Not a joke. Remember the “hockey stick” chart provided by the global warming advocates. There was a pronounced dip for about forty years, from about 1940 to about 1980. That’s what prompted the magazine covers in the 80’s about the coming Ice Age.
So some other factor obviously overwhelmed the influence of man-made emissions, and drove temperatures down for forty years. By the way, this cannot be “denial” because I’m using their official data. I’m not denying anything, I‘m just asking logical questions about the big-ass contradiction right in the middle of their own official data.
We need to answer three questions about that dip:
- What is the cooling factor which obviously overwhelmed the influence of man-made emissions, and drove temperatures down for forty years?
- What is the relationship between emissions and that cooling factor; which one is the dominant force?
- If emissions is the dominant force, then what are the costs vs. benefits of all the various options for mitigating the risk?
The second question is the biggie. Are emissions the dominant force and the cooling factor has just occasionally offset the influence of emissions? Or is the cooling factor the dominant force and emissions have just occasionally offset the influence of the cooling factor?
Because if the cooling factor is the dominant force, and we cut emissions … then we trigger an Ice Age. And there ain’t no coping with an Ice Age. We have many options for coping with rising sea levels, but there ain’t no coping with an Ice Age.
On question 3, there are a number of options for coping with rising sea levels, and we ought to see the relative costs vs. benefits of each option. Here’s a sample of the options:
- Reduce emissions
- Move inland to higher ground
- Build seawalls and/or raise buildings on stilts and/or floats (like Venice, Italy)
- Help the cooling factor offset a little more of the influence of emissions
Before we plunge headlong down the path of reducing emissions, we should certainly know these answers and have a thorough debate about our options. After all, if the “science” is “settled” on this, then shouldn’t “settled scientists” be able to provide these answers?
Why would there be any conflict about this, if the “settled scientists” had actually “settled” the “science” and provided these answers? Wouldn’t it be pretty easy to build a consensus if we had the answers to these questions?
But instead of actually “settling” the “science”, the “settled scientists” refuse to address the big-ass contradiction right in the middle of their own official data … while vehemently insisting their theory is correct nonetheless. That’s the “denial” right there, the refusal by “settled scientists” to address the big-ass contradiction right in the middle of their own official data.
By the way, one need not be a climate expert to ask the obvious question about the chart: if your theory says that increases in the input curve make the output curve go up, then why did the output curve go down for forty years while the input curve was going up? Your theory obviously is not complete, and you need to explain this big-ass contradiction right in the middle of your own official data.
ERpundit – 05/28/18