Climate Change
(aka Global Warming)
I want to start by saying that I really like Planet Earth. I have lived here for my entire life and it is the only planet I know very much about. I would never do anything to harm it, nor would I advocate any idea that might provoke others to harm it in any way. So when I see scientific truths being misrepresented, which have the effect of harming its future in support of a political agenda, it bothers me greatly. Almost all of my formal training has been in the hard sciences – Chemistry, Physics, Electronics, Optical Systems, etc., and having worked with engineers and scientists throughout my entire career, hearing the so-called Climate Science community regurgitate the same tired arguments year after year is a source of extreme disappointment for me.
For all those who are satisfied with the current Sky-Is-Falling rhetoric, you would be well advised to stop reading on. As Dean Edell often said, “To sway someone’s opinion, start by asking what evidence could possibly change their mind”. If the answer is, “there is none”, you can save yourself a lot of time by terminating the debate. If you can spare 3 minutes and are open to a slightly different perspective on the subject, this very brief interview would be a good place to start. If you think you might value the perspective of people like Neil deGrasse Tyson, Bjorn Lomborg, or the lady scientist who blew the whistle on the Australian Bureau of Meteorology for fudging the data, read on.
We know that Earth’s climate has changed a lot over the past half-million years or so. We now seem to be well into the seventh cycle of glaciation, which might last another several thousand years, or it could start cooling off tomorrow. In fact, the next natural cooling cycle might have already begun, and shorter-term weather changes could be masking that cooling effect – there is simply no way to know, despite what politicians, journalists, and some Climate Scientists tell us. It is also true that human-generated greenhouse gases are accelerating the warming of the planet. But “by how much” and “whether in-phase or out-of-phase with the natural change” are questions for the Gods.
The problem of not knowing is compounded by the fact that humans do not perceive Climate Change directly – they don’t live long enough. Changes that occur over 100 years or so are shifts in weather patterns, not climate changes. These shifts in weather patterns are not helpful in arriving at meaningful long-term climate projections – in fact, they bring confusion to the question. Even more confusion is added by journalists reporting on things they don’t understand, politicians pretending to act on those things, and so-called Climate Scientists, whose primary motivations are often rooted in things other than promoting science.
If we understood the actual science better, we would be able to develop remedial actions that might slow the change, but those things are likely to be very expensive and minimally effective. Many of the ones currently being pursued are actually counterproductive because they consume valuable resources that could be used more productively and because they draw attention away from real solutions. A smarter approach is to accept the inevitable change and start preparing for it. So the following discussion is offered in five pieces.
- Whether Weather or Climate is an attempt at humor to illuminate the fact that weather changes do not constitute changes in climate.
- Weather Does Change is a more serious discussion with examples, to make the point that “climate” is not the plural form of “weather”.
- Climate “Science is a discussion of how pseudoscience and Climate Scientists make it difficult for us to understand what is going on.
- Politics of Wildfires addresses the dishonesty of politicians and the laziness of journalists on the subject, and finally.
- Adapting suggests that there are effective alternatives to the current state of panic and misguided efforts to evade the inevitable.