate change. Since there have been so many historical instances of CO2 increases that make the alleged increase since the industrial revolution look small, it seems counter-intuitive to base the increase on human production rather than the Earth’s naturally occurring carbon dioxide cycle. Furthermore. Arctic ice core samples show the increase in CO2 levels in the past lagged the increase in temperature. This suggests that the rise in temperature causes release of CO2 and not the converse. Anyone can easily verify the above by researching “ice ages” or even just climate changes during geologic periods, instead of the loaded terms “global warming” or “climate change”:
I suspect all the history, all the science and the skepticism will just make some people’s eyes glaze over. So let’s just explore one hypothetical. Suppose your neighbor’s fuel tank explodes precisely at sunrise. Is it logical to believe that the sun rose on that particular day as a result of the explosion? Judging from the programmed response to “consensus”, it’s likely that if enough people proclaim it, many will believe in the sunrise/explosion theory. No matter how hard consensus tries to ignore the past, it is illogical to do so. The above data casts serious doubt on today’s frantic climate conclusions. And the data itself is not in dispute. These are the inconvenient truths. Besides, “consensus” is not science. In the 1970s, after decades of falling temperatures during a time of enormous of industrial expansion, scientific consensus concluded that a glacial period was imminent. The lead story in the June 24, 1974 Time Magazine was Another Ice Age? Consensus was wrong in the 1970s but unlike 1633 no one was imprisoned.