There are claims that children are being taught in the schools that CO2 is evil, and that man's activities are causing catastrophic changes in the climate. Even if the children are being brainwashed about AGW (and I don’t know either way on that), children have a way of growing up. And finding their own truth. Testing authority – or rejecting it. But this pre-supposes that children actually learn in school, a result that is not borne out by some competency testing. However, I digress.
Enough of them (the children) will soon find that they have been lied to, much as my generation was lied to by our US government in the 1960’s. The results then were (almost) revolutionary. It should be fun to watch what the current group of teens and 20-somethings do as they find they’ve been lied to. They have the internet with which to communicate. All we had was tv, our songs, and “happenings.”
Below are some questions (a Baker's dozen) that teens and 20-somethings should be asked to get them thinking:
– When CO2 was much higher in the past compared to today, why did ice ages occur? Why didn’t the earth have runaway warming with hotter summers and melting polar ice caps with much higher CO2?
– What caused the ice ages to end, was it CO2? There have been dozens of ice ages with warm periods in between.
– How did the recently-discovered ancient hunter get beneath a glacier in the Alps, especially since he was mortally wounded with an arrow? Did he dig a hole through the glacier to die under there? Or was it so warm in those days (roughly 6,000 years ago) that the Alpine pass was free of ice, so that later snows covered the body and became a glacier? How could our time be the warmest on record, then?
– Since any gas (like CO2) absorbs radiation energy (like heat from the earth) such that each doubling of the gas absorbs less and less than the previous amount, why should anyone be concerned about an increase from 380 ppm to 760 ppm (a doubling)?
– The Roman warm period, and the Medieval warm period were both much warmer than today, so how did Polar bears survive those warm periods? PETA and WWF were not around back then.
– Why is the sea level decreasing off the coast of California? see this link
– Why are sunspots so very critical to earth’s average climate? Why were there so few sunspots during both the recent cold events (Maunder and Dalton)? Why were there so many sunspots during the 1980’s and 1990’s?
– Why do climate scientists (Mann, Hansen, and others) hide their data for years, and never reveal their calculation methods? What are they hiding?
– Why is the Main Stream Media so silent on Chiefio’s blog results, the March of the Thermometers? see http://chiefio.wordpress.com
– Why do thousands of scientists say (signed their names) that man-made global warming is junk science?
– Why do process control engineers know that increasing CO2 above 350 ppm cannot possibly have any role in changing earth’s climate? see this link.
– If the science is settled, why are governments funding additional research in the billions of dollars per year? see this link
– And this one just to get them thinking about the entire concept of Environmental Doom: if the oceans are so fragile and vulnerable to oil spills, how did the oceans manage after all the millions of barrels of oil were spilled in World War II attacks on oil tankers? Hundreds of oil tankers were torpedoed and sunk, and many hundreds more of other oil-fueled ships went to the bottom, leaking oil from their fuel tanks. (reference: The Prize by Daniel Yergin, pp 350 - 370)
1 comment:
Actually, junk science hurts the young, the very poor and those on fixed income retirees. CO2 has been over 400 ppm three times since measurements began 130 years ago. Co2 fluctuates naturally depending on the temperature of the oceans. Al Gore had it BACKWARDS. You have not been told about the inverse solubility of gasses in water. That is why beer goes flat. The UN IPCC is a bureaucracy unlike all others; it fishes with poisoned bait.
Think about it, for no reason (CO2 is plant food; plants are our only source of oxygen), success of the Green Shift would mean an government that would need to collect more income tax, not less. The EPA, moreover, has been a rogue agency since its formation.
Post a Comment