Common Sense Approach to Climate Change

One doesn’t have to be a PhD to understand the flaws of climate change science as it is presently constituted. If humans are primarily responsible for climate change along with C02, then how does that theory act in the real world?  Unfortunately for climate alarmists, the theory has not acted in real life as in their models.

Take the past 117 years, where we saw a warming between 1910 to 1940 even though CO2 levels were lower than today. We saw a cooling period between 1940 thru mid-1970s, leading many scientists to forecast an Ice age before a warming period from mid-1970’s to late 1990s occurred. A vast majority of studies shows that we are witnessing a hiatus despite the rising CO2.  

Nor is this all, since how do alarmists explain the medieval warming period despite the fact the C02 levels stayed steady? We could go back millions of years to see that we have seen similar climate even with CO2 levels anywhere to 5 to 20 fold than the present levels. So if the real world shows that climate goes up and down despite C02 levels. If we see lower stable C02 and still a medieval warming period or the present hiatus in spite of rising CO2, then logic will tell us that CO2 is not the only factor or even the major factor. This doesn’t mean that CO2 isn’t a factor or that human activity doesn’t play a role and even many Skeptics don’t discount human activity.  Where Skeptics have it right is that factors outside the control of humans playing a role in climate change now and in the past. 

The second aspect is that C02 is a building block of life and needed for plant life.  The process of photosynthesis is the exchange of Oxygen and CO2 between humans and plant life so the idea that C02 is a pollutant is nonsensical. To treat C02 levels as a pollutant is not just bad science but it results in bad policy.

There are scientists who believe that the increase of C02 levels is actually good for the planet and has led to a greening of the planet. Much of the increase in agricultural may be due to increase to CO2 levels so while this seems to represent a minority viewpoint but any basic knowledge of science could actually support the probability of this theory.

There is the disturbing news that during the Obama era, data may have been manipulated as former Department of Energy Under Secretary Steve Koonin noted, “What you saw coming out of the press releases about climate data, climate analysis, was, I’d say, misleading, sometimes just wrong” and this manipulation was designed to influence policy. One study that supposedly “debunked” the present hiatus may be one example of this manipulation as one whistle blower accused the scientists involved in the study ignoring safeguards to ensure accuracy of the data. The study was rushed through to support Obama’s policy of climate change and the Paris agreement. (There are numerous studies release before and after supporting the hiatus.)

When government scientists and official manipulate data to obtain specific public policy, they put at risk the credibility of science.  The alarmist past manipulation of data has compromised the scientific data on climate change and the alarmist attack on their fellow skeptic scientists have not only fail to advance the understanding of climate change past and present but it has set back the science. 

If there is one lesson on climate change science, what we don’t know far exceeds what we do know and what is missing from many climate alarmists is a reasonable doubt and modesty.  Much of what we know today, we will discard as being wrong in the foreseeable future.