One side believes whatever government and big business says, the other believes government and big business says is a deliberate lie. Both are wrong, of course.
And that makes Anthropogenic Climate Change the classic example of ostensibly non-political partisanship. Of course it is political because government wants you to trust it, and they have the resources to scorn, degrade, belittle and shame you if you question it. The other side only has humor (mainly sarcasm).
The issue is NOT global warming, which is a scientific fact. The globe is warming about a degree per century. The issue is Climate Change and what part humanity plays.
Unless we are going to equate “warming” with “climate” we have to differentiate the two. In grade school I was taught climate was tropical, sub-tropical, temperate, sub-arctic and polar. Maybe there is a revised list, but to decide it there is climate change we need to cite examples, and those exampled cannot be tied directly to warming because warming is agreed.
So extended ranges in northern Canada and polar ice melting is warming temperature. Right? The only other example I know of, and please correct me if I am wrong, is the greening of the sub-sahara.
Which brings us to a trust issue mentioned in the first paragraph. If one side does not trust the other side where does one go for information? Luckily there are plenty of people who collect information and put it into a cogent form. The government web sites all average satellite and ground taken temperatures to make what they claim is the most accurate temperature average. But others don’t trust the government to average temperatures since the government no doubt has a vested interest in selling Climate Change to the public.
So here is a graph made with only satellite temperature data
There is no doubt that taking satellite data alone gives dramatically different data than the averages proposed by the Powers That Be, so there is a trust issue. Where do we go to resolve the trust issue? At that point I draw a blank. Any suggestions?
And then we get to the more complicated issue of precisely how CO2 drives Climate Change. The stock answer is The Greenhouse Effect, but that is a non-answer since it is like answering how humans got to dominate the earth by Evolution. It does not provide a precise enough answer.
I have investigated and found solid data that humanity is responsible for between 21% and 42% of the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere since the 1970s (from 0.032% to 0.040%). What I have not found is the formula or direct tie between that increase and the increase in temperature. Seems like it would be easy to do, but it is not. I can tell you why but I feel I am losing you already.
So let’s stop here for the day. Is warming the same thing as climate? And how does one know CO2 is the cause of warming? Can we believe whatever the government says? Can we accept that the other side of our partisan dichotomy has as good a reason for believing what they believe as we do for believing what we believe?
Does anyone really believe they are open minded about climate change? Really? I mean, I was just shown this article (below) that references real data, and look at the headline!
The article ostensibly debunks those of us who believe satellite data alone is a better measure of global warming since its availability in the 1970s. But, the article says, orbits deteriorate, the 6 or 8 satellites lose synch, on and on, and so they correct that data by 140% upward and that still doesn’t show such a large growth in warming as predicted. If you add thermometers and hot air balloons and average all the data you get much faster global warming.
And the “corrected data” shows “140% faster warming” than uncorrected data. But then read the data., How can you keep a straight face?
The computer models on average predicted 18% warming between 1979- 2016 the lowest computer model prediction was 6% the highest was 40%. The actual warming turned out to be 5% After correction. And the article says it was “a bit lower than expected”.
This article was written to de-bunk those who claim satellite data alone shows less global warming, that satellite data alone should be corrected by 140% higher. And if you do, then you will get 5% warming, which is still a hell of a lot less than predicted. But hey, no journalist wants to be called a Denier, but you have to be an Al Gore or a Bill Nye if you want to lie about scientific data. So you report the corrected data and write that it is still “a bit lower than expected”. 40% was predicted but it was really 5%, which is truly a bit lower than expected.
Here is what the article says for those of you too lazy to click it yourself:
“While the new RSS v4 records show more warming than surface records since 1979, this behavior would to some extent be expected. Climate models on average project around 18% amplification over the 1979-2016 period, though this value ranges from as low as 6% to as high as 40% in individual climate models. Even with these new corrections, there is evidence that the rate of warming of the troposphere is a bit lower than expected by climate models in recent years.”