Looking at the behaviour of those who would lead us back to the dark ages in order to “save the planet”, the “science” of “global warming” and the insane policies put in place to achieve our salvation from “climate change catastrophe” provides some interesting insights.
We are expected to believe that the “average temperature” of the earth can be measured to an accuracy of hundredths of a degree and to be alarmed when the latest “hottest year on record” turns out to be 4 one hundredths of a degree warmer than the previous one. The question to ask is “how do you measure to that accuracy and what are the error margins in the observations”? We are supposed to be alarmed about a temperature rise of less than 1 degree C in 130 or so years.
The “global average temperature”, whatever that is, must keep rising to keep the narrative alive and there are legions of people searching for it every day. They look under the bed, in the garden shed and everywhere in between because “it has to be there somewhere” or the whole ridiculous idea collapses.
We are told that carbon dioxide, a substance that is the foundation of all life on earth and is vital to the growth of all plant life, is “pollution”. Without carbon dioxide there would be no life, intelligent or otherwise. I suppose we can blame carbon dioxide for providing our politicians.
It is vilified as a “greenhouse gas” but in the real world carbon dioxide concentrations are increased in commercial glasshouses by a factor of about 3 times the “natural” level as it promotes faster plant growth – so it really is a “greenhouse gas” and a very useful one.
Higher concentrations in our atmosphere would do more good than harm in terms of feeding the ever increasing world population and too low a concentration would be a disaster.
We are told coal is “dirty” because its use produces carbon dioxide and this allows fanatics to rationalise the destruction of the second most effective means of producing electricity to provide the energy needed for society to thrive.
In the insane quest to “reduce carbon emissions” we replace cheap and effective electricity generation with the most expensive and inefficient alternatives that produce intermittent energy at the whim of nature and are totally unreliable.
We suffer eye wateringly high prices and energy insecurity as well as the visual pollution of the ghastly wind farms and the health effects they have on the near neighbours.
Apparently “climate change/global warming” is caused by “the greenhouse effect” but it bears no similarity to the operation of a physical glass greenhouse other than the name.
A “real” greenhouse stops warm air from rising and being replaced by more dense cooler air by means of a physical barrier that separates the interior from the outside world so convective air movements cannot take place.
Apparently this effect is supposed to happen in an open environment where the air gets warmed by the surface of earth, (which is warmed by the sun), carbon dioxide “absorbs the heat” and then somehow defies physics and does not get intermixed with the cooler air around it.
Hot air rises, it does not stay still. As it rises, cooler more dense air from above will flow in to replace the warmed rising air. As altitude increases the temperature drops by 10 degrees per kilometre so as the hot air rises it will exchange heat with the cooler air until there is thermal equilibrium. At that point there will be no further exchange of heat.
The branch of physics called thermodynamics, (the branch concerned with heat and temperature and their relation to energy and work), has a fundamental law that says heat always flows from a hot body to a cool body – never the other way around – and that an object being heated by a source can never get hotter than the source. Thermal equilibrium strikes again.
If the heat transferred from the surface, (which is heated by the sun), warms the adjacent air it cannot warm it in excess of the surface temperature.
The warmed air cannot transfer heat back to the surface because at best it is at the same temperature, (thermal equilibrium again), and more likely is cooler. To transfer heat back to the surface it needs to be warmer than the surface and the question to ask is where did the extra heat come from? There are no “free lunches” in physics.
Heat cannot flow from a cooler object to a warmer object. If it did you could warm the kitchen by opening the freezer door or boil the kettle by placing it on a block of ice.
It seems that the mechanism that underpins the “science” of global warming/climate change” is based on disobeying the basic fundamentals of physics and so is a bit like perpetual motion machines and alchemists turning excrement into gold – although the “renewable energy” industry is having some success with this.
We are told it is “our fault”; we are putting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and cooking the planet but exactly how this is being done cannot be explained by some fanciful “greenhouse effect” as it is inconsistent with basic physics.
It seems clear to me that carbon dioxide has absolutely nothing to do with changing “global temperature” and that “natural causes” might be a better place to start looking and leave man alone.
The fact that climate is always changing and has managed to do so without our contribution of carbon dioxide in the past millions of years might make those of us with the capacity for critical thinking accept that our tiny “emissions” might not amount to a hill of beans and that “natural forces” might actually be the reason. Try googling Milankovitch cycles or sunspot data.
The earth managed to come out of an ice age without our help and it will go into another one some time, also without our help. When that happens life as we know it will cease to be. Let us hope it will not be too soon.
We are told we must “reduce carbon emissions” and the preferred method is to return to the dark ages and suffer the economic consequences.
It matters not that the “developing economies”, (China and India), pump out more that our annual contribution every few days and do not look like stopping anytime soon, in fact they are increasing.
It has become our “moral duty” to make some immeasurable reduction so we can “feel warm and fuzzy”, sitting in the dark eating cold baked beans as our society falls apart around us while we meet our “international obligations” to commit economic suicide in a grand but futile cause.
“Climate change” is all about drama. We have the fanatics shouting at us daily about the catastrophes that await us unless we “act now”.
Every problem is caused by mankind and carbon dioxide – sea level rise, (not true), ice caps melting, (not true, Antarctica has an average temperature of minus 49. It will take a lot of heat to melt that), “extreme weather” like storms, floods, hurricanes, cyclones, bushfires and droughts, (all not true) and the “death” of the Great Barrier Reef, (also not true).
“Tackling climate change” is the rationale behind any insane policy that increases the cost of living. “We have to do it to save the planet”. It’s a pity you cannot afford to have electricity, gas, water, a job and a home with food in the larder and glass in the windows.
“Climate change” is a blend of fanatical dogma and opportunities for “renewable energy” providers to gouge the populace with high prices that arise from using stupid technology instead of methods that have served society well for years and could continue to do so if sanity prevailed.
We need to remember the first principle of propaganda that says “a lie told once remains a lie, a lie told a thousand times becomes the truth”.
Also we need to remember that those that control the information control the narrative so it is vital that we insist that all the information and varied views – for and against – are made public and that policy makers take note rather than adopt populist positions where they milk the drama for political purposes.
We need to see those propaganda statements for what they are. “97% of scientists agree” is the catchcry without a skerrick of proof that it is true. It is not – show me the list, what is a “scientist”? “Climate change is real” is another although it is actually a statement of the “bleeding obvious” – it does and always has.
We need to see that the abuse hurled at anyone who dares offer a contrary view might be because there is something people are trying to hide and that attack then becomes their best form of defence.
While our “leaders” carry on in their state of blissful ignorance with their minds unencumbered by any actual knowledge they are being led by the nose by “science” fanatics, renewable energy carpetbaggers, economists and greenies who shout at us and foam at the mouth while the place is falling apart.
They paint themselves into populist ideological corners and rather than seeing the error of their ways they nail the colours to the mast and double down indulging in stupid competitions with their “oppositions” and promise more outlandish “solutions” to the “energy crisis” their policies have produced.
Bad decisions are made which make the country poorer, throw people out of work, shut down industries and impose costs that society cannot afford. The costs are charged to the federal or state credit cards and the people as ultimate underwriters of this profligacy pay the bills.
It is insane. It’s not the “greenhouse effect” that will end us all; it will be the “madhouse effect” where delusional intellectual dwarfs lead us down the road to ruin.
When we perform our act of collective insanity every 3 or 4 years and vote thinking the outcome will be different we need to look very carefully at the qualities of those who present themselves as candidates.
We need to determine whether they have IQ’s anywhere above ambient temperature, have the capacity for critical thinking, are not captives to vested interests and have actually done something socially useful in their lives.
We need to agitate and be noisy and demanding rather than hoping things will be better after a cup of tea and a lie down because they will not change unless we get off our bums and do something to change this insane situation.
Imagine the outrage when the “greenhouse effect” is officially pronounced a dud idea and all the pain, expense, disruption and impoverishment that has flowed from the quest to “save the planet” turns out to be a monumental waste of time and money?
It will be a classic example of “act in haste and repent at leisure”.
“The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him”.