For those of you not paying attention to the 'we must act' commercials, they are clever in taking political 'opposites' and putting them on the same sofa to exhort us to acting on 'climate change'. The idea of human induced climate change is something that is weirdly to those in Big Government circles as it gives a non-national enemy to 'fight' or 'act against' that has not been established in either climate models or the geological record as being something that can be caused by the methods given. Indeed, natural climate change is an ongoing phenomena of Rock 3 from the Star Sol ever since the planet developed an atmosphere. That original atmosphere acted to host thermophilic life that lived, not on sunlight, but on energy coming from the planetary core and from incoming deposits by asteroids and comets. Life went on merrily until the clouds of sulfur and other products in the atmosphere were removed from it by such life to let sunlight in. Then the new energy source of sunlight gave a new area for life to expand into and produce a toxic waste that would disturb the eco-system: oxygen.
Indeed, life can have profound effects on the planetary atmosphere! That life grew to such an abundance that in mere tens of millions of years, as opposed to the billions of those first thermophiles, there was so much oxygen in the atmosphere that life could grow to truly strange sizes and the simplest lightning strike could cause a mass conflagration. In swampland. That was, as swamps are, very, very wet. A balance would be struck as massive amounts of carbon dioxide would be taken from the atmosphere by early plant and animal life, and we find that today in massive coal beds and limestone formations, some of the latter deposited by pure chemical concentration of materials turned insoluble.
After that, life settled down, surviving massive amounts of injections of carbon dioxide, methane, sulfuric acid and other compounds from volcanic activity, and from the still randomly passing asteroids and meteors. Life would be at peril *from* this environment but no longer the leading changer of it. That and the planet tended to stabilize into super-continents and then break up, causing all sorts of untoward extinction events. The upper cap on carbon dioxide, as measured by isotopic variations in calcium carbonate and things like coal, puts atmoshperic concentration of carbon dioxide (and carbon monoxide, but to a far lesser extent with all that oxygen floating around) at ~7,000 parts per million (ppm) of atmosphere. In comparison *today* the lack-luster planet suffers in the ~300 ppm zone that also gets us frequent glacial periods.
The very models that the 'climate change' hypothosis rests on, especially for human caused variants, all feature the small, sub 10% change in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as measured over the last 10,000 years and most concentrate on the chilling point by point rise of the last century or two. What is that? 1 ppm every 20-30 years? Assuming we can burn all the oil, and all the coal, and all other hydrocarbons taken out of the atmosphere by previous life on Rock 3, you would still not get to those lovely levels of the Carboniferous as the vast quantities of carbon taken up in non-energy producing limestone and dolostone represent a good portion of that amount. Still, for argument's sake, lets say that wasteful mankind continues on this 1 ppm rise every 20 years heading towards the burning of everything available to release carbon dioxide. To get to those lovely levels of the Carboniferous, and the greatest proliferation of life the planet has ever seen in extent, volume and mass (if not diversity) you are looking at 3,850 years to achieve this... or a bit shorter than all of recorded history of mankind.
Even given *that*, the data... you know all hypotheses rest on data and try to explain it, right?... is indicating other factors for ground surface temperature changes. A prime one is the non-shifting of weather measurement stations so that they are encroached upon by suburbia. Weather stations out in fields in the 1950's now find themselves in a built up environment of housing subdivisions, strip malls, mega malls, an enhanced road network and, sometimes, buildings exhausting their HVAC in the direction of the weather station. There is a group of individuals now getting volunteers to wander over to their local weather monitoring site and to just do this thing known as 'take a picture of it'. Disturbingly these pictures are revealing weather stations that are cheek-by-jowl with large structures, heavy equipment, furnaces, housing developments and many other things that would tend to make local temperatures rise, that are *not* indicative of planetary-wide phenomena of climate.
Second to that is another phenomena known as 'processing error'. Apparently NASA/NOAA computers had a systemic programming fault in them that was not due to incoming data, but due to human inability to program well. Outside researchers called into question the rise of NASA/NOAA temperature readings not only as an independent variable, that unrelated to other phenomena like urban heat retention, but as a dependent variable, in other words something else was driving it and it was an effect of that something else. Simple comparison of measurements to the resultant graphs indicated a huge systemic error in the programming that made temperature a dependent variable due to an error in processing. NASA admitted to this error, and started reprocessing its data and warning other nations (you did know we help out in that, right) that utilized NASA/NOAA code or processing facilities, that there was a problem in the software. When re-processed the warmest year moved backwards to the mid-1980's and the planet has been on a decline or plateau with a trend downwards since that time.
Third, the models based on examining Venus and Mars are proving to be highly dependent upon those atmospheric conditions of those planets. Applying that general rule to the highly mixed and chaotic atmosphere of Rock 3, without taking into account density and particulate differences have made those models unreliable for terrestrial based work on climate.
Fourth, sunlight. Increase solar activity by a miniscule amount and climate will vary on Rock 3, upwards and downwards. Normally this masked by the final factor, but in the highly chaotic conditions of having large, separate oceans and plates riding high and dry, along with a continent sized heat sink in the south pole, in this era the sun can have very small changes, far less than 1% or even 0.1% and have enormous impact on the climate of Rock 3.
Finally, and this is my pet peeve, by not examining the history of the planet and seeing that its normal temperature is some 18 degrees centigrade higher than today and is due to conditions of plate positioning and tectonic activity, those pressing for a limited time-frame miss the overall major change factors for climate: the planet's crustal activity.
Saying 'We can't wait'/'We can solve it' on climate change is a political call to unification behind the State, not a scientifically based or reasoned phenomena. Global climate change is an historical fact that encompasses the entire history of Rock 3, and looks to be a dependent variable that has major movers far outside of the current human technical capability. Thus when the Left and Right are brought together on the same sofa, things start to sound... well... here is a sample:
And here is a small taste of the call to action, to solve something that is beyond the means of humanity to even figure out, none the less *predict*:
"We don't always see eye to eye, do we, Newt?" Pelosi asks.From SFGate text in their article on it. It would not be worrying if this were the only 'conservative' voice to speak up on this and ignore the nature of science, which requires data, supported by hypothesis, that makes predictions that can be measured, and then leads to new conclusions that can also be measured. 'Climate change' of the man-made sort fails on the data basis. What we get, instead, is the Big Government push by none other than Al Gore who is the BACKER for this idea (Source: CBS via Newser).
"No," Gingrich replies. "But we do agree our country must take action to address climate change."
Now, as the 'We can solve it' folks back all sorts of climate change treaties and protocols and the such like, along with purely national controls, they really must address that the US is no longer the largest producer of carbon dioxide: China takes that along with some other 'greenhouse gases'. How did they get there? They were allowed to do so under exceptions in the Kyoto Treaty for 'developing nations'! So the greatest contributor to the nasty climate changing greenhouse gas of carbon dioxide is fully supported in DOING SO by the CLIMATE CHANGE COMMUNITY.
And as for having 'diversity of opinion' in politics, do note that all THREE Presidential contenders are on-board with the 'climate change' message, including Sen. John McCain who sponsored the Liberman-McCain Climate Stewardship Act, which went down to defeat in 2003 (Source: Pew Center).
Want to put liberty and freedom at risk?
Put massive controls on US industry without even doing an economic impact analysis to see if the *cost* of doing *nothing* is greater than the *cost* of trying to fix a *problem* that just might not exist. But that, of course, is well known risk analysis done by economists and insurance companies on a daily basis and well understood by anyone who has had to get any form of life insurance, car insurance, and look at how economies change due to external influences. Doing that is *mathematics*.
And for those who want to put economic growth on a global basis at risk for a less than understood and possibly absent phenomena... well...
Try the Kool-Aid.
I recommend the Soylent Green version.