A Note on Climate Change
The greatest tragedy to confront Mother Earth since the dawn of time is the advent of Man
Re: The discussion on climate change; fascinating at best, abysmal at worst. Unfortunately, climate change is real, and one may argue by what mechanism and how much is human-caused. I am not a climate scientist, but I have to trust my colleagues in these matters. As a physicist, I know enough about atmospheric physics to assert beyond any doubt that if you dump enough carbon dioxide and methane into the atmosphere, it will warm. The byproducts of combustion, like gasoline, are water and CO2 and a few other noxious things. How could you possibly argue that the millions of automobiles on the planet would not cause it to warm? It has no choice, and lacking a compensatory mechanism, given deforestation is on the rise, things are going to heat up.
Of course, in desperation, we could also consider the actual geophysical data, which indicates a worldwide rise in average temperature, the ice caps are melting, storms are getting more severe, the oceans are warming up, and the list goes on. Now, it’s true the earth has exhibited dramatic climate cycles in the past, but the climate change naysayers do have to explain the dramatic increase in atmospheric CO2 and natural gas (mostly methane) since the industrial revolution started in the 1850s or so. Maybe they could argue that this correlation is simply an astonishing coincidence.
Further, one has to ask that if the climate change lobby is some vast conspiracy, for what purpose might it be; because it is the liberal thing to do; because your father died in the mines of black lung disease, or because they all own stock in alternative energy development? In truth, scientists tend to be a liberal and cantankerous bunch and not likely to agree with each other for the sake of kumbaya. There is scarcely a responsible climate scientist anywhere on the planet that would not agree that the climate is, in fact, changing. What is astonishing is that there are a few, mostly with questionable credentials, claiming some secret insight, maybe acquired in a séance with Deepak Chopra (who knows everything, of course), into the issue that has somehow escaped the thousands of other climate scientists. Further, the fossil fuel lobby has no credibility for obvious reasons, and further Nobel laureates in solid-state physics or some other unrelated field that go around and preach to the illiterati who already believe that climate change is a hoax are at best disingenuous and hardly taken seriously by those who actually know what is going on. They are just telling these folks what they want to hear for fame and publicity. It's kind of like watching CNN or Fox News; are they going to say that Trump or Pelosi or someone from the other political persuasion has a good idea? Ratings would plummet. It's theatre at best, reinforcing what we are already prone to believe. It is called confirmation bias.
Fortunately, science is a self-correcting enterprise, and it might take a while, but it does eventually happen. There may come a time when those in high government positions who have denied climate change will be considered criminals.
Follow this blog that is written by a conservative scientist for a more detailed description of the elements of climate change.
