How I Learned to Love Global Warming While Burning My Trash

Part of the scientific method dictates that if the evidence disproves the theory, the theory must be discarded. To apply the scientific method to anthropogenic (or man-made) global warming (AGW), the theory states that the steady rise in carbon dioxide, from a little over 310 parts per million (ppm) in 1958 to 399 ppm in 2014, should have resulted in a commensurate increase in temperatures in the lower atmosphere, where carbon dioxide gathers. However, temperatures in the lower atmosphere have remained steady or dropped slightly, depending on the study.

The evidence disproves the theory. Throw it out. That’s it. One paragraph. Less than one minute of explanation. Nothing sexy, nothing complex, but the theory of anthropogenic global warming must be thrown out. Go feed a cow some beans. Idle your car for awhile. Burn some trash.

Forget the polar bears; forget rising oceans; forget temperatures that increased at the surface since 1959, only to fall again in the last 15 years. It’s not man-made.

Put aside theory for a moment; here is what science knows: Earth has been warmer at other times than it is now, contrary to some data, most famously put forward by physicist and geologist Michael Mann. His infamous “hockey stick” temperature chart downplays known warm periods of the past and exaggerates our current time to make it look as if this is the warmest time known to science. Mr. Mann has refused to produce his sourcing for peer review, thus making his conclusions invalid- a basic tenet of the scientific method.

In a cooler climate, many crops cannot grow. Disease and death are more prevalent. Famine and political instability plague civilizations. See History for examples. Start with 1816, “the year without summer.” Humans need a warm climate.

Late in the Viking era, grapes for wine were grown in southern England- unlike today. Grapes were regularly grown in Germany at a higher altitude than today, which translates to the climate being approximately two degrees Fahrenheit warmer when compared with today.  It was also at this time that the Vikings were able to settle in Greenland and stay until the Little Ice Age in the Middle Ages made the island inhospitable for the hearty Norsemen.

There are other warm periods, but if the polar bears could survive the warmth of the Viking era, surely they will survive now.

Back to theory and science. Carbon dioxide, the villain in the AGW story, accounts for 8% of greenhouse gases. The real villain, if AGW were true, is water vapor. Water vapor slows down outgoing radiation, which helps keep Earth warm. If you want Earth to not warm, drain the oceans.

You are being asked to believe that .04% (four-tenths of one percent) of the atmosphere is going to kill us all- well, at least the polar bears, everyone who lives on coasts and islands, and untold thousands of animal species. We are now into bridge-selling territory. We are not talking about peppering the atmosphere with arsenic; we exhale carbon dioxide and plants need it to survive.

There is another problem:  an increasing number of studies show that carbon dioxide is a trailing indicator- not a leading indicator- of warming. Put another way, the increase in carbon dioxide does not cause warming, it is the result of warming. After the atmosphere warms, such as after the Little Ice Age ended in the 19th Century, carbon dioxide in the atmosphere accumulates over decades and centuries. Or put yet another way, breathe; it’s okay. You can exhale all that carbon dioxide. It’s not going to hurt anything, and the plants will smile.

As science progresses on this subject, we are learning more about the effects of cosmic rays on our atmosphere. Those vaunted computer models cannot account for clouds. A growing number of scientists believe that cosmic rays- yes, from outer space- play a role in cloud formation. Further, who would have thought that the sun plays a role in climate? The “global warming”/ “climate change” crowd says that the sun is a factor in climate, it’s just that it’s not as big of a factor as human beings. Read up on the sun’s power and get back to us on that.

So, one may ask, if the case for AGW is not a closed case, as our former National Tree, Al Gore, has stated, then what drives the agenda? To quote former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, “Green is the new Red.”

Not all proponents of AGW are left wingers, statists, and sundry other elitists waiting eagerly for the day that they can control your life. Many are honest scientists, in various fields, who trust their peers or have investigated a small piece of the climate pie. On the other hand, scientists understand that if they want government grants, there is an expected outcome. “Keep moving. Nothing going on here. The government doesn’t need to do anything” is not a useful result for big government bureaucrats.

However, the main drivers of the agenda are the statists- the elitist control freaks who know better how you should live your life and are also prepared to profit from government power. Besides, what better way for world bureaucracies to flourish than to have the USA bound and gagged by anti-capitalist regulations, reducing us to one of the “Old Europe” has-been countries?

There is no man-made global warming. Those who understand this are the proponents of science.