Tag: environment

Following the Science

Why Are We Trying to Stop Global Warming Again?

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?

The Climate Bomb

Population Control or Race to Oblivion?

While you are reading these words, poor people will have died from climate change. Most of them children.

If the above words look familiar, that’s because this story of climate change has been told before. One Dr. Paul R. Ehrlich penned an incredibly similar alarmist narrative in his book, The Population Bomb in 1968. But here’s the thing, the climate change narrative is simply a rehashing of The Population Bomb narrative which is itself simply a rehashing of a Malthusian catastrophe. The reality here is that climate change is simply a repackaging of a failed theory penned in 1779. And, I can prove it.

We can state the climate change narrative and population bomb narrative and the Malthusian catastrophe narrative with a single narrative.

“There is a variable x that is growing exponentially. This growth is caused by people. Continued, uncontrolled growth in this variable will result in the end of the world.”

If you never got around to reading The Population Bomb, now you don’t have to. You’re welcome. With The Population Bomb, the variable is, well, the human population and its exponential growth is caused by uncontrolled breeding/insufficient death rates. With climate change, the variable is CO2. But, and here’s the kicker, CO2 is simply a proxy for human population. Why? Because we are told that the rising CO2 levels have an anthropogenic cause (caused by humans) through breathing and the burning of fossil fuels for energy. Well, more population means more breathing and greater needs for energy and thus the burning of more fossil fuels. Hence, rising CO2 levels is simply a proxy for the growth of the human population.

The fact that CO2 is simply a proxy for human population is actually confirmed by Ehrlich himself and by a host of other sources here, here and here and, frankly, all over the place. Thus, what we really have in climate change is simply a “Malthusian” theory about the relationship between population growth and the environment suggesting that as populations grow, they will strip their resources leading to famine, hunger and environmental degradation. With Malthus and Ehrlich this was setup as the population outstripping the Earth’s ability to provide sustenance. With climate change this is setup as the population outstripping the Earth’s ability to absorb CO2 output. At its heart, this is what climate change is all about. In short, nothing new to see here, this same tired argument has been made since the 18th century. Always about overpopulation and always ending in catastrophe. In 1779, Thomas Malthus wrote:

“Famine seems to be the last, the most dreadful resource of nature. The power of population is so superior to the power of the earth to produce subsistence for man, that premature death must in some shape or other visit the human race. The vices of mankind are active and able ministers of depopulation. They are the precursors in the great army of destruction, and often finish the dreadful work themselves. But should they fail in this war of extermination, sickly seasons, epidemics, pestilence, and plague advance in terrific array, and sweep off their thousands and tens of thousands. Should success be still incomplete, gigantic inevitable famine stalks in the rear, and with one mighty blow levels the population with the food of the world.”

— Thomas Malthus, 1798. An Essay on the Principle of Population. Chapter VII, p61

That’s some pretty dire, apocalyptic shit right there. But what I find more concerning really is Ehrlich, environmentalists and climate scientists take on solving the problem. You see, these “Malthusian” catastrophes are always setup as an “end of the world” scenario. This is done to scare people and justify all kinds of horrific actions intended to “save the planet”. Specifically, population control. Ehrlich writes:

“The essential point made about population growth is as valid today as it was in 1968: “Basically, there are only two kinds of solutions to the population problem. One is a ‘birthrate solution,’ in which we find ways to lower the birthrate. The other is a ‘death rate solution,’ in which ways to raise the death rate – war, famine, pestilence – find us” (p. 34). — Paul and Anne Ehrlich, 2009. The Population Bomb Revisited.

You see, the term “population control” is simply a polite way of saying “mass genocide of deplorables, mass sterilization of undesirables, forced abortion and eugenics”. This has been the environmentalist mantra since Ehrlich and continues to this day with climate science.

One can believe in climate change and reject its mantra of genocide, sterilization, abortion and eugenics. The failure of Ehrlich, environmentalists and climate scientists is that they blame all of the world’s problems on humans without ever considering human ingenuity and technological prowess. More humans means increased ingenuity and faster technological advancement. This has been proven since the 1960’s in that the growth in food production has been greater than population growth. The same is true of climate change and CO2. Human ingenuity and technology will prevail.

One Trick Pony

A “Final Solution” to Climate Change?

I think that the real problem that skeptics have with climate change advocates is the obvious political underpinnings behind mainstream climate science. Specifically, climatologists continually claim that the only solution to climate change is to stop burning fossil fuels in order to reduce CO2 emissions and replace the energy production with wind and solar. The problem with this is that such a statement ignores basic science, demonstrates an incredible inability to think critically and an unimaginable lack of imagination. In short, these climate change advocates are one trick ponies when it comes to controlling climate change. Somehow we are to believe that some of the supposedly “greatest minds in science” are too stupid to think of any other solution to climate change other than to stop burning fossil fuels by replacing them with wind and solar. Obviously, this is idiotic. The only rational explanation is that such scientists are politically motivated. This article will utterly expose this obvious political motivation by listing a plethora of alternative methods of controlling climate change that are both obvious and much more effective than replacing the burning of fossil fuels with wind and solar.

First, in order to understand the alternative approaches to controlling climate change, a little background is required. Specifically, one must understand the “forcing mechanisms” that cause climate change as well as the sources of CO2 within the atmosphere. With respect to climate change, internal forcing mechanisms include ocean-atmosphere variability and life. External forcing factors include orbital variations, solar output, volcanism, plate tectonics and human influences. If we accept that CO2 is a main driver of today’s climate change warming, then in addition to fossil fuel consumption we must also consider ocean-atmospheric exchange, plant and animal respiration, photosynthesis, soil respiration and decomposition and volcanic eruptions. Let’s take a look at all of these things and see what solutions we can come up with.

Let’s look at ocean-atmosphere exchange first. CO2 is a soluble gas that dissolves in the oceans and is taken up by marine plants. There is a natural cycle in which CO2 is absorbed from the atmosphere in cooler and more biologically active areas of the ocean and released back to the atmosphere in warmer, less biologically active areas. Using 2011 numbers, ocean-atmosphere exchange resulted in 330 billion metric tons of CO2 being released into the atmosphere. This is a huge number, an order of magnitude larger than burning fossil fuels. And yet, there is little if any research going into technology to influence this exchange for our benefit (reducing CO2 emissions). For example, we could reduce the rate of physical mixing that stirs deep water to the surface. Centuries of respiration produce high CO2 levels in the deep ocean and much of this CO2 is released when deep waters are brought up to the surface. We could also stimulate the growth of algae that consume CO2 on the surface and later transfer that carbon to the deep ocean when they die.

Orbital variations (Milankovitch cycles) have a large impact on climate. In fact, they are noted for their correlation to glacial and interglacial periods, and more of a glacial period is apparently just what we need right now. The IPCC does note that Milankovitch cycles drove the ice age cycles. To be clear, Milankovitch cycles are the result of variations in the Earth’s eccentricity (oval orbit versus a perfect circle), the tilt of the Earth’s axis of rotation and precession. Perihelion or Apsidal precession is the fact that the Earth’s orbit around the Sun rotates, tracing out a flower petal pattern and is a major cause of climate oscillation on Earth. While technologically daunting, we could potentially find a way to influence the orbital variations of the Earth to our benefit or nudge the Earth into a slightly farther orbit, thus reducing the solar input into our atmosphere.

Granted, that last one is a bit far-fetched, but it leads us to the concept of reducing the input of solar heat into the Earth’s atmosphere or reducing solar output. To reduce the input of solar heat into the Earth’s atmosphere, we simply need a “sunshield”. We could send up numerous spacecraft to the Sun-Earth L1 Lagrangian point and essentially block a portion of the solar radiation coming to Earth, thus cooling the planet. Conversely, it might be possible to develop technology to reduce the solar output of the Sun. Climates millions of years ago had many times the amount of CO2 that we have today but the Sun was weaker than it is today.

Another way to go would be to promote volcanism. Volcanism actually has a cooling effect on the Earth and releases relatively little CO2 compared with other natural processes. This is because volcanic eruptions release large amounts of SO2 into the atmosphere and the optical properties of SO2 and sulfate aerosols strongly absorb and scatter solar radiation. We drop a few MOAB’s down the neck of some inactive or active volcanoes and simply get them fired back up again or encourage an eruption. And we would only need one or two of these. The eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991 affected the climate substantially as global temperatures decreased by about 0.5 degrees Celsius.

We could also engage in a bit of continental reengineering. The position of the continents determines the geometry of the oceans and therefore influences patterns of ocean circulation. The locations of the seas are important in controlling the transfer of heat and moisture across the globe, and therefore, in determining global climate. We might, for example, blow a hole in the Isthmus of Panama to allow the Atlantic and Pacific oceans to mix more freely.

Obviously what we have covered thus far are solutions on a grand scale that are likely largely infeasible. Except for the sunshield. I mean, duh, if you are getting too hot, fire up an umbrella. But, let us move on to more terrestrial solutions that are far less science fiction.

First up is nuclear fission. This one here, more than any other, demonstrates the absurd political underpinnings of mainstream climate scientists. Why? Because the introduction of more nuclear reactors solves the problem of fossil fuel burning today yet is not promoted at all by climate scientists. Climate scientists can’t promote nuclear reactors because environmentalists hate nuclear reactors. And yet, today’s nuclear reactors are many times more powerful and efficient than solar and wind. Consider that to generate the United States baseload electric power it would take approximately $30 trillion dollars and an area the size of Indiana with wind power. For solar, it would take about $20 trillion dollars and solar panels all across our southwest deserts. For nuclear, we could to it for as low as $1 trillion dollars on a few square miles of land. Also consider that a sunshield would cost $5 trillion dollars, just saying. But, nuclear fission reactors never enter the conversation, proving that climate scientists aren’t really about saving the planet and only about the politics.

Similarly, we could invest in research to speed up the creation of a viable nuclear fusion reactor, which is probably only about 20 years away anyway. Nuclear fusion reactors are effectively the opposite of nuclear fission reactors and essentially replicate the process that powers the Sun. And yes, we have achieved nuclear fusion, and yes we are making major breakthroughs and no, nobody in climate science ever talks about it.

We could also promote more plant growth, probably something like algae or Azolla in the oceans or arctic. The process of photosynthesis removes CO2 from the air. The Azolla event in the mid Eocene epoch actually drew out 80% of the CO2 in the atmosphere, transforming the Earth from a “greenhouse Earth” state to the “icehouse Earth” state we have today. Yes Virginia, we live in an icehouse Earth state today, despite what climatologists might tell you.

Pollution. The human production of aerosols or pollutants actually has a cooling effect on the Earth because the pollutant particles reflect, absorb and scatter solar radiation. Nobody really wants pollution, but if pollution can save the planet, and that’s what we’re talking about here right? Saving the planet from the disastrous, terrible, awful effects of climate change that will destroy all of humanity? Then why not a little more pollution? Simple, effective and I guarantee we have the technology and yet, like nuclear fission, never enters into dialogues around controlling climate change because it is not what environmentalists want, further proving that climate change science is not about saving the planet but instead simply promoting environmentalist politics.

Now, let’s continue on with a much more controversial solution, wiping out large parts of the human and/or animal population. The average human releases 365 kg of CO2 into the atmosphere annually. This is generally considered a carbon neutral effect since the carbon expelled during breathing was recently taken out of the air by plants, which were eaten by said human to sustain their metabolic processes. Fair enough, but that only goes so far. You see, if we can grow more plants to help take CO2 out of the air, a sudden adjustment of the population, say wiping out 25 million North Koreans, that would remove 9 million metric tons of “anthropogenic” CO2 emissions per year. Some might view that as a “win-win” as it were. Good of the many outweighs the good of the few, or the one. Again, we are talking about climate change wiping out all of humanity correct? But, understandably, if you are a bit squeamish about intentional genocide to save the rest of humanity, we could always just kill all of the birds as that would solve global warming and also provide A Cure for the Flu. Again, win-win.

I could continue on with solutions, including things like banning all aviation travel, the most costly form of travel in terms of CO2 emissions and on and on and on without ever even approaching solar and wind solutions. Again, what this proves is that climate scientists are not really interested in actually solving the problem of today’s current climate change because we could do that today through nuclear fission reactors and pollution. No, their science is simply a sham to prop up environmentalist policies plain and simple. Otherwise, if the future of humanity was really at stake, then all options would be on the table. And yet, nobody talks or even hints at these alternative solutions or takes them seriously because the sole purpose of climate change science is to promote solar and wind power and to punish large, technologically progressive countries like the United States and transfer its wealth to smaller countries. It is a sham and it calls into question every piece of research, every model and every data point that has ever been conducted on climate change. And the scientists have done it to themselves because they have allowed themselves to become nothing but political hacks. Scientists, wake up. If you are really serious about the science then stop being a political one trick pony and actually get serious about solving the problem.

There are No Climate Change Deniers

Explaining Climate Change Skepticism

Climate change advocates impugn anyone and everyone that so much as raises an eyebrow over the various claims about climate change with the words “Climate Change Denier”. The trouble with this, however, is that it is inflammatory speech and is wholly inaccurate. It is inflammatory because it evokes the concept of a “Holocaust Denier”. This is not unintentional. It is inaccurate because there are no actual Climate Change Deniers. Well, OK, there might be but at the same level of volume as there are “Flat Earthers”. The problem is that the language is not correct, there is a deeper meaning to what is being referenced in calling someone that pejorative term that is not born out by the actual language. Understanding this will hopefully produce some more meaningful discussions around climate change.

Here is why there are no “climate change deniers”. Because everyone knows that climate change happens. Anyone that understands that there has been an ice age on Earth at some point in the past fundamentally grasps the concept that the Earth’s climate changes over time. It is fundamental. Therefore, calling someone a “climate change denier” is inaccurate because no one actually fits the ostensible meaning of those three words. That being said, that is not what is really intended by those three words in the first place.

What is actually meant when someone utters those words is that the person in question may not agree with the statement that the Earth is currently warming at a rate that is greater than the average, that this will continue indefinitely and that the primary cause for this is anthropogenic (caused by mankind’s actions), specifically from carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of fossil fuels. You see, this is a very different thing than that someone simply denies that there is climate change because calling someone a “climate change denier” automatically makes that individual look foolish because, of course, the Earth’s climate changes over time. No reasonable individual would argue otherwise. But, if an individual is skeptical about any of the three real meanings behind that term, then they are labeled a “climate change denier” and made out to be a fool when there are legitimate reasons to at least be a little skeptical of at least one or all of those three underlying premises.

First, we must consider whether the current temperature increases are greater than average. The reality is, science does not know. There is no generally accepted “average” amount of temperature change. Why is that the case? Simple, we didn’t have satellites and other things measuring temperatures and CO2 levels hundreds, thousands or millions of years ago. Since modern temperature measurements didn’t begin until the 1970’s, scientists rely on archaeological evidence, glaciers, vegetation, pollen analysis, dendroclimatology (tree rings), ice cores, animal remains and fossils and sea level changes. This NOAA report does a decent job of trying to obfuscate the fact that there is no consensus “average” temperature change but proves this fact unequivocally. The report effectively states that only the last 150 years are recorded by instrumentation and that everything past that is inference and that “significant uncertainties remain”. So, could one be legitimately skeptical of the alarm over today’s temperature increases? Absolutely. If we do not know with certainty what an average is or really have no idea if temperature increases/decreases of similar magnitude have occurred in the past (and we don’t), then why couldn’t a reasonable individual be skeptical?

The IPCC’s fourth report, AR4, states that the Earth has warmed by 0.74 degrees Celsius from 1906-2005 OK, so considering that modern global temperature measurements did not begin until the 1970’s, could one also be skeptical of this figure? The answer here again is yes. It would be reasonable to be skeptical of temperature measurements made in 1906 as these would either be by devices that may not be calibrated to today’s standards or temperatures arrived at indirectly or through inference.

Perhaps more troubling, AR4 specifies that over the 50 years from 1956-2005 that the rate of increase is 1.3 degrees Celsius per 100 years or essentially 0.65 degrees Celsius over those 50 years. This is used to raise alarm over the current rate of climate change. Now, could one be skeptical of this? The answer again is, sure. And the reason, again, is that we do not know for certain whether any comparable such temperature change has occurred in the past or even what an “average” is. In addition, this presupposes looking into the future and assuming that the next 50 years will continue this increase of 1.3 degrees per Celsius. Predicting the future is really hard, so might one question or be skeptical of this? Sure.

Thus far, the analysis has shown that there are legitimate questions that could be raised by a reasonable, fair-minded individual regarding the first two premises that underlie the phrase “climate change denier”, that the Earth is currently warming at a rate that is greater than the average and that this will continue indefinitely. The primary arguments that underpin such reasonable skepticism being that methods of inferring temperatures beyond the last 50 years or so are indirect and potentially imprecise and that it is difficult to predict the future. Let us now turn our attention to the third underlying premise, that the primary cause for this climate change is anthropogenic.

First, can one be skeptical of an anthropogenic cause on the basis that there are other potential explanations? Sure, the list of natural causes of climate change includes orbital variations, solar output, volcanism and plate tectonics. The list of natural carbon dioxide emissions includes the oceans, animal and plant respiration, decomposition of organic matter, forest fires, and emissions from volcanic eruptions. If one just looks at human population growth, one sees that there are over 3 times as many humans alive today than in 1950. Hmm. Double the warming from 1950 to today versus the previous 50 years relating to double the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and 3 times the human population. Could one not reasonably conclude that the natural respiration of that many more humans is actually the main contributor to the increase in CO2 levels and thus the warming trend being experienced? Or, considering that we can only approximate the CO2 generated by ocean-atmosphere exchange, animal and plant respiration and soil respiration and decomposition, which account for about 750 billion metric tons of CO2 emissions annually, what if we are off in our estimates and those emissions are closer to a trillion metric tons of CO2 emissions?

Second, and perhaps more interestingly, the primary reason given for establishing an anthropogenic cause for climate change is a consensus among scientists. This consensus is established through a review of peer-reviewed, scientific papers that either support or deny this anthropogenic cause. Current estimates are that around 97% of such recent papers support an anthropogenic cause for climate change. Now, here is the problem with this. Scientific consensus has not only been wrong in the past, but spectacularly wrong in the past. Consider the following:

  • Prior to Einstein’s general theory of relativity, a magical “luminiferous aether” was considered by scientific consensus as the medium for the propagation of light. Einstein was actually still trying to work the aether into the theory of relativity as late as 1924.
  • Prior to the 1970’s, the scientific consensus for macro geologic processes was not plate tectonics.
  • Prior to the 1980’s, the scientific consensus was that there was no such thing as dark energy and dark matter. Scientific consensus was that we could see 100% of the matter and energy in the universe. We now understand that visible matter and energy represent only a small fraction of the matter and energy in the universe.
  • Prior to the 1980’s, scientific consensus would tell you that sauropods lived in lakes and that dinosaurs were cold blooded and extinct. We now understand these things to be entirely false.

These are just four examples of where scientific consensus was not only wrong but spectacularly wrong. Additional examples are numerous, including the consensus scientific beliefs in phlogiston, a flat Earth, an Earth-centric solar system, that there was no such thing as evolution, the “plum pudding” model of the atom and on and on and on. Science, particularly young science, tends to get things wrong. Spectacularly wrong. And climate science is at most 100 years old but in reality more like 30-50 years old. Physics, astronomy, paleontology and other sciences are orders of magnitude more mature and all of them have gotten things spectacularly wrong and likely have some consensus scientific opinions today that will eventually be proven wrong.

In conclusion, the term “climate change denier” is pejorative and wholly inaccurate. It is used to attack individuals that might reasonably question underlying assumptions and premises of a very young science. There is no reason for this and it is fairly unprecedented in the history of science for science to have become so political and descend into the realm of personal attacks and a concerted attempt to belittle opposing scientific views. The presumptions that underlie the term “climate change denier” can be legitimately questioned by a reasonable individual because the science, particularly in terms of historical climate change rates, is inexact. Finally, this reliance upon the supposed infallibility of this consensus science is ill-placed because scientific consensus has repeatedly been shown to not only be wrong, but to be spectacularly wrong in the past.

Published 6/8/2017

Solar Change Deniers

The True Lesson from Trump’s Exit of the Paris Accords

President Trump recently came out and announced the United States’ exit from the Paris Accords. In doing so, Trump claimed that the trivial, immediate concerns of jobs, economics and fairness to the United States were more important than vague, unspecific, purported, future harms to the environment from climate change. Climate change advocates were quick to denounce this point of view, arguing that a 0.2 degree Celsius reduction in global temperatures after 100 years is far, far more important. I must go on record and agree 100% with the climate change advocates. Obviously, putting trivial, immediate concerns ahead of vague, unspecific, purported, future harms is stupid, pigheaded and wrong. However, I must also go on record as saying that climate change advocates are also stupid, pigheaded and wrong for their continued support of the trivial, immediate concern of climate change. Let me explain.

You see, climate change advocates are concerned about the potential effects on humans from climate change such as rising water levels, increased violent weather and other matters that make life on Earth more difficult for humans. However, what they are missing is the very real threat of life on Earth being completely extinguished and the Earth itself ceasing to exist. These are the very real concerns of Solar Change. You see, billions of years from now the Sun will begin to change. As the Sun’s reserves of hydrogen become depleted, the Sun will change into what is known as a red giant star. The Sun will cool, becoming more reddish and expand, eventually consuming the Earth before collapsing into a white dwarf star. When this happens, all life on Earth ceases to exist. Anyone that does not believe this is simply a Solar Change denier, a science denier and a complete and utter idiot of the highest magnitude for the science behind Solar Change is absolute. It will happen.

Obviously then, through the same logic as climate change advocates (which kind of makes it sound like they want climate change…) what we need to do is to forget about trivial, immediate concerns like climate change and instead invest hundreds of trillions of dollars into preventing or delaying Solar Change. A 0.02% reduction in solar emissions means that the Sun will continue to burn for an additional 100 million years. That’s 100 million more years of life on Earth or 4 million more generations of humans, albeit each generation having to endure a bit more asthma in the summer. Who can argue with 100 million more years of life on Earth? Only pathetic, stupidly uninformed, moronic Solar Change deniers that’s who. Ptuhh! I spit on such filth. Besides, we simultaneously solve climate change, reduced solar emissions means a cooler Earther.

In order to achieve this lofty goal of a 0.02% reduction in solar emissions, what we need to do is focus on crafting a global agreement or accord on Solar Change. Such an agreement would naturally be voluntary and have no teeth, but would dictate in an extremely unspecific way that we must make technology investments into slowing Solar Change. Since third-world countries have so little Solar Change technology this will necessarily mean a huge transfer of wealth from prosperous nations like the United States. In addition, since China has a long history of Solar Change denial, or for whatever random reason we might invent, they would be exempt from such technology investments for a few million years or so.

Since the true fate of humans and the world is involved here, we must immediately end all unnecessary investments in frivolous pursuits such as green energy. What do a few degrees matter in the face of staving off the apocalypse? Also, since such an endeavor will require huge amounts of time and energy, we must divert all resources from trivial industries like movies, songs and entertainment, which do nothing but consume energy and resources without contributing at all to Solar Change technologies.

In conclusion, climate change advocates are absolutely correct that we must focus on vague, unspecific, purported, future harms at the expense of trivial, immediate concerns of jobs, economics and fairness. Unfortunately, they have also exposed themselves as Solar Change deniers, the worst possible villains in all of villainy. These Solar Change deniers must be denounced and stopped before their ignorance and abject evilness dooms us all.