The Science of Climate Change

September/12/2015 5:45AM
1 interesting comment, join the discussion
Please follow and like us:

Those of us who are skeptical of climate change claims are considered uninformed. The smug progressives of the world know it’s true and we are just ignorant folk who can’t understand how important it is to save the planet.  In states where this is most fervently believed, like California, they have taken great strides to do their part to save the endangered  planet.  Governor  Moonbeam is extremely upset that his bill to mandate no more than 50% gasoline usage by 2030 was just voted down by his democratic legislature. Wow, 50% Tesla autos on the road in just 15 years in California. A dream come true for Elon Musk.  It’s always cute when the government sets mandates that can’t possibly be met just to please Hollywood and the effete, elite rich liberals.

No matter that none of the rash predictions by the Goreites have come to pass. No problem that the global temperature has not risen in 10 years. Not a problem that a corps of altruistic scientists were predicting global freezing for 8 years in the 70’s. Ignore the fact that the greatest cash generator for grants and large paychecks to climate scientists have occurred in the past 10 years. All of this can be explained away by those who truly espouse climate change. First and foremost the United Nations. They want the wealthy countries that have money to give money to the less developed countries as a tax or penalty for being rich under the auspices of climate change. The UN is running the show on climate change for the world.  Here, it’s NASA. Obama took the budget from NASA to do space science so they now must exist primarily on climate change science.  Gee, I wonder what position they will take for their survival? Then the far left who see this as income redistribution.  Really, sticking the poor for higher energy costs is benefitting the poor? No, it’s just huge piles of revenue to the government to give to the poor to offset the energy costs and get votes in perpetuity.

Here’s a simple idea to measure the value of climate science.  Trees process CO2. CO2 is the bad stuff entering the atmosphere  from excessive carbon usage.  To measure the net sum of CO2 and the effect on mankind and the planet, one needs to know the number of trees processing that CO2.

Guess what? Science just announced they underestimated the number of trees on the planet by a magnitude of nearly 8 times. Where they have said there were 400 billion trees they now say there are 3.04 trillion.  Who knows?  That was 38 scientists counting those 3.04 trillion trees. Seems like a pretty big job for 38 people. Maybe it’s really 10 trillion trees.

Here’s what  matters to me. If you can’t get close on the number of trees on the planet processing the CO2 put in the air, how am I to believe you can predict the weather 10 or 20 years out?

Please follow and like us:

Other Articles You Might Enjoy:

Comment (1)

  1. Doug Gordon says:

    Science by consensus of those with a vested interest in the “truth” being their opinion is not science. Atmospheric satellites show no temp increase, but again the vested interest crowd cooks the numbers on the ground stations by turning off coped area measurements in Siberia and maintaining urban heat island measuring stations are fine where 30 years ago they were in an empty field. So much wrong with this “science”, you have the truth of it in the income re-distribution line of reasoning.

Leave a Reply