https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VlKxuabwHCg&t=1965s
The temperature data, which shows a very slow warming partly caused by human activity, has led me to believe that we are not in a climate crisis. It has taken 140 years for the average global atmospheric temperature to rise by 1 degree Celsius, and this follows the end of the Little Ice Age and the 1880s—one of the coldest periods in United States history that killed hundreds of Americans. Many more people die from cold than they do from heat.
My view is reinforced by what I see as questionable behavior from Climate Alarmists and the IPCC. Politicians and alarmists have created a moral hazard in which scientists risk losing funding if they do not support the official narrative. The IPCC reportedly refuses to hire anyone who does not already believe in catastrophic man-made warming, and the infamous email leak suggested they were trying to "hide the decline"—concealing that tree ring proxies used for reconstructing past temperatures were unreliable compared with recent data. People have quit the IPCC claiming that it is corrupt. One person claimed that the real goal of the IPCC was to do away with free market capitalism.
By the mid-2010s, it was evident that climate computer model predictions were running far too hot. This led to shifting target temperatures. Around 2010, I watched videos warning that by the year 2100, we were on track for a 3°C increase—considered dangerous—but that limiting the rise to 2°C would be manageable. Only a few years later, the claim shifted: we were supposedly on track for a 2°C rise—now deemed dangerous—and that limiting it to 1.5°C would be manageable. I remain unconvinced that half a degree would make a significant difference.
To me, climate alarmism appears to be driven more by politics than by reliable science. There has been a political shift where fewer people are taking it seriously. Reportedly, climate policy has cost trillions of dollars, so I think that this is the greatest scam in human history.
However, there are simply too many unknown variables. Most of the debate centers on the amount of positive feedback to warming. But since feedbacks can be both positive and negative, and since these processes are not fully understood, it is difficult to make reliable long-term predictions. The current major point of contention is cloud cover. Skeptics argue that increasing cloud cover would produce a net negative feedback—seemingly common sense—while the IPCC claims the opposite.
Although the United States has reduced its CO₂ emissions, largely by switching from coal to natural gas, China has tripled its emissions through massive coal plant construction. While China has paid lip service to fighting climate change, its actions suggest that they don't care.
It is also worth noting that we may run out of most fossil fuels by the year 2100. Current estimates suggest 40–50 years of oil reserves remain. Reportedly, the United States has a very large shale oil reserve that could last the United States 300 years, but most of it is so difficult to mine that it would cost $10 per gallon at the pump.
The temperature data, which shows a very slow warming partly caused by human activity, has led me to believe that we are not in a climate crisis. It has taken 140 years for the average global atmospheric temperature to rise by 1 degree Celsius, and this follows the end of the Little Ice Age and the 1880s—one of the coldest periods in United States history that killed hundreds of Americans. Many more people die from cold than they do from heat.
My view is reinforced by what I see as questionable behavior from Climate Alarmists and the IPCC. Politicians and alarmists have created a moral hazard in which scientists risk losing funding if they do not support the official narrative. The IPCC reportedly refuses to hire anyone who does not already believe in catastrophic man-made warming, and the infamous email leak suggested they were trying to "hide the decline"—concealing that tree ring proxies used for reconstructing past temperatures were unreliable compared with recent data. People have quit the IPCC claiming that it is corrupt. One person claimed that the real goal of the IPCC was to do away with free market capitalism.
By the mid-2010s, it was evident that climate computer model predictions were running far too hot. This led to shifting target temperatures. Around 2010, I watched videos warning that by the year 2100, we were on track for a 3°C increase—considered dangerous—but that limiting the rise to 2°C would be manageable. Only a few years later, the claim shifted: we were supposedly on track for a 2°C rise—now deemed dangerous—and that limiting it to 1.5°C would be manageable. I remain unconvinced that half a degree would make a significant difference.
To me, climate alarmism appears to be driven more by politics than by reliable science. There has been a political shift where fewer people are taking it seriously. Reportedly, climate policy has cost trillions of dollars, so I think that this is the greatest scam in human history.
However, there are simply too many unknown variables. Most of the debate centers on the amount of positive feedback to warming. But since feedbacks can be both positive and negative, and since these processes are not fully understood, it is difficult to make reliable long-term predictions. The current major point of contention is cloud cover. Skeptics argue that increasing cloud cover would produce a net negative feedback—seemingly common sense—while the IPCC claims the opposite.
Although the United States has reduced its CO₂ emissions, largely by switching from coal to natural gas, China has tripled its emissions through massive coal plant construction. While China has paid lip service to fighting climate change, its actions suggest that they don't care.
It is also worth noting that we may run out of most fossil fuels by the year 2100. Current estimates suggest 40–50 years of oil reserves remain. Reportedly, the United States has a very large shale oil reserve that could last the United States 300 years, but most of it is so difficult to mine that it would cost $10 per gallon at the pump.
Coal will last the longest, so we may eventually be forced to burn more of it.
No comments:
Post a Comment