Global Climate DisruptionTM - The Politics (Part 5)


Posted On: Saturday - January 14th 2017 8:57AM MST
In Topics: 
  Global Climate Stupidity

This is the final, final wrap-up of this subject, we really mean it this time (till we get more subzero weather or next week, whichever comes first ;-}

Continuing from here, we want to add:

We have the leaders/proponents of the whole GCDTM business pretending to be extremely worried about a coming change (of some sort, not really sure yet) in the climate of he whole world. We have their useful idiots really extremely worried about a coming change (of some sort, determined by the scientists and explained (haha) by the "journalists") in the climate of the whole world. There is some overlap between the groups of "pretending to be worried" and "really worried".

The following description of the logic of the GCDTM story should clue any intelligent person in to the idea that maybe this is all political:

1) The greenhouse effect - on process of a myriad of physical processes that has to do with the climate. Changes in CO2 increase the heating effect. The theory is simple, and it can be tested even on a small scale. OK.

2) CO2 is a PRODUCT of combustion. The more industry, transportation powered by combustion, etc. in the world, the higher the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. [IF] this is a bigger factor than natural changes in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, then people have an effect on this atmospheric concentration. [ BIG IF, as there are many natural sources of combustion - take volcanoes, please that are orders of magnitude greater than changes we make]

3) [IF] the greenhouse effect is something to worry about, but water vapor makes the same effect, why are we not worried about the amount of water vapor - also a PRODUCT of combustion.

4) [IF] we are worried about the greenhouse effect from whatever gasses, we would need to model all the other physical processes of the atmosphere as other processes may affect the climate in much different ways. Do we have a working model of the earth's climate that has been proven by comparison of the model with actual observations, since we can't do full-scale experiments? NO, we've written 5 posts just about this mathematical modelling part.

5) [IF] we had a working mathematical model (we don't), what would be the effects of the results on human populations? This purported data that says just what the future climate will be at each place on the globe will show that we have better conditions for farming up here, more diseases we didn't used to have down here, dryer conditions here, more frequent storms here, better spots for tasty fish over here, worse spots for furry polar bears over here, and so on. Do you future-climate experts know that this is ALL BAD for everyone? Why would that be. (This last IF is the one that was in a Vin Suprynowitz (former columnist of the Las Vegas Review-Journal) post on-line that resulted in a 6-month ongoing discussion by a future PeakStupidity writer and a climate worrier, as described here, in the 4th paragraph, before the bit by George Carlin.)

That is a lot of [IF]'s, my loyal readers. There is nothing sure about any one of them. This is the kind of thing that even non-scientific, but reasonably intelligent people will unconsciously perhaps, note in their minds after reading/hearing the BS over and over. It leads finally to the realization that, no, the media/elites/leaders either are stupid or don't take themselves seriously in terms of the science. Yet they take the politics very seriously, and that's the problem!

Two more arguments that I'll bring up, but refute in more detail later on:

1) I've heard it brought up that, to paraphrase "yes, there is a lot unknown about this, but better to be safe than sorry?" What? Cause massive damage to entire economies because something may or may not be a problem - homie don't buy that crap.

2) To paraphrase again: "What you say may be true, but there are all sorts of other pollutants that come from burning, let's get us off Muslim-world oil (yeah, good idea!), etc." Sure, I may agree with you on the other problems, but this lying about a fake problem in order to bring attention to some real ones is neither a good idea in the short nor the long run.

Still more to come on these two points, but that can be much later.

GAME, SET, MATCH for the Deniers! Where's my trophy, bitchez!

Comments:
No comments

WHAT SAY YOU? : (PLEASE NOTE: You must type capital PS as the 1st TWO characters in your comment body - for spam avoidance - or the comment will be lost!)
YOUR NAME
Comments