Over a decade ago, I started compiling scientific commentary to show that “catastrophic man-made climate change” is not happening. Highlights of this compilation are contained in my published report
“Debunking the Myth of Man-Made Global Warming.”.
The comments included are from top scientists…people who have credentials and experience that compare or exceed anyone who believes in the phenomenon. If you feel like you’ve heard all there is to know, you should definitely read this report.
Since I am not qualified to analyze this type of scientific data, one way or another, I have refrained from trying to do so. I have only collected a wide variety of scientific opinions from other people.
What I bring to argument, other than compiling the scientific opinions of others, is analytical reasoning in my personal style of Socratic method. It is expressed in the following account:
Is the global climate changing?
The climate is always changing; it always changed. The changes happened over eternities and over much shorter periods of time. There is a definitive scientific and historical consensus of opinion on this, and more importantly, there is plenty of scientific and historical evidence for this.
Is the change due to human activities or natural phenomena?
There is no scientific consensus of opinion that humans are responsible. There is only the exaggerated claim that “97% of all scientists agree on man-made global warming/cooling”, which is a subjective and fabricated claim. And that’s just a statement, not discernible scientific evidence.
If climate change is due to human activities, which activities precisely?
Climate change can be caused by cosmic radiation and solar fluctuations. Climate change can be caused by geological events such as volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, polar reorientation, and collisions of asteroids or meteors with Earth.
Climate change can be caused by cleaner air or dirtier air (due to fewer or more particles), affecting the sun’s ability to warm large areas. Changing solar heating can affect currents and wind speeds, which could raise or lower temperatures, and alter rainfall patterns (any changes in historical rainfall patterns would have noticeable effects on temperatures).
Climate change can be caused by urban sprawl and the conversion of natural landscapes to paved roads and parking lots. The introduction of regular and constant watering of lawns and fields can have effects on local microclimates, which can in turn create more widespread changes that lead to changes in wind and humidity conditions (thereby affecting rainfall patterns).
Climate change could be caused by high frequency radio waves such as those emitted by the HAARP program.
Climate change could be caused by air pollution due to the introduction of gases into the atmosphere; gases such as carbon monoxide and bovine flatulence.
Is climate change bad?
Warming the planet may not be bad. Many scientific analyzes indicate that plant growth (including food sources) would increase dramatically and the growing world population will require more food sources. This is especially important if the growing human population also eats more vegetables and fruits than more meat. Turning icy wastelands into useful farmland would be a big plus.
Larger populations and agricultural fields will need more water. Reducing water resources blocked by melting glaciers can provide needed water.
Why is it necessary to blame humans for climate change?
Placing the blame on humans puts a face to the problem – real or imagined. Otherwise, we would simply hate beautiful, kind and gentle mother nature, and that would turn the event into something that is perceived as inevitable and unstoppable. If it’s unavoidable, why throw money at the problem. Hopeeven false hopes can be very profitable.
Can activities be reduced?
We cannot do anything about cosmic radiation, solar fluctuations, volcanic eruptions, earthquakes or asteroid/meteor collisions with our planet.
If higher temperatures are linked to cleaner air so that the sun warms more efficiently, the only solution is undesirable: re-pollution of the atmosphere (which has been suggested by the likes of Bill Gates).
If urban sprawl is causing climate change, there is no alternative but to eliminate population growth and/or force people to live without improved roads, structures and spaces. open.
If high frequency radio waves are causing the changes, we must first ask the government(s) to explain what HAARP is for, and then get them to stop it.
If carbon monoxide and bovine flatulence are the cause of climate change, can we stop all living things from breathing or stop cows from farting?
If climate change is caused by engine emissions and pollutants, then the simple answer is to immediately stop using the fuels that cause the greatest amount of harmful emissions and pollutants: gasoline and petroleum diesel. . There is an alternative fuel that can be used immediately while waiting for the time (if ever) when electric motors can replace all internal combustion engines. This fuel is ethanol. But the pervasive adoption of ethanol is opposed or delayed by most local and national governments who use the lies of the oil industry as an excuse.
What is the likely outcome of climate change?
If the climate warms up, there will be fewer ski areas. Fewer ski areas could mean a dramatic increase in lift ticket prices.
If the climate gets colder, there could be more ski areas. This could lead to lower lift ticket prices.
A drastic rise or fall in temperatures could lead to the death of many living things, including humans.
Rising temperatures could mean that more regions of the Earth are able to support many living creatures, including humans.
Can the result be avoided? Is it already too late?
If the result is catastrophic and it’s not too late to make changes, then why haven’t believing governments already taken decisive action? Why wait to start using solutions that have immediate positive effects, such as increased ethanol consumption? What are carbon credits used for? If factories in some states are big polluters, then how does buying a carbon credit from another state reduce pollution in the factories that produce that pollution?
If the outcome is catastrophic and it’s too late to avoid it, then we should just relax, do what doctors tell dying patients to do in their final days, and just enjoy the time we have left. .
If the result is not catastrophic, but it would just be better to have cleaner air and water, and it would be better for people’s health, then let’s go for the most simple, the most affordable and the most available to purify air and water: Ethanol fuel. Then, when technology permits, slowly transition to electric vehicles or the scientific marvel of the day.
It’s that simple. Don’t hate me for being articulate enough to put the issue in very rational terms.