For years climate change proponents have been decrying those questioning climate change and its impacts as “science deniers”. King Biden has taken both climate change and science seriously by declaring climate change as central to the
United States’ new National Defense Strategy as well as endorsing science via a proclamation that states:
“science, facts, and evidence are vital to addressing policy and programmatic issues across the
Federal Government monarchy.”
In effect, King Biden has made the divine decree that everyone must “follow the science”. We’re big on science here at The Objective Observer so, let’s follow the science on climate change. We start with the oft cited premise that climate change in the form of global warming caused by increased CO2 (carbon dioxide) levels resulting from the activities of human beings will have a catastrophic impact on the Earth and the ability for humans to survive.
So, what exactly does science say on this topic? Well, for starters, the science says that during the time that dinosaurs lived in the Jurassic Period there was 5 times the level of CO2 than the present day. Five times. First, let that sink in. This means that the air was 0.2% CO2 versus today’s 0.04%. Furthermore, as climate change proponents will be sure to cheer, the average global temperature during the Jurassic Period was up to 8 degrees Celsius warmer than it is today.
Now consider that the current goals of the Paris Climate Accord and climate change proponents is to prevent a mere 1.5 degree Celsius increase in global temperatures and to essentially keep the level of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere roughly the same. Surely, if going above a 2 degrees Celsius increase in global temperatures and a corresponding increase in CO2 in the atmosphere will have such a cataclysmic impact as to threaten life on Earth for humans, then surely 5 times today’s CO2 levels and 8 degrees Celsius warmer would mean certain annihilation for not only humans but all life on Earth. Right?
But what does science tell us about the Jurassic Period? Well, science tells us that the Jurassic Period was teeming with life both on land and in the oceans and featured lush, green jungles and forests. In point of fact, there is no scientific journal or book or writing that describes the Jurassic Period as “devoid of life” or “inhospitable to life” or any such description at all. Actually, it is well known in scientific circles that during the Jurassic Period some of the largest land and sea animals that ever lived dominated life on Earth.
So exactly where is the scientific evidence that a 1.5 degree increase in temperatures and a commensurate increase in CO2 levels would spell doom for humans? Because the science doesn’t seem to indicate that at all. In fact, if you refer to the image attached to this post, life has thrived on Earth for hundreds of millions of years at temperature levels of 8 degrees Celsius warmer than the present and at CO2 levels up to 17 times those of today. One might also notice from the image that we are living in one of the coldest and least CO2 rich environments in the entire history of the planet. And, every time temperatures and CO2 have dropped to the level of today, temperatures and CO2 levels have subsequently increased exponentially. In fact, science tells us that CO2 levels would need to be 150 times greater than they are today for the air to even be toxic to humans. That’s the science.
So why are we so worried about a 1.5 degree Celsius increase in global temperatures again? Actually, the consensus scientific opinion is that for the next 70 years, increasing temperatures actually benefits humans. Warmer temperatures means fewer winter deaths (mortality from cold is much higher than mortality from heat), more rain, longer growing seasons, better agricultural yield, more plants in general (CO2, it’s what plants crave) and lower energy costs (less winter heating). Against these benefits there are downsides. But, if you read the downsides closely, it’s really about higher ocean levels leading to the loss of current coastal areas and then a tremendous amount of conjecture. Anyone that tells you that they have scientific “proof” of the impacts of global warming on humanity and the Earth is lying. Straight up lying. Why? Because nobody has lived through such an event, collected the data on it and analyzed it scientifically. What they have are models and conjecture only, supported by scientific principles which may or may not pan out. In fact, regarding speculative claims of “extreme weather” brought about by climate change, even a recent report from the International Panel on Climate Change (IPPC), the “gold standard” of climate science, states:
‘no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century … lack of evidence and thus low confidence regarding the sign of trend in the magnitude and/or frequency offloads on a global scale … low confidence in observed trends in small-scale severe weather phenomena such as hail and thunderstorms’.
The only, true objective conclusion about climate change is that nobody has any real freaking clue about any of it in terms of its true impacts. And since science almost always gets things wrong; many, many times, before getting it right, most of the “science” out there is likely quite wrong.
So, to any objective observer, one has to seriously question why we are not actually promoting global warming versus discouraging global warming. So what if people on the coasts need to move? There’s plenty of land. In fact, land currently deemed “inhospitable” because of cold will become “hospitable”. They can move there. Requiring people to rent a U-Haul can hardly be deemed “catastrophic”.
To an objective observer, it sure seems like King Biden is only listening to some of the science, not all of the science. And that’s a no no in science. True scientists aren’t allowed to pick and choose their evidence. That is not being “science based”. That is not “following the science”. That is called cherry picking facts and conjecture to support a predetermined theory or position. In other words, the very antithesis of science.
Finally, we have to seriously question King Biden‘s decision to place climate change at the center of
United States national defense and security policy. Seriously, how in the hell is a solar panel going to prevent another terrorist attack on New York City? Do wind turbines have some secret military application that could be used to thwart Chinese aggression that nobody is telling us about? Does hydropower somehow shield us from Russian hackers?
To any objective observer, the only thing security or military related to King Biden‘s climate proclamations is that these climate proclamations really just amount to some kind of strange war against plants. Like a weird, absurd attempt to deprive plants of the basic requirements for life. And why would you want to do that? Even children know how useful plants are at staving off a zombie apocalypse, and what greater threat to national security is there than that?