New Paper shows Inverse Relationship between Global Warming and Coal-Fired Power Plants

Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 6th, 2013

Week in Review

In the Seventies they were scaring kids about a coming ice age.  And about air pollution so bad that we would one day have to wear gas masks when going outside.  The planet is a lot cleaner now.  And there is no talk about Americans one day having to wear a gas mask when going outside.  And that coming ice age?  Well, they were just wrong about that.  For what they thought was global cooling was actually global warming.  An easy mistake to make.  Because they’re both about temperature.  One just moves in one direction.  While the other moves in the other.  And unless you do something like record temperatures periodically how are you going to know which direction those temperatures are moving?

Then again, perhaps there was cooling then.  Before that cooling turned into warming.  For it now appears the reverse is happening.  A move from warming back to cooling.  Thanks to the Chinese and the Indians (see Climate forcing growth rates: doubling down on our Faustian bargain posted on IOP Science).

Remarkably, and we will argue importantly, the airborne fraction has declined since 2000 (figure 3) during a period without any large volcanic eruptions… The airborne fraction is affected by factors other than the efficiency of carbon sinks, most notably by changes in the rate of fossil fuel emissions (Gloor et al 2010). However, it is the dependence of the airborne fraction on fossil fuel emission rate that makes the post-2000 downturn of the airborne fraction particularly striking. The change of emission rate in 2000 from 1.5% yr-1 to 3.1% yr-1 (figure 1), other things being equal, would have caused a sharp increase of the airborne fraction (the simple reason being that a rapid source increase provides less time for carbon to be moved downward out of the ocean’s upper layers).

A decrease in land use emissions during the past decade (Harris et al 2012) could contribute to the decreasing airborne fraction in figure 3, although Malhi (2010) presents evidence that tropical forest deforestation and regrowth are approximately in balance, within uncertainties. Land use change can be only a partial explanation for the decrease of the airborne fraction; something more than land use change seems to be occurring.

We suggest that the huge post-2000 increase of uptake by the carbon sinks implied by figure 3 is related to the simultaneous sharp increase in coal use (figure 1). Increased coal use occurred primarily in China and India… Associated gaseous and particulate emissions increased rapidly after 2000 in China and India (Lu et al 2011, Tian et al 2010). Some decrease of the sulfur component of emissions occurred in China after 2006 as wide application of flue-gas desulfurization began to be initiated (Lu et al 2010), but this was largely offset by continuing emission increases from India (Lu et al 2011).

We suggest that the surge of fossil fuel use, mainly coal, since 2000 is a basic cause of the large increase of carbon uptake by the combined terrestrial and ocean carbon sinks… Sulfate aerosols from coal burning also might increase carbon uptake by increasing the proportion of diffuse insolation, as noted above for Pinatubo aerosols, even though the total solar radiation reaching the surface is reduced…

Reduction of the net human-made climate forcing by aerosols has been described as a ‘Faustian bargain’ (Hansen and Lacis 1990, Hansen 2009), because the aerosols constitute deleterious particulate air pollution. Reduction of the net climate forcing by half will continue only if we allow air pollution to build up to greater and greater amounts.

Let’s review.  The airborne fraction carbon dioxide has fallen since 2000.  And, as a result, global temperatures did not rise as projected.  Even though there were no large volcanic eruptions.  Which cause global cooling.  Tropical forest deforestation and re-growth are balancing each other out.  So that’s not a factor in this decline of airborne carbon dioxide.  Which leaves the sole remaining answer for the decline in airborne carbon dioxide levels as China’s and India’s explosion in new coal-fired power plants.  Yes, the wonderful air pollution from burning coal apparently cools the planet.  Like a volcanic eruption does.

Are you seeing the bigger picture here?  For a hundred years or so the Industrial Revolution belched so much ash, soot, smoke, carbon dioxide and sulfur dioxide into the air that it left black clouds over cities.  And a layer of soot and ash on everything.  This is why we electrified trains in our cities.  To keep coal-fired locomotives and their great black plumes of smoke out of the cities.  Was there a global warming problem then?  No.  That didn’t come into vogue until Al Gore started talking about it in the Nineties.  When the planet was doomed if we didn’t act immediately to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.  Despite only a few years earlier the climate scientists were warning us of the coming ice age.  Probably because of all that global cooling from our coal-fired power plants, steam engines and locomotives.

As oil, gas and electricity replaced coal-fired boilers everywhere (we even used coal in our home furnaces) all that pollution from coal went away.  And then came the Nineties.  And catastrophic global warming.  Just as China and India began to incorporate some capitalism into their economies.  Which they fed with electricity provided by more and more coal-fired power plants.  And as they belched all that wonderful pollution into the air the airborne fraction of carbon dioxide as well as global temperatures fell.  So I ask again, do you see the bigger picture here?

Yes, global warming is man-made.  At least this is what one can conclude from this paper.  And it is the climate scientists who made it.  By telling us to reduce all of the cooling emissions from our coal-fired power plants.  But, thankfully, the Indians and the Chinese still care enough about Mother Earth to pump those cooling emissions into the air.  And gave us a reprieve from the global warming apocalypse.  But if the climate scientists get their way they’ll bring on that apocalypse.  By pressuring China and India to stop putting those cooling emissions into the air.  And for the sake of the planet we can only hope that they don’t succumb to that pressure.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The War on Coal to Fight Global Warming is actually Contributing to Global Warming

Posted by PITHOCRATES - January 27th, 2013

Week in Review

Al Gore became filthy stinking rich by scaring people about global warming.  He even won an Academy Award for his movie An Inconvenient Truth about how global warming was coming to kill us.  He and his fellow leftists throughout the world jumped onto the global warming bandwagon to do things they’ve always wanted to do.  Regulate and tax businesses to transfer as much wealth from the private sector to the public sector they controlled.  Giving them the power they so covet.

And they used that power to further regulate businesses and change the way we live our lives.  Launching wars on oil and coal.  And pouring billions of taxpayer money into green energy initiatives that they and their crony capitalist friends control.  All based on some data they gathered in the Nineties.  That they then put into their flawed climate models.  And laugh with all-knowing condescension at anyone who dares challenge them on the facts.  And belittles them.  Even punishing them where they can.  With further regulatory controls.  Legislation that favors their competition.  Or a brutal colonoscopy performed by the IRS or local and state tax authorities.  Just as a reminder of who has the power.  And who belongs to the privileged class.  The American nobility.  The new aristocracy.  Just like the old aristocracy.  The ruling class.  The federal government.

Well, it turns out they were wrong.  And the deniers had good cause to not believe in man-made global warming.  Because their models were flawed.  Based on temperatures from a natural warming period.  A warming caused not by man.  But by the planet (see Global warming less extreme than feared? by Bård Amundsen/Else Lie (translation: Darren McKellep/Carol B. Eckmann) posted 1/24/2013 on The Research Council of Norway).

Policymakers are attempting to contain global warming at less than 2°C. New estimates from a Norwegian project on climate calculations indicate this target may be more attainable than many experts have feared…

After Earth’s mean surface temperature climbed sharply through the 1990s, the increase has levelled off nearly completely at its 2000 level. Ocean warming also appears to have stabilised somewhat, despite the fact that CO2 emissions and other anthropogenic factors thought to contribute to global warming are still on the rise…

A number of factors affect the formation of climate development. The complexity of the climate system is further compounded by a phenomenon known as feedback mechanisms, i.e. how factors such as clouds, evaporation, snow and ice mutually affect one another.

Uncertainties about the overall results of feedback mechanisms make it very difficult to predict just how much of the rise in Earth’s mean surface temperature is due to manmade emissions. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) the climate sensitivity to doubled atmospheric CO2 levels is probably between 2°C and 4.5°C, with the most probable being 3°C of warming.

In the Norwegian project, however, researchers have arrived at an estimate of 1.9°C as the most likely level of warming…

For their analysis, Professor Berntsen and his colleagues entered all the factors contributing to human-induced climate forcings since 1750 into their model. In addition, they entered fluctuations in climate caused by natural factors such as volcanic eruptions and solar activity. They also entered measurements of temperatures taken in the air, on ground, and in the oceans.

The researchers used a single climate model that repeated calculations millions of times in order to form a basis for statistical analysis. Highly advanced calculations based on Bayesian statistics were carried out by statisticians at the Norwegian Computing Center…

The figure of 1.9°C as a prediction of global warming from a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration is an average. When researchers instead calculate a probability interval of what will occur, including observations and data up to 2010, they determine with 90% probability that global warming from a doubling of CO2 concentration would lie between 1.2°C and 2.9°C.

This maximum of 2.9°C global warming is substantially lower than many previous calculations have estimated. Thus, when the researchers factor in the observations of temperature trends from 2000 to 2010, they significantly reduce the probability of our experiencing the most dramatic climate change forecast up to now.

Professor Berntsen explains the changed predictions:

“The Earth’s mean temperature rose sharply during the 1990s. This may have caused us to overestimate climate sensitivity.

“We are most likely witnessing natural fluctuations in the climate system – changes that can occur over several decades – and which are coming on top of a long-term warming. The natural changes resulted in a rapid global temperature rise in the 1990s, whereas the natural variations between 2000 and 2010 may have resulted in the levelling off we are observing now…”

The project’s researchers may have shed new light on another factor: the effects of sulphur-containing atmospheric particulates.

Burning coal is the main way that humans continue to add to the vast amounts of tiny sulphate particulates in the atmosphere. These particulates can act as condensation nuclei for cloud formation, cooling the climate indirectly by causing more cloud cover, scientists believe. According to this reasoning, if Europe, the US and potentially China reduce their particulate emissions in the coming years as planned, it should actually contribute to more global warming.

Some things to take away from this.  Climate is very complex.  And climate models require a boatload of assumptions.  Guesses.  Not even educated guesses.  But politically-driven guesses.  Also, they based their models on the temperatures in the Nineties being the new normal when the Nineties was in fact a natural warming period.  Where temperatures were temporarily above normal temperatures.  Volcanic eruptions and solar activity also influence climate.  And that sulfur actually causes global cooling.  Which is why volcanic activity causes global cooling.  Because volcanoes release sulfur particles into the atmosphere.  Just as burning coal does.  So the war on coal to fight global warming is actually contributing to global warming.

When you remove the politics from climate science you can arrive but at one solution.  Al Gore needs to return his Academy Award for An Inconvenient Truth.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

President Obama’s Green Energy Investment into Electric Cars is a Failure According to CB0

Posted by PITHOCRATES - September 22nd, 2012

Week in Review

Saving the planet with electric cars is a costly endeavor.  Part of the problem is that no one wants these cars.  Even with fat government subsidies.  Because people would rather have big SUVs, trucks and full-size sedans.  Vehicles that are useful.  Safe.  And have big gasoline engines in them that will always get you home.  Which is why the government’s green energy investment into the electric car industry will never deliver any of its promises (see U.S. electric car policy to cost $7.5 billion by 2019: CBO by Bernie Woodall and Deepa Seetharaman posted 9/20/2012 on Reuters).

U.S. federal policies to promote electric vehicles will cost $7.5 billion through 2019 and have “little to no impact” on overall national gasoline consumption over the next several years, the Congressional Budget Office said in a report issued on Thursday.

Consumer tax credits for buying electric vehicles, which can run as high as $7,500 per vehicle, will account for about 25 percent of the $7.5 billion cost, the CBO said.

The rest of the cost comprises of $2.4 billion in grants to battery makers and projects to promote electric vehicles as well as $3.1 billion in loans to auto companies designed to spur production of fuel-efficient vehicles.

“The more electric and other high-fuel-economy vehicles that are sold because of the tax credits, the more low-fuel-economy vehicles that automakers can sell and still meet the standards,” according to the report.

As a result, tax credits will have “little or no impact on the total gasoline use and greenhouse gas emissions of the nation’s vehicle fleet over the next several years.”

So auto makers are selling electric vehicles for two reasons.  Government subsidies.  And so they can sell more lower-fuel-economy and higher-polluting profitable vehicles.  The kind of vehicles the people want to buy.  And will buy without any government subsidies.  No one wants to buy the electric cars.  And the automakers can’t make any money selling the electric cars.  The only way any sales of electric cars happen is by transferring a large chunk of their cost to the taxpayers.  Against their will.  But, then again, that’s what government is for these days, isn’t it?  Going against the will of their constituents.

While drivers of these electric vehicles use less gasoline and emit less greenhouse gas such as carbon dioxide, the cost to the government can be high, the CBO found. The U.S. government will spend anywhere from $3 to $7 for each gallon of gasoline saved by consumers driving electric vehicles…

The CBO said an average plug-in hybrid vehicle with a battery capacity of 16 kilowatt-hours is eligible for the maximum tax credit of $7,500.

“However, that vehicle would require a tax credit of more than $12,000 to have roughly the same lifetime costs as a comparable conventional or traditional hybrid vehicle,” the CBO said.

And, the bigger the battery the greater the cost disadvantage for buyers of plug-in vehicles and conventional vehicles, the CBO said.

What happened to that laser-like focus on creating jobs?  That’s what President Obama said back in 2009.  And here we are in 2012 still suffering in the Great Recession.  Despite their Recovery Summer back in 2010.  The president is spending a lot of money.  Some $500 billion or more to the solar panel maker Solyndra now in bankruptcy.  As well as other green energy investments.  Including the investment into electric cars to wean us off of expensive gasoline.  While the cost of the subsidies for these electric cars will basically double the price of gasoline the rest of us pay (the price of the subsidy costs us as much as what gasoline costs us).

We’d be better off just paying for the expensive gasoline to put into the cars we want to buy.

But it’s worth the price to save the planet.  That’s what they say.  But I can’t help but notice that the planet has never been in worse shape since we started trying to save it.  We know volcanic eruptions can lower the earth’s temperature with the amount of smoke, soot, ash and sulfur dioxide they put into the atmosphere.   Periods of global cooling correlate to active volcanic activity.  So that’s a given.  We know it for a fact.  So is it any coincidence that when we started putting scrubbers onto our coal-fired power plants to remove these same things from our smoke stacks that global temperatures began to rise?

Once upon a time we all burned coal in our houses for heat.  Coal-fired locomotives transported people and freight.  And every factory had a coal-fired steam engine.  We covered our cities in smoke, soot and ash from all the coal we burned.  But there was no global warming then like we have today.  Why?  Can it be that burning coal releases the same stuff volcanoes release when they erupt?  And cool the planet?  Perhaps.  If the global warming alarmists were right then the attack on coal and all the emission controls they mandated on our cars should have made the planet a chilly place.  Shortening our growing seasons.  And given us a famine or two along the way.  But that hasn’t happened.  Because the global warming alarmists have been warning us that the end of the world was only 3 years away for the last 30 years.  How much longer are we to quake in our shoes from their nonsense?

The earth is fine.  We need to stop listening to these people.  Because all they’re doing is transferring enormous sums of money from the private sector to the public sector.  To play their games.  And live comfortably.  While those of us paying the taxes and buying the things they make ever more expensive have to sacrifice our quality of life so these talentless alarmist hacks can live a comfortable elitist life at our expense.  And they’re laughing at us all the way to the bank.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Sea Levels are Rising and there’s Nothing we can do about It so go ahead and Fire Up those Coal-Fired Power Plants

Posted by PITHOCRATES - July 1st, 2012

Week in Review

Good news.  There’s nothing we can do to lower the sea levels.  So we can stop all of that global warming nonsense.  And live life normally again (see Rise in sea level can’t be stopped: scientists by Nina Chestney posted 7/1/2012 on Reuters).

Rising sea levels cannot be stopped over the next several hundred years, even if deep emissions cuts lower global average temperatures, but they can be slowed down, climate scientists said in a study on Sunday…

“Though sea-level rise cannot be stopped for at least the next several hundred years, with aggressive mitigation it can be slowed down, and this would buy time for adaptation measures to be adopted,” the scientists added.

You know the best thing we can do to try and stop the sea levels from rising?  Stop trying to stop the sea levels from rising.

Volcanic eruptions have lowered global temperatures by throwing soot, ash and sulfur into the atmosphere.  Some famines have been blamed on volcanic activity shortening the growing season.  Making it cooler and wetter.  So volcanic eruptions lower global temperatures by throwing soot, ash and sulfur into the atmosphere.  You know what else throws soot, ash and sulfur into the atmosphere.  Coal-fired power plants.  Interestingly, the catastrophic rise in global temperatures corresponds to the attack on coal.  Could this mean that the global warming alarmists have caused global warming by their efforts to stop global warming?  Yes.  It could very well mean that.  And when some of their own talk about pumping sulfur in the atmosphere to combat global warming it’s even harder to dispute this.

It looks like the climate scientists may be responsible for global warming.  While the coal-fired power plants were keeping the global temperature down all along.  How about that?

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Solar Activity causing Problems for Global Warming ‘Scientists’

Posted by PITHOCRATES - June 15th, 2011

Sunspot Activity is an Important Variable in Climate Forecasting

There’s a consensus in the global warming community.  And it says that global warming exists.  But there’s a problem now.  The sun, the source of our planet’s warmth, is throwing the global warming people a curve ball.  The sun may be getting cooler.  And, being the source of our warmth, our planet may now be getting cooler.  Amidst all this rampant global warming (see Scientists predict rare ‘hibernation’ of sunspots by Kerry Sheridan, AFP, posted 6/14/2011 on Yahoo! News).

According to three studies released in the United States on Tuesday, experts believe the familiar sunspot cycle may be shutting down and heading toward a pattern of inactivity unseen since the 17th century…and may contribute to climate change…”

Sunspot activity may contribute to climate change?  Interesting.  Because I never heard Al Gore say that.  He said man was causing climate change.  Warning that man’s carbon footprint on the planet would melt the polar ice caps and flood coastal areas.  By the way, after he said this he bought a beach house.  A mansion, really.  In a coastal area.  How brave of him.

Experts are now probing whether this period of inactivity could be a second Maunder Minimum, which was a 70-year period when hardly any sunspots were observed between 1645-1715, a period known as the “Little Ice Age.”

Now this is even more interesting.  Because the global warming people told us that unless we took action right now the planet was doomed.  Now we may save the planet by doing just that.  Nothing.  Scientists are saying we may have a cooling period of solar activity.  Just like that during the Little Ice Age.  Climate change caused by the sun.  Now that’s something you can’t blame man for.  Not even the Republicans.

The temperature change associated with any reduction in sunspot activity would likely be minimal and may not be enough to offset the impact of greenhouse gases on global warming, according to scientists who have published recent papers on the topic.

Even though the last time there was solar activity like this was one of the coldest periods known to man it probably means nothing now.  At least according to their computer models.  Those remarkable predicting machines.  That somehow failed to predict this solar activity.  Well, as long as solar activity isn’t a big climate variable.

If the cycle were to stop or slow down, the small fluctuation in temperature would do the same, eliminating the slightly cooler effect of a solar minimum compared to the warmer solar maximum. The phenomenon was witnessed during the descending phase of the last solar cycle.

This “cancelled part of the greenhouse gas warming of the period 2000-2008, causing the net global surface temperature to remain approximately flat — and leading to the big debate of why the Earth hadn’t (been) warming in the past decade,” Lean, who was not involved in the three studies presented, said in an email to AFP.

Wait a minute.  If it cancelled out a decade of global warming it must be a pretty darn big climate variable.  It’s so powerful it held global warming at bay for about a decade.  Single-handedly preventing all sorts of disasters.  And there were a lot of them predicted since the Nineties (and earlier).  Very specific disasters.  And they were all wrong.  Because they didn’t include what appears to be a pretty important variable.  A variable so important that it trumped every other variable in their computer models.  Which doesn’t say much for their predicting models.  Or the predictability of climate.

“A new Maunder-type solar activity minimum cannot offset the global warming caused by human greenhouse gas emissions,” wrote authors Georg Feulner and Stefan Rahmstorf, noting that forecasts by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have found a range of 3.7 Celsius to 4.5 Celsius rise by this century’s end compared to the latter half of the 20th century.

“Moreover, any offset of global warming due to a grand minimum of solar activity would be merely a temporary effect, since the distinct solar minima during the last millennium typically lasted for only several decades or a century at most.”

Funny.  When sunspot activity correlates to similar activity during the Little Ice Age they use the word ‘may’.  Here they use the word ‘cannot’.  There is no way that a reduction in sunspot activity can stop manmade global warming.  Even though they got it wrong in the 2000-2008 period.  Because their models didn’t predict the cooling effect of a reduction in sunspot activity.  Nor did they predict a reduction in sunspot activity.  But despite these misses, their other predictions hold.  The planet is warming.  Because of man.  Even if we may have to wait another 100 years for those temperatures to get where the models said they’d be already.

The Maunder Minimum and the Little Ice Age

So did the Maunder Minimum cause the Little Ice Age?  According to some of the best climate ‘scientists’, it didn’t.  Because although a Maunder-type solar activity minimum held off devastating global warming from 2000-2008, there isn’t really a connection between an even bigger Maunder-type solar activity minimum (the Maunder Minimum itself) and the Little Ice Age (see Scientists see sunspot “hibernation” but no Ice Age by Deborah Zabarenko posted 6/15/2011 on Reuters).

They also wondered whether this possible slowdown, or even a long cessation of sunspot activity, indicates an upcoming return of the Maunder Minimum, a 70-year sunspot drought seen from 1645-1715…

They had no answer as to whether this might be true, and said nothing about whether the Maunder Minimum — named for astronomer E.H. Maunder — was related to a long cold period in Europe and other parts of the Northern Hemisphere known as the Little Ice Age.

How strong a connection is there between a Little Ice Age and a Maunder Minimum? “Not as strong a connection as people would like to believe,” Hill said by phone.

So the Maunder Minimum did not cause the Little Ice Age.  And we know this why?

“In my opinion, it is a huge leap … to an abrupt global cooling, since the connections between solar activity and climate are still very poorly understood,” he said in an e-mail.

Because we don’t understand the connections between solar activity and climate?  That’s your reason for saying there’s no connection between the two?  Because you don’t know?  Of course, if you don’t know, there could very well be a connection between the two.  Look, we know there’s a connection.  If the sun burned out the earth would freeze and all life would die.  Even with manmade global warming.  The sun is that important to the earth.  If you don’t have that factored into your computer models there’s something wrong with your models.

A Cooling Sun will Cool the Planet

Wait a tic.  Apparently there isn’t a consensus on this global warming thing after all.  While some poo poo solar activity’s affect on climate, others see a connection.  They see the correlation between the coldest period of the Little Ice Age and the Maunder Minimum (see Lack of sunspots may have aided ‘little ice age’ by Charles Q. Choi posted 6/6/2011 on MSNBC).

From the 1500s to the 1800s, much of Europe and North America were plunged into what came to be called the little ice age. The coolest part of this cold spell coincided with a 75-year period beginning in 1645 when astronomers detected almost no sunspots on the sun, a time now referred to as the Maunder Minimum.

There’s no connection between the Little Ice Age and the Maunder Minimum per the global warming ‘scientists’.  Yes, the coldest part of that ice age was during the Maunder Minimum.  But isn’t that just a coincidence?

Now scientists suggest there might have been fewer intensely bright spots known as faculae on the sun as well during that time, potentially reducing its brightness enough to cool the Earth.

The dip in the number of faculae in the 17th century might have dimmed the sun by just 0.2 percent, which may have been enough to help trigger a brief, radical climate shift on Earth, researcher Peter Foukal, a solar physicist at research company Heliophysics in Nahant, Mass., told LiveScience.

“The sun may have dimmed more than we thought,” Foukal said.

Guess not. 

A dimming of the sun may have caused a brief, radical climate shift during the Little Ice Age?  Really?  Wow.  That’s sort of the exact opposite of what the global warming ‘scientists’ said.  Being that the sun is the source of our warmth, it makes sense.  And the dimming may have been even dimmer than we once thought.  So it’s looking more and more like the Maunder Minimum may have caused the Little Ice Age.

Foukal emphasized this dimming might not have been the only or even main cause of the cooling seen during the little ice age. “There were also strong volcanic effects involved — something like 17 huge volcanic eruptions then,” he said.

Foukal also cautioned these findings regarding the sun did not apply to modern-day global warming. “Increased solar activity would not have anything to do with the global warming seen in the last 100 years,” he explained.

Now I’m confused.  Volcanic eruptions send ash, carbon dioxide and sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere.  So do coal-fired power plants.  Yet volcanoes cool the planet.  While burning coal warms the planet.  How can that be?  I guess anything is possible in the world of global warming and climate change.  Such as how the warming mechanism for the last 100 years can also been the cooling mechanism during the Little Ice Age.

There is no such thing as ‘Consensus’ in Science

We hear over and over again that only man is causing global warming.  But there’s been global warming before man and his Industrial Revolution polluted the planet.  The earth warmed after each ice age.  And the earth warmed after the Little Ice Age. 

And it’s looking like the Little Ice Age was caused by a decrease in sunspot activity.  Which may be happening again.  Which means the planet may start a cooling period.  During the height of global warming.  Which, if true, further lends credence to the claim that global warming is a hoax.  Created by man.  For political purposes.  Money.  Carbon permitsCarbon trading.  It’s all about the money.  As it always is.

This is the problem with scientific consensus.  There is no such thing.  A consensus is political.  Not scientific.  Because science is not about the money.  But politics is. 

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,