Climate Conspiracy

People often wonder, as I have, that if anthropogenic climate change is a hoax, why is there such a fuss over it by the liberal establishment? What is their motive if not for the actual doom of global warming? Well, before reading on, ask yourself that same question. Consider the following:

Government can be trusted, right?

They have our best interests at heart, right?

They are smarter than we are… right? Wrong. I recently watched video of a congressmen expressing his concern to an Army officer that Guam was going to capsize because there were too many people on it. As if Islands float and can capsize and sink! I believe this to be a rare case of a public official being terribly misinformed (and ignorant) which concerns me greatly regarding those that elected him, but there's the point.

Instead of debating the data (see below for some skeptic-data) right out, let's instead look first at the reasons why they might propagate such a falsehood. Consider, first, that the world has greedily burned through over half the fossil fuels available on the planet, particularly those that are the easiest (and cheapest) to extract from the earth. Also consider that there is no other energy resource as potent and inexpensive to render than fossil fuels. Let me back up that claim: A gallon of gasoline produces over 33,000Watts in energy and requires a fraction of that to extract and refine. Making it the most efficient source of energy we have discovered. Comparably a 250Watt solar panel requires over 5-million watts (or more) to produce. It is producible because we have fossil fuels available to supply the power (coal). Another alternative is nuclear, while efficient, nuclear power plants are not fiscally sustainable. Without heavy subsidization such plants would not exist… they are too expensive. Wind power also requires a lot of energy to get started and the giant turbines have been documented to be a hazard to many birds, including birds of prey. Hydro-electric is clean and sustainable but building dams impacts local wildlife habitat and even here in California dam projects have been battled out in courts for years only to ultimately be scrapped.

I hope this paints a pretty clear picture on just how important fossil fuels are to the energy industry and the governments that rely on it.

As I watch a large 4x4 pickup with a pair of motorcycles in the bed roar by me on my walk  I am reminded of how much fuel is burnt by such a hobby. For just one person. I also note that all the cars roaring by have just one person. Many of them full-size cars or SUV's. Considering all that rambling I did above on energy, this seems quite wasteful. It seems that way because it is.

Here is a really good video explaining another reasoning behind what one might call a climate change conspiracy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3QmkHr0W5Vk

While the Republican party is busy securing our control over the oil industry the Democratic party is busy reducing our use of it, both domestically and abroad. Its a good partnership don't you think? The first attempts at reducing oil consumption used the pollution argument, which I think was a valid argument at the time and I think we have to agree that the smog regulations have drastically cleaned up our air, a win for all. Innovations in the auto industry have cleaned up what cars spew out their tailpipes, but they have not really become much more fuel efficient. Safety regulations require heavier cars, heavier cars need more power, or so we believe, so they produce more horsepower and while they do that a little more efficiently the overall fuel economy of the average auto 2 decades ago was better than it is now. Some exceptions withstanding. In order to get people to burn less fuel there has to be another issue with burning it. The CO2 issue. I'm arguing that making CO2 the issue creates a false need to reduce consumption. The real need to reduce consumption is that we only have so much oil on the planet that is cheaply accessible.

CO2 Facts (the data as promised)

Human activity currently contributes to around 15 megatons of CO2 being put into the atmosphere every year. The planet (Nature alone)currently produces 320-330 megatons. This puts our anthropogenic contributions at approximately 4.5%. The carbon sinks in nature can absorb about half of this, which means 2.25% of all CO2 put into the atmosphere does not get absorbed by nature (vegetation, oceans, etc.), and is attributed to human activity.  By volume, dry air contains 78.09% nitrogen, 20.95%oxygen, 0.93% argon, 0.039% carbon dioxide, and small amounts of other gases. -Wikipedia. This number, 0.039% is the average number throughout the yearly cycle, which is currently about 400ppm (peak) but fluctuations up to 9ppm or roughly 2.25% (9/400) due on the northern hemisphere's growing seasons. Meaning that during the growing season plant life consumes CO2, and when fields fallow the decomposition produces CO2. Northern hemisphere growing seasons impact the CO2 content about the same amount as all human fuel-burning activity. 2.25% of 0.039%, or 0.00088% (rounding up) of the total dry air is is the amount of CO2 that the total burning of all fossil fuels on earth by humans contributes to the atmosphere on planet earth. Of the green-house gases, 95% is H2O, 4% CO2, .36% CH4, and .95% N20. So 2.25% (amount of total CO2 added by Humans that is not absorbed by nature) of 4% is 0.09%, in other words humans contribute 0.09% of all green house gases. 95% of greenhouse gases is water vapor. Clouds. This is why a desert can be freezing at midnight and over 100F by noon the next day, little or no humidity. In a place like Las Vegas similar fluctuations can be observed despite that abundant presence of fossil-fuel-burning cars. Why? Because CO2 doesn't make enough of a difference to matter. There is of course a time of year called monsoon season in which Vegas is humid and still hot at night, further proving that CO2 has little impact especially when compared to H2O.

Solar activity on the other hand does impact temperature. Our hottest summers often coincide with our elliptical orbit bringing us closer to the Sun, especially on a year where that orbit is elongated (elongated orbits are a bit more narrow in the middle, i.e. closer than normal to the sun). One of the factors that contribute to this elliptical extreme is the gravitational pull of Jupiter. Yep, in all likeliness the gravity of Jupiter has a vastly greater impact to global temperatures than does CO2. We need to get rid of Jupiter!

This does not mean that we should dump a bunch of pollutants into our air! I am a green-minded environmentalist, we should be burning as little fuels as possible in my opinion.

Global warming became climate change when, over a period of more than a decade, the average temperature of the earth did not warm (18 years now). In the data that the Global-warming alarmists present they leave out the Medieval Warming period. The chart that Al Gore produced in "An Inconvenient Truth" that plots the average global temperatures of the 20th century and beyond are cherry-picked. Ever notice that there is space at the beginning and at the end of the cart with no shown data? I have seen the unmolested chart and it displays that earlier it was warmer and later (the last decade) temps were flat or dropped. The famous "Hockey Stick" chart is based in part on one set of data (glacial ice I think), then on instrumentation. In other words on 2 data sources. Do the research, it is extremely bad science, and it does not show either the medieval warming period nor the mini ice age… it is also +/- 0.5C! Global-Warmists also ignore that we are in the middle of an ice age as far as long-term climate science is concerned, we just happen to be in what they call an inter-glacial period. For the better part of the last billion years the earth's climate has been dominated by swampy jungle with no polar caps. For the past 300 million years the average CO2 content has been around 1300ppm. A bit more than 400ppm that we currently measure and that people are freaking out about. The most damning information for Global-Warmists in my opinion is that in that long-term record, the one they like to show over hundreds of thousands of years, is that the CO2 does not drive global temperature averages… it follows it. If you understand biology, what drives plant growth and plant decomposition this makes a lot more sense scientifically. Especially when you consider just how insignificant CO2 is in the field of greenhouse gases.

Sea levels have been steadily rising for quite some time. If you visit Italy or many other places on the Mediterranean  you might have noticed ancient docks well above high tide. The seas were once higher when the earth was warmer. As we warm back up quite naturally the seas will continue to rise.

Ninety-Seven percent of all scientists agree that anthropogenic climate change is very real, Right? Wrong. This is a lie. It is based on a study conducted at an Australian university where they reviewed between 12,000 - 13,000 articles most of which did not conclude that climate change or global warming were real. They covered topics like how a warming world impacts the red panda. Basically anything that could be regarded as mentioning climate change, anthropogenic or not, were counted as confirmation. The truth is, less than 70 articles reviewed asserted that anthropogenic climate change is happening. Of those only 41 asserted that that it was a problem. Just 41 out of 12,000 or more. Less than 1%... extrapolated into 97%. Sefan explains the 97% in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTTaXqVEGkUU

The truth is that among climate scientists most are split on the issue. Those that are concerned are not certain how concerned we should be. After all, we have already burnt through half in that last 200 years, and considering the potential insignificance of the impact nothing will go over a tipping point from which it cannot return. The earth is warming whether we like it or not and likely to become quite glacial again in the next 10 millennia or so.

The political left will have us believe that Climate Change is the biggest threat to humanity and to national security. It's not a pressure-cooker bomb at a marathon in Massachusetts , nor is it deranged extremists shooting up night clubs in Florida, it is the warming planet. Guess what friends, the planet is warming regardless of what we do about it. We should not focus our money and energy into stopping Global Warming, we should use such resources figuring out how to help those in areas where the seas are naturally rising. Because it is not going to stop.

There are dozens of reasons why the political establishment wants to control us and other governments (imposing restrictions to growth), but I look at the oil. It most certainly is not an overwhelming concern for the living earth. Consider that the value of the dollar is dependent on oil trade and that when the oil and coal are gone we are going to be scratching our heads trying to find a viable replacement. It is in the government's best interest (and perhaps ours as well) that we slow or stop the consumption of fossil fuels. You don't have to be Conservative to embrace conservation, nor is it in opposition to Liberal ideals, quite the contrary.

I believe that humans as a species need to clean up our acts. That we farm organically, ethically raise meat, and cease any and all activity that dumps pollutants, poisons, and chemicals into our streams, soil, and air. I don't believe in establishments spreading misinformation and fear, corrupting science, and causing even more division in our world. Nor do I think it is ethical to use climate change as a club to beat people into behaving a certain way no more so than Christianity using/used the threat of hell for similar purposes.


---Update---
After an interesting and enlightening conversation with an actual climate scientist and not a youtuber, politician, or other non-scientific celebrity I've renewed my research in this particular area. I can say that I'm back on the fence, many of the assertions above about orbit, sun/solar, and other contributors to global warming have been brought into question or perhaps debunked.
The problem these days with finding truth is that issues such as this have been hijacked by politics and brought to us in a Chicken Little "The sky is falling" alarmist call for change. We also become skeptical when we the very organizations that propose anthropogenic climate change are those funded by the government whom then turn around and use the science to impose policy that fits their politics... it's a vicious cycle. While this makes us suspicious of corruption (rightly so), it does not mean we should toss out the findings or assertions of the scientific community all together.
I'm digging more into this and will place a link in this post to the upcoming one with what I find. In the mean time here are a few links I'd like to share from the proponents of anthropogenic climate change:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/evidence-for-global-warming.htm

https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-sea-surface-temperature

http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/11/04/nasa-scientist-warned-deniers-would-distort-his/206612

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWcPG9S9SUY

2017 Info (update)

Solar Activity: Spotless DaysCurrent Stretch: 0 days
2017 total: 56 days (21%)
2016 total: 32 days (9%) 
2015 total: 0 days (0%) 
2014 total: 1 day (<1%)
2013 total: 0 days (0%)
2012 total: 0 days (0%)
2011 total: 2 days (<1%)
2010 total: 51 days (14%)
2009 total: 260 days (71%)
Updated 22 Sep 2017