I'm a deplorable denier from a red state. By mutual exclusion, that means that I am not a leftist twit who aims to force all humanity into their conception of reality.
Denier is such a convenient term with which to label one's enemies.
Let's take it apart. What is a denier allegedly denying? In this context, I am accused of denying that humans are causing catastrophic climate change. Let's break it down into 4 questions:
1. Is climate change actually occurring?
2. Is it catastrophic?
3. Is it caused by humans?
4. If it is caused by humans and it is catastrophic, is there anything humans can do to stop or mitigate it and at what cost?
Number one: It is very difficult to detect climate change, because the weather is changing all the time. Where I live in Northern Utah, the annual low to high temperature range is commonly well over 100 degrees F. The daily temp change can be 30 degrees or more.
The question becomes; how does one measure a small change in something that is always changing a lot?
Satellites provide the best earth-wide coverage and temperature measurements and have shown no global warming for 18 years, at a time when fossil fuel burning has added CO2 to the atmosphere.
Number two: If there has been no global warming for 18 years, how can it be catastrophic? The answer is simple, it isn't catastrophic.
Number three: The answers to one and two were negative, three has to be negative also. But, let's address the question of CO2, caused by fossil fuel burning. CO2 has been added to the atmosphere by human activity, but not all of the increase in the Keeling curve is due to human activity.
Also, note that all life, plant, animal, and HUMAN is carbon based. That carbon comes from CO2 in the atmosphere. That CO2 is increasing means that life is increasing. To curtail CO2 is to curtail life itself.
That brings us to number four: It is hard to detect climate change. It hasn't been happening for the last 18 years, during which humans have burned a lot of fossil fuels and it isn't certainly isn't catastrophic. So, why do we need to do anything about something we are not sure is happening, let alone catastrophic?
Again the answer is simple, we don't need to do anything. But, let's look at the estimated cost to fix the non-problem, that isn't catastrophic, that we are not causing.
One of the proposed mechanisms is a carbon tax. What would that mean to you and me that don't own G650s? (BTW, these babys burn lots of fuel to cruise at just under the speed of sound!)
Denier is such a convenient term with which to label one's enemies.
Let's take it apart. What is a denier allegedly denying? In this context, I am accused of denying that humans are causing catastrophic climate change. Let's break it down into 4 questions:
1. Is climate change actually occurring?
2. Is it catastrophic?
3. Is it caused by humans?
4. If it is caused by humans and it is catastrophic, is there anything humans can do to stop or mitigate it and at what cost?
Number one: It is very difficult to detect climate change, because the weather is changing all the time. Where I live in Northern Utah, the annual low to high temperature range is commonly well over 100 degrees F. The daily temp change can be 30 degrees or more.
The question becomes; how does one measure a small change in something that is always changing a lot?
Satellites provide the best earth-wide coverage and temperature measurements and have shown no global warming for 18 years, at a time when fossil fuel burning has added CO2 to the atmosphere.
Number two: If there has been no global warming for 18 years, how can it be catastrophic? The answer is simple, it isn't catastrophic.
Number three: The answers to one and two were negative, three has to be negative also. But, let's address the question of CO2, caused by fossil fuel burning. CO2 has been added to the atmosphere by human activity, but not all of the increase in the Keeling curve is due to human activity.
Also, note that all life, plant, animal, and HUMAN is carbon based. That carbon comes from CO2 in the atmosphere. That CO2 is increasing means that life is increasing. To curtail CO2 is to curtail life itself.
That brings us to number four: It is hard to detect climate change. It hasn't been happening for the last 18 years, during which humans have burned a lot of fossil fuels and it isn't certainly isn't catastrophic. So, why do we need to do anything about something we are not sure is happening, let alone catastrophic?
Again the answer is simple, we don't need to do anything. But, let's look at the estimated cost to fix the non-problem, that isn't catastrophic, that we are not causing.
One of the proposed mechanisms is a carbon tax. What would that mean to you and me that don't own G650s? (BTW, these babys burn lots of fuel to cruise at just under the speed of sound!)
(I'm just poking fun at the global elite and looking for a good excuse to put a picture of a cool airplane in my post.)
The Sanders-Boxer carbon tax was estimated to cost $1.2 trillion dollars over a decade to reduce CO2 in 2025 by 20% over 2005 levels. That really is a lot of money - a crushing amount!
I perceive that the global warming global elite aim to do me harm with their tax schemes. Why would I sign on for that?
No comments:
Post a Comment