Climate Change numbers never add up
I have posted multiple times about how the cult of climate change uses fraudulent science to bolster their claims. The basic science behind CO2 is very simple and well known. CO2 is a greenhouse gas and adding more will cause the atmosphere to warm. No one disputes that. What skeptics do dispute is how much warming we will see.
Most gases cannot absorb radiant energy. That is why objects left in the sun heat up more than the air around them. A small group of gases called greenhouse gases do absorb radiant energy but they are not particularly good at it. CO2 is only able to absorb energy across very narrow band widths and there is not much energy available in those bandwidths. That is why adding more makes very little difference; there just isn’t much energy for it to capture.
All scientists acknowledge this. The difference between the alarmists and more rational scientists is that the alarmists believe there are feedback mechanisms that will amplify the warming. Where their case falls apart is observations of the natural system. There is simply no evidence of this enhanced warming.
Most scientists that look at the historical data conclude that the earth will warm from 1 to 2 degrees and their estimates have tended to get lower with time. Of course there are still scientists who claim much higher levels of future warming; money can buy any answer you want. So when the government and media speak about climate change they use the ridiculous estimates that are the outliers not the “consensus” they always prattle on about.
The media never tells you that they are using the highest possible estimates. They also never tell you that even the most ridiculous estimates of warming are still not a problem. The UN IPCC is the largest purveyor of climate “disinformation”. The UN uses the highest possible estimates of warming and predicts calamity. What they don’t advertise that even in their unrealistic scenarios it still costs more to prevent climate change than to adapt to it.
Even if you believe the alarmists trying to prevent climate change is a waste of money because climate change has negligible impact on the economy. The following is The IPCC’s own assessment of the future cost of climate change.
In its fifth and latest (full) report, the IPCC estimates that a 3° warming — twice the Paris Agreement target — would reduce global economic growth by 3%. Three per cent a year? No, 3% by the year 2100. This amount represents a reduction in global economic growth of 0.04% a year, a number that is barely measurable statistically. That is in the IPCC’s pessimistic scenario. In the more optimistic scenarios, the economic impact of warming will be virtually non-existent. The IPCC, AR5, Working Group II, chapter 10 states:
“For most economic sectors, the impact of climate change will be small relative to the impacts of other drivers…. Changes in population, age, income, technology, relative prices… and many other aspects of socioeconomic development will have an impact on the supply and demand of economic goods and services that is largely relative to the impact of climate change.”
Even the IPCC admits we have much larger problems than climate change so why do we spend so much money on climate change? The truth is that climate change is not a serious problem but it is the perfect political issue. You can use it as an excuse to steal and as long as you do something you can claim success. If the weather warms you can claim it would have been worse had you not acted. If the earth cools you can tout how incredibly successful your policies are.
Conversely doing nothing is potential political suicide. If the earth warms at all your political opponents will seize on it to prove you are negligent and destroying the planet. No politician will take that chance. They would rather destroy your life than risk their own career. Climate alarmism is not sound science. The numbers just don’t add up. Any way you slice it climate change is not a problem. Climate alarmism only survives because it is good politics.
