The Benefits of Climate Change
Do you remember Al Gore? He was not the first prophet of the alleged imminent environmental disaster. The first was James Hansen of NASA’s Goddard Space Center. Like Gore, Hansen sounded the alarms of anthropogenic climate change in 2003.
During an interview, I asked him if he could rule out that uncontrollable forces, such as solar cycles, were more influential in climate change than human activity. His answer was “we don’t know yet.”
Gore was known for even more alarming predictions that had no scientific basis. Like many early priests of the environmental movement, he used his political name to get the attention of the masses and of course, to earn a lot of money from popular ignorance.
Today, the number of prophets of environmental disaster, or ecological disaster still abound. There are younger ones, such as Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, the American congresswoman, or Greta Thunberg, the European pre-teen, controlled by George Soros, who blamed humanity for “destroying her life and her future.”
There is no scientific basis for alarmists to support their opinions, but that does not make them faint. In fact, they become even bolder. Have you already heard about the advent of an ecological hell? When are the superlative adjectives going to run out?
A new prophet of doom just joined this selected group. His name is Jeremy Rifkin. He wrote a column for EL PAIS newspaper, where he claims that the fossil fuel civilization will collapse in 2028. He threw his support for the Green New Deal, which he calls positively ambitious.
The reality of climate change is better explained and understood when moderate voices are heard and science is the base for it. An example of moderation is Myron Ebell, of the Institute for Business Competitiveness.
In regards to climate change, he says that “Climate models have been falsified.” He explains that virtually all the studies carried out are funded and carried out by governments, at least since the 1980s.
Ebell says that from the beginning, the proposal was to find signs that human activity is responsible for global warming and climate change as a whole.
This is not how science works, however, from all the resources used to “investigate” climate change, the proportion given to those who support the “consensus” with respect to those who are skeptical is $ 6800.00 for $ 1.00 respectively.
Those who oppose the pseudoscience of climate change and extremism led by oil multinationals and billionaire financiers are ridiculed, insulted and segregated due to their ‘heresy’, while those who manipulate science with computer models are elevated as gods.
In this we must be very clear and objective with a couple of elements that few people know:
1. Climate models used to create disastrous forecasts are set up so that they consider CO2 to be by far the element responsible for “imminent disaster”.
2. “Scientific evidence” is sought so that beliefs about climate fit as the manufacturers of climate models want.
Important questions about Climate Change
We will focus on issues relevant to the topic of climate change and science, not comments or opinions.
There are a number of questions that need to be answered from a scientific perspective:
1. How much of the warming is caused by human activity?
2. How much will the Earth heat up in the 21st century?
3. Will that warming be negative for humanity?
4. Can we reduce warming, and if possible, what impact would it have on society?
5. Would the reduction in heating improve climate forecasts?
Greenhouse gases, such as water vapor, which is the most powerful of all by far, are responsible for the survival of plants, animals, and humans. They are benign, not malignant gases.
The levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have increased from about 220 parts per million since the 1800s, to about 420 parts per million today. That means one part for every 2,500.
CO2 is not the cause of climate change, but science has been manipulated to make it seem that way. This position has been maintained since the 80s when the prophets of ecological disaster warned us of the imminent catastrophe of global cooling.
In the “science” of climate change, much more powerful elements that affect long-term climate are ignored. Among them are solar cycles, which not only influence the Earth’s climate, but also the other planets’ climate; and the changes in oceans, which cover three-quarters of the planet.
If the sun is capable of changing the temperatures of the solar system, and specifically of planet Earth every 3 or 4 months, from summer to winter, how is it that its effect is set aside when talking about climate change? The sun has the power to change the weather in a matter of months, but its cycles are ignored when studying the causes of climate change? It does not seem like a reasonable or scientific decision.
The same goes for the oceans. The greatest amounts of heat and CO2 are in the oceans.
Why? Because water, composed of hydrogen and oxygen, is much denser than air, so it absorbs much more CO2 than the rest of the gases in the atmosphere.
In addition to the greater amounts of heat and CO2, oceans have oscillations of marine currents in the Pacific and the Atlantic, that undergo cyclic changes. In spite of this, “climate scientists” believe that the oceans have little to do with the climatic variations and they do not include these cycles and variations in their predictions.
What the “experts” do is ignore or diminish the influence of the sun and the oceans in their models, and try to prove in many ways the idea that humans and their industrial activity that uses oil, natural gas and carbon, is the one responsible for the global warming. By the way, this idea originated back in the 1900s.
The problem with the theory of climate sensitivity to different concentrations of CO2 is that when this theory was adopted, it was just that, a theory. Many years have passed since 1900 and studies based on science, not theory, show that the climate is not as sensitive to CO2 as previously thought. Yet the Scientific Establishment refuses to abandon its theory.
In the 1980s, when we were warned of the imminent dangers of global cooling, such experts used the very same theory originated in 1900. In the 1990s, when Al Gore warned us of the dangers of global warming, he still used that theory to support his opinions.
Unfortunately for him and his henchmen, his predictions for the beginning of the 21st century were never fulfilled. In fact, climate change alarmists had to change some names.
The term global warming stopped being used and climate change was adopted, and when this did not serve their purposes, they began to speak of atmospheric variability. Today something more striking is used: Ecological Hell.
The reality is that computerized models were falsified by the scientific community, and today, new studies prove that the results of the models were wrong.
“Climate science is no such a thing,” says Myron Ebell. “It has become postmodernist science.” Ebell says that scientists are still in charge of carrying out the experiments to determine the validity of the theory of anthropogenic climate change, but that they have guaranteed a series of premises, none of which are scientific.
The IPCC, NASA and other government entities carry out studies not to find the truth about whether human activity is the cause of climate change, but rather how to justify such a conclusion.
Scientists and their computerized models assume that human activity causes climate change and based on that premise they look for things to prove it. As explained above, the proportion of funds distributed to the scientific community is 6800:1 in favor of those who strive to determine that humans cause climate change.
Is there or isn’t there a climate crisis?
Scientifically speaking, it does not seem so. But today, believing that there is no climate crisis is a heresy. Those who doubt it are called racists, xenophobes, heretics, terrorists and other epithets.
There are all kinds of exaggerations that are related to climate change. More hurricanes, more storms, rising ocean levels, droughts, floods, earthquakes, etc. But there is no science to support these theories.
Many of the IPCC’s own studies often do not support scientific exaggerations about climate change and its connection to natural events.
What is actually real are climate cycles and in terms of natural disasters, there has been a decline in the last 15 years, with a rise in natural weather phenomena in the last two years.
Climate change is also not responsible for the increase in diseases such as malaria, or polio, as it has been suggested. This idea that climate change has to do with everything was used by Al Gore when he told us that polar bears were starving because there was not enough salmon in the water. This prediction never happened. Today there are many more polar bears than ever before; around 30,000.
The supposed negative effects of climate change are minimal when the benefits are considered. How so? Are there any benefits? Sure!
In historical terms of the Earth’s climate, we are going through a period of cooling, not warming. Within that period of cooling, there was the Mini Ice Age, after which a period of mini heating began. It is within that mini warming period we are living today. Does it sound confusing? Well, the climate is complex, not simple.
An important question to ask ourselves is: What is more harmful to survival, warming or cooling?
It is important to know that the areas north of the Equator are the largest and most widely used for the cultivation of food. North America and China, for example, are indisputably essential for growing food to feed the global population. So, what type of climate is better for food production? Hot climate or being buried under 20 meters of ice, as it happened during the Mini Ice Age?
Humanity has flourished since the planet began to warm up in the period after the Mini Ice Age. Many more people died due to excess cold. The same did not happen due to excessive heat due to the technological advancements in the creation of, for example, air conditioning. But what if instead of hot weather we had freezing conditions? Well, there would be no way to feed people and millions would starve to death.
In the same way that the high price of energy in many places in northern Europe has not allowed many to heat up their homes in the winter of 2019 has resulted in deaths in vulnerable populations, millions of people in poor nations and even rich nations would have their lives compromised by the adoption of policies such as the Green New Deal, which aims to get rid of natural gas, oil and coal in the next 10 years without having a viable alternative to replace them.
The big problem for millions of people today is not climate change, but energy poverty.
While “scientists” and experts tell us that we should stop eating meat and stop using air conditioning to save the planet, the truth is that until today, increases in CO2 contributed to the greening of the planet, which means that there is more abundance of food, forests, and conditions for life.
The greening of the planet is irrefutable. NASA’s own satellite images show it. Boreal and tropical forests, as well as grazing areas of the planet, have become greener. Unlike what is seen in the news, the number of deaths from natural disasters has decreased by 99% and forest fires have decreased, too.
What does CNN tell us, for example, compared to what science shows? In a recent debate on climate change, where democrat presidential candidates participated, the news network producers told the moderators that it was better if during their interventions they only talked about the existence of a man-made climate crisis and that they should demand that the candidates talk about their solutions to such crisis.
Who benefits from the alarmism of climate change
Well, the bootleggers, who offer the funds to finance the environmental movement, and the prophets and fans from the world of politics, who make us believe that we are in a crisis to gain more power. And guess who the prophets and politicians work for? They work for the bootleggers, who pay for the expenses of climate alarmism.
Al Gore is one of the priests of the environmental movement while becoming rich with his company of carbon emissions credits and investments in clean energy.
Gore is joined by billionaires such as George Soros, the Vatican, academics, and energy multinationals, who finance scientific research, travel and the publication of books and materials related to climate change.
What these priests propose is that in 10 years or less the planet makes a transition to clean energies, but little consideration is given to the fact that there is not a single source of clean energy that can meet the planet’s energy demands.
Little is said about the fact that 20 or 30 years ago the industry used fossil fuels, natural gas, and other energy sources to perform 80% of its activities. Today, that number is the same, but in different proportions. Before, more carbon and oil were used, and now more natural gas is used.
In countries like China and India, carbon is utilized in more quantities than oil or natural gas, a fact that makes these two countries the most polluting on the planet.
For half a century, renewable energy has become attractive, however, its use is still insignificant compared to natural gas or oil, due to its production costs and because its own production also causes pollution and CO2 production.
The amount of work and environment intervention needed to bring renewable energy a little more to the forefront make its use basically impossible to maintain.
Today, it is impossible to obtain the amounts of minerals needed to be excavated to create an industry of windmills and solar panels, which, by the way, is rejected by those who want us to get rid of fossil fuels. As you can see, the environmental movement does not make scientific or technological sense.
To this we must add that the oscillation of photovoltaic technology makes it impossible for the electricity grid to operate efficiently and effectively, and that in the case of windmills, the wind does not blow 24 hours a day, just as the sun does not shine 24 hours a day to offer the production and storage capacity required to maintain present energy demand.
Another aspect of which little is said is the space that is needed to create windmill or solar panel farms that can meet the planet’s energy needs. While the use of fossil fuels and natural gas is feasible due to its relatively insignificant use of land, the installation of large windmill farms or solar panels fields would take territories the size of the state of California in the United States, so that their energy production could be meaningful.
Finally, the efficiency of energy sources must be taken into account. While oil, natural gas, and coal have large amounts of energy per unit, both solar energy and windmill energy have very poor efficiency, which means that much more has to be produced to match the firepower offered by oil, gas or coal.
If environmentalists are concerned about the construction of pipelines to transport natural gas or oil, due to their impact on the environment, what would they think about covering an area the size of California with solar panels and windmills?
So are we royally screwed? Well, environmentalists and politicians seem to think so, because their only solution is to deindustrialize the planet and return to have living standards similar to those seen in the 1900s, while they do enjoy the benefits of state-of-the-art technology that is only within reach of those who can afford it.
The answer to their agenda of imminent catastrophes is that each country and each region of the planet must have its own solutions to their energy needs. There is not one energy source or a combination of alternative clean energy sources that are able to meet everyone’s needs. Countries can and should be responsible for their environmental policies, not the IPCC, NASA or the EU.