Climate of Ignorance
A paper was published in September of last year concluding a doubling of Atmospheric CO2 will result in 2.1 Degrees of warming (Celsius). This is much lower than the estimates pushed by Government and their demonic minions in the Media. They like to use the higher estimates from the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). That wholly political and unscientific organization claims doubly CO2 will result in 2.5 to 4.0 degrees of warming.
So why is there such a discrepancy? The answer to that question can be found in Nicholas Lewis’s paper. In his paper Lewis shows that the higher estimates are caused by not considering all the potential impacts on climate. He includes a table that shows how his estimates change with each database update or additional variable. I turned his table in to this plot below.
Sloppy science leads to high warming estimates. Rigorous science leads to low warming estimates and Nicholas Lewis is not the only researcher concluding this. 2 years ago Anthony Watts on took a compilation of climate sensitivity papers and showed how with time the estimates of climate sensitivity are decreasing.
With every passing year the estimates get refined and the trend is clearly down. The UN wants you to believe the lowest amount of warming we could possibly see is 2.5 degrees but real scientists say the most probable answer is less than the UNs lowest estimate.
So why is this important? 2 degrees is still warmer right? Could it still be a problem? Well we already know the answer to that and it is no. 2 degrees will not be a problem. I know that because history tells me so. The plot below is also from Wattsupwiththat.com although some of the annotations are mine.
This plot is a historical temperature reconstruction. Scientists use geologic records, tree rings, Ice cores, and other climate indicators to make their best guess of what the earth’s climate was like before we had thermometers. Their best estimates are that the medieval warm period (circled in Red) was about 1.5 degrees warmer than the present. The Roman warm period (Blue) was 2.0 degrees warmer. None of the catastrophes predicted by alarmists happened. Quite the opposite in fact; humanity thrived when the earth was warmer. History tells us a warm planet is better for humans than a cold planet.
2 degrees of warming would actually be beneficial not harmful. Unfortunately we likely won’t even see that much warming. The scientists using refined statistical and computer models are now predicting 2.0 degrees and their estimates continue to fall. How far will they fall? We can take a clue from other scientists who rely solely on observations of the natural system; you know the most pure form of science. Those purists find climate sensitivity to CO2 to be only 1.1 degree.
Contrary to what politicians say the science is not settled. Scientists continue to refine their understanding of climate and as they do the threat diminishes. The more you understand about climate and history the less concerned you should be about rising CO2 levels. There is no downside to higher CO2 levels. Crop yields will increase and the climate will be friendlier to humans.
The Climate Crisis is akin to the COVID crisis. They are both completely manufactured emergencies but the climate crisis is even a bigger lie than COVID because more COVID is not beneficial while more CO2 is highly beneficial. They are however different means to the same end. More government control and more wealth transfer.
The only reason people believe we have a climate crisis is that government keeps us ignorant of the facts. They intentionally publish estimates that they know are based on incomplete science. The real science says we do not have a problem but don’t hold your breath waiting to hear that on the news. But, you might ask, what is the average person to do? Not every person is a science nerd. What can we do if government insists on lying? The solution is simpler than you think. I think this writer gives great advice for the less nerdy.
Can anyone point to a specific/provable harm they have suffered that has been caused by a fractional increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide? If they cannot, then why are we being pushed to accept onerous “solutions” to this supposed problem?
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof — especially when these claims threaten actual harm and have already caused it.
Just follow this simple rule. Understand that government does not solve problems they cause problems. When politicians want access to more of your money it is to address an imaginary issue or a real problem they caused by spending your money on a previous imaginary problem.
I don’t believe the climate change bullshit for 1 second. More CO2 encourages larger plant growth which in turn consume more CO2 and therefore feeds more humans, animals or anything else feeding on plants NOT bigger storms, less storms, floods, droughts, cold or warm. It’s a self balancing act. Those who feel it is a concern are free to give any amount of money they want to the government to “ save” them. I refuse as I’m not as gullible as they are.