Climate Refugees

A term that has been surfacing in recent years is 'climate refugees.' This term describes people that have been forced to move due to the effects of climatic actions and it can be the result of naturally occurring events or manmade ones. Volcanic eruptions and earthquakes can cause climate refugees. So does global warming. In fact, climate causes between 3 and 10 times as many refugees as war. The number of climate refugees in 2013 was 22 million. There were about 10 million climate refugees in the early 1970s. As the world population increases, the number of people that are vulnerable to extreme climate events also increases, and this number is aggravated by the increasing number of extreme events. Disruptions of food and water supplies also causes climate refugees.

The Pentagon considers this issue, and other issues related to climate change, to be a national security issue. Governments are being encouraged to plan for an increasing levels of climate refugees as the climate continues to change. There was an Indy film in 2012 on the subject, Climate Refugees.

This makes me wonder. If the deniers are right and climate change is good for us, why do we see so many climate refugees and why is it a threat to national security? If climate change is so good for us, as they claim, it stands to reason the world would actually be getting more stable with climate change, not more unstable.

If someone can explain that to me I would be interested in hearing it.

Pope Francis to Tell Catholics Climate Change is Real

I read an article saying Pope Francis will be issuing an encyclical this spring on climate change. He will be stating it is real and the Church and its followers must act on it on moral and scientific grounds. It will be delivered to 5000 bishops and 400,000 priests with instructions to deliver it to parishioners. At an October meeting he decried the religion of money and stated, "Climate change, the loss of biodiversity and deforestation are already showing their devastating effects in the great cataclysms we witness.”

Pretty definitive. Hopefully, this will help convince some of the religious right that there is no conflict between their religion and science, especially the science of climate change. Certainly, there will still be those that oppose it. There are those that feel science is anti-religion and nothing will change their minds. But, there are many who will see the Pope's edict and it will open their minds to the possibility that the scientists were right all along.

The Pope isn't the first person to try and change the minds of religious doubters. Notably, Katherine Hayhoe has been in the forefront on the issue. Why should any Christian fundamentalist care about what Hayhoe has to say on the subject? Well, she is a devout, evangelical Christian. She is also a climate scientist.

Oops! A devoutly religious person that also recognizes the validity of science and sees no conflict with her religious faith. How refreshing!

The fact is, caring for the environment and the people that will be suffering because of climate change is fundamental to all religions. Climate change is a right to life issue. If you are going to be opposed to something like abortions or the death sentence or animal rights, how can you not be opposed to climate change?

Apparently, the Pope thinks you can't.

"Don't Call Us Deniers"

I commonly receive comments such as these three below:

Earthling

What's a "climate denier?"
Does anyone deny climate?
Is it a person who denies that
climate exists?
Do they deny that climate changes?
I'm not a climate denier, climate
change denier, or even an anthropogenic climate change denier,
I'm sceptical that climate change will be a catastrophe and so are many
scientists who work in climate science and related fields.
Who denies that climate changes?
It's possible I could be accused of denying
the C in CAGW.
What are CAGW sceptics "denying,"
exactly?
1. CAGW sceptics don't "deny"climate,
therefore cannot be "climate deniers."
2. CAGW sceptics don't "deny"
that climate changes, therefore cannot be "climate change
deniers."
3. CAGW sceptics don't "deny" that
Earth has warmed by almost 0.8º C over the last 162 years, therefore cannot be "global
warming deniers."
4. CAGW sceptics don't "deny"
that climate science exists, therefore cannot be "climate science
deniers."
5. CAGW sceptics don't "deny"
that CO2 can cause a small amount of warming, therefore cannot be "anthropogenic
global warming deniers."
6. CAGW sceptics don't "deny"
anything, we're sceptical of the inaccurate figures bandied about by alarmists
and very sceptical of the scary catastrophe stories about everything and
anything to do with climate.
We are justifiably sceptical of computer models.

Alan Fitzgerald

The word "Denier" should not be taken too seriously it is simply a term of abuse. In the school yard you would probably been called a "geek". The word denier is simply used to prevent any debate on the CAGWA issue. If the science was solid there would be no reason to resort to this underhand derogation. It isnt a coincidence that it was invented to label those who questioned the holocaust and the emotion links associated with that part of history.

Earthling

Thanks for your thoughts, Alan. It upset me quite a lot to begin with, because I remember seeing the newsreels at the cinema of concentration camps in 1945, when I was young. I've been called a denier in emails I received from a couple of well known climatologists who should know better, so it now amuses me in some ways. I wouldn't compare it to geek at all, that's a compliment by comparison.


Response:

The argument here is global warming isn't real because big, bad scientists are calling climate change deniers 'deniers.' I guess I shouldn't be surprised because that is about as valid as any argument I have heard from that camp.

Let's discuss the term 'denier.' I first heard this term from deniers. They were using it to brag about how they 'denied there is any global warming.' I still here may deniers calling themselves 'deniers' and they still use it to brag about their claims. Based on this fact alone, I have no qualms about calling this group of people 'deniers.' It is what they call themselves. And, please note, it is 'climate change' or 'global warming' deniers, not 'climate' deniers.

Now, some deniers have started the tactic of associating the term 'denier' with Holocaust deniers. This is where they attempt to make scientists look like the bad guys. As typical, this is a false argument, which seems to be the only kind of argument deniers can make. There is nothing associated with the term linking them to Holocaust deniers. But, even if there was, so what? Why do you object? Holocaust deniers are sick-minded people that deny the facts, but aren't accused of participating in the genocide. Likewise, climate change deniers are sick-minded people that deny we are destroying our environment, lowering the standard of living worldwide and causing injury, sickness and death with out our manmade emissions, but aren't participating in the offense any more than the rest of us. Not all that much difference.

I will say, while it is not the intent of the term, I do equate climate change deniers to Holocaust deniers, Moon landing hoaxers, 9/11 conspiracy people, people who believe there is a face on Mars, that Elvis Presley is alive, the Sandy Hook massacre was staged, we have an alien in a hangar somewhere and any other of the lunatic fringe beliefs.

Here is a true story about deniers. I frequently meet people that attempt to draw me into a debate. I used to succumb to temptation, but no longer. Instead, I ask them one simple question, "Is there anything I can do or say that will convince you global warming is real?" I have never had even a single person tell me, "Yes." Amazingly, they aren't afraid to say, "No." I tell them there is no reason for us to proceed and move on.

These people freely admit there is no amount of scientific evidence or logic that can change their minds. And, they object when I call them 'deniers'?

The term 'skeptic' does not apply to them. As one commenter noted recently, a skeptic is someone that is trying to learn and grow. Deniers are not trying to do that. Take a look at submissions to my challenges and read the comments. There is no attempt to learn or to grow.

For the record, I, and other people I know of, use the term 'denier' to refer to people that deny climate change and global warming. That is all there is to the term. Yes, I also group these people with all of the other groups that reject science and reality, but that is not the purpose of the term.

In the end, if you feel offended by the use of the term 'denier,' I suggest you stop denying global warming and accept the science. In that regard, you are much better off than I am. I am deeply offended every time I come across someone that rejects science, but there is nothing I can do about them.

NoTricksZone Review - Too Many Tricks in Denier Article

Someone left a comment and asked me to take a look at an article appearing on the NoTricksZone website - Why There Is Global Warming. I agreed and did a review this morning. Basically, it was light work over my morning hot tea. You would think a website named 'No tricks zone' would avoid using any tricks. Sadly, that was not the case.

This article starts out with one of the most tired of all denier claims – if manmade global warming is real, how can you explain periods in the past that experienced global warming? The false argument here is the assumption there is only one way to cause global warming. I’ve discussed this false argument many times and you can read a posting about it here. But, let me summarize the argument and illustrate how it is a false one:

There was global warming in the past;

There is global warming today;

Global warming in the past was a naturally occurring cycle;

Therefore, global warming today is a naturally occurring cycle.

Let’s put this same argument another way to see how false it is:

Pneumonia kills people;

Gun shot wounds kill people;

Pneumonia is a naturally occurring disease;

Therefore, gun shot wounds are a naturally occurring disease.

The fallacy is that the second does not follow from the first. There are more ways to kill someone than just naturally occurring diseases. The same way, there are more ways to cause global warming than naturally occurring cycles.

The biggest problem with this claim is that, yes, there are naturally occurring cycles and those cycles are continuing today (in addition to manmade effects), but today’s naturally occurring cycle is a cooling cycle. If it were not for this naturally occurring cooling cycle, we would be in even worse shape than we are. I find it very interesting that every time someone pulls this argument out, they never discuss even the possibility that the natural cycle right now might be a cooling one, they automatically assume it is a warming one without any science to back them up.

Also, the graphic showing the warming/cooling cycles is in error. Here is a more scientifically valid temperature plot for the last 11,000 years. The blue arrows get in the way, but you can still clearly see the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age and can compare them to today’s temperature trend. It is a really different story when the facts are presented correctly.

Source: Climate Snapshots

The author of the NoTrickZone article then makes the case that manmade global warming can’t be real because the world is too big for us to change the temperature. Really? We can’t change the world? Take a look here:

Source: SIO

This is the Keeling curve and shows atmospheric levels of CO₂. The ziggy part to the right shows the measurements taken since the late-1950s on Mauna Loa, Hawaii. The line-graph prior to that shows the CO₂ levels as they have been reconstructed from proxy data. Wow! I would say we have managed to change the world. What’s that you said? You’re not convinced? Then, try this one. This is the data for the last 800,000 years. We’re the spike on the far right.

Source: SIO

At no time in the last 800,000 years has the CO₂ level been anywhere near today’s level. The cause of that incredible spike? Manmade emissions.

So, yes, we can most certainly change the environment.

Also, the claim works against itself because we are not the ones warming the planet. The author claims the Sun and Earth are so large we cannot change the temperature. Well, it is the Sun that is heating the planet and causing it to warm, not us. We are merely causing it to cool down less rapidly. The Sun warms the planet’s surface and that heat is then radiated out into space. Greenhouse gases absorb this heat, in the form of infrared radiation, and slow the process down. As we add more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, the cooling process gets slower. All the while, the Sun keeps warming the planet even more. So, you see, the author is actually making the case for manmade global warming.

Then, there is a bunch of false statements in the form of “Fun Facts about Carbon Dioxide.”

First false statement. “Of the 186 billion tons of carbon from CO₂ that enter the Earth’s atmosphere each year from all sources, only 6 billion tons are from human activity.” Notice the author is trying to fool you by discussing the amount of carbon, instead of the carbon dioxide. This is an attempt to try and make it look less serious and is a deception. We are not concerned with carbon, per se. We are concerned with carbon dioxide. Why didn’t he address that issue? After all, this part of the article is titled, ‘fun fact about carbon dioxide.”

In addition, his numbers are still wrong. Try these numbers on for something more credible.

Source: Yale Climate Connections

Today, we are emitting in excess of 35 billion tons of CO₂ per year. That is a lot more significant than saying we are emitting 6 billion tons of carbon. But, do the math. The atomic weight of carbon dioxide is 44 units (16 units for each of two oxygen atoms and 12 units for one carbon atom). Therefore, carbon makes up 27.3% of the mass of carbon dioxide. Apply that percentage to 35 billion tons of emissions and you get over 9.5 billion tons of carbon – that is more than 50% larger than the number the author states. By the way, we have other products that have carbon in them that are not included in this figure. Incorrect figures and deceptive practices, that is not a good start.

Next false statement: “At 380 parts per million CO₂ is a minor constituent of the Earth’s atmosphere–less than 4/100ths of 1% of all gases present. Compared to former geologic times, the Earth’s current atmosphere is CO₂-impoverished” See the Keeling curves above to see how today’s levels compare to historic levels. There is no comparison at all. Today’s levels have not been seen within the last 800,000 years, at least. Were there periods further back in history that had higher levels? Yes, there were. The Cambrian Period 500 million years ago had levels in the thousands of parts per million.  But, no one alive today would want to live during those times. Simply because some time hundreds of millions or billions of years ago had higher CO₂ levels does not mean it would be hospitable to modern human life. And, it is not relevant to the discussion of today’s climate.

And, please explain to me how he justifies saying today's levels are 'minor.' Is he saying they are minor because they are .04% of the atmosphere? If so, then he is being deceptive because that .04% has a very significant impact. Take a look at this one example of the impact from those levels. An over-the-counter pain killer is a lot smaller percentage of your body weight than .04%, but it also has a big effect. So does alcohol at levels far below .04% of body weight. The claim that it is minor simply because it is 'only' .04% of the atmosphere has no scientific validity. 

Another false argument: “Carbon dioxide is a nutrient, not a pollutant, and all life– plants and animals alike– benefit from more of it.” Raw sewage is a nutrient, also and has been used in some countries for thousands of years to fertilize farm fields. Do you want it in your drinking water and do you want to breathe fumes from it? So, why does this argument not apply to CO₂? Once you get too much of something, it becomes a pollutant. We now have so much CO₂ that the environment cannot deal with it. CO₂ has become a pollutant.

Next false argument: “CO₂ that goes into the atmosphere does not stay there, but continuously recycled by terrestrial plant life and earth’s oceans.” No. Again, take a look at the Keeling curve above. The vast majority of CO₂ produced is produced by natural processes. The vast majority of CO₂ produced, by both natural and manmade sources, is absorbed. But, about 50% of manmade CO₂ remains in the air (see the Keeling curve again). By the way, that CO₂ that is being absorbed by the oceans is causing them to become more acidic. And, that’s also bad news

Finishing up with one last false statement: “If we are in a global warming crisis today, even the most aggressive and costly proposals for limiting industrial carbon dioxide emissions and all other government proposals and taxes would have a negligible effect on global climate” 

So, this person’s argument is that manmade global warming isn’t real because it would take too much money to fix it. That is not a scientifically valid argument. And, it is incorrect, too. Also note that he makes this argument after saying, earlier in the article, we are too small to be changing the planet. Wait a minute! If our emissions are so small, why can’t we do something about them? And, if they are so big we are unable to do anything about them, how is it they are so small they can’t change the environment? He’s playing two sides of his own argument. And neither one of them is valid.

We can, in fact, do something about global warming. The first thing we need to do is get people to stop making false arguments like this article.

CO2 Concentration Exceeds 400 ppm

A significant milestone was passed in May, 2013 when the the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere exceeded 400 parts per million (400 ppm) for the first time in recorded history. This was the highest CO2 concentration in more than 800,000 years. Despite the significance of the event, deniers downplayed it by saying it crossed over the 400 ppm threshold only 'briefly.' There was some truth to that because it stayed above 400 ppm for only a few days before it began it annual decline. But, where were these people when it stayed over 400 ppm for about four months in 2014?

Now, the bad news is we have already reached the 400 ppm level this year. The daily average reading from January 1, 2015 was for 400.37 ppm.

Source: SIO

NOAA actually reports it as 401.56 ppm. We can expect it to fluctuate up and down, so it won't stay above 400 and, in fact, NOAA reports the level as 399.91 ppm for January 2nd. But, the earliest it reached this level in 2013 was in May. The earliest it reached this level in 2014 was March. And, now we are seeing this level in January. There can be no doubt we are nearing the time when the CO2 level will never again drop below 400 ppm. My guess? 2016 will be the last year that will ever have CO2 levels less than 400 ppm. At least, for the next thousand years, or more. Here is the two-year plot of CO2 levels as measured at Mauna Loa, Hawaii.

Source: SIO

But don't forget, the new fossil fuel industry tactic is to tell you this is a good thing and we should be doing more of it. What do you think?

Guest Submission: Greenhouse Gases Fraud II

This submission is in reply to my response to the submitter's previous guest submission on greenhouse gases. See my response below.

Bill Andrews

January 1, 2015

Mr. Keating, YOU and the IPCC have put forth the Hypothesis, NOT ME. YOU are saying that burning releases CO2 (science agree), but YOU and the IPCC are saying that CO2 gas in the atmosphere is NOT blocking heat from the sun cooling the earth, you say it is causing heating to the Earth's surface temperatures.

IT IS YOU WHO HAVE TO DO THE EXPERIMENTATION TO PROVE YOUR HYPOTHESIS. I don't have to prove anything, you do. Physics says what your Hypothesis claims is impossible, and examination of natural systems on earth and in the solar system shows your projections are not happening. Venus is cold not hot with its 95% CO2 atmosphere. The exact OPPOSITE of YOUR hypothesis.

The scientific method requires YOU to prove your Hypothesis that CO2 gas in the atmosphere will cause warming on the earth. To prove this scientifically, you need to either:

1. Set up and experiment demonstrating that it is possible, in a controlled laboratory setting, for an insulating gas to allow heat through it, without diminishing its total heat. This is impossible as we both know, insulators insulate. A thermal insulator will stop some heat. An infa-red camera recording the experiment will show that when you turned on the thermal heating element, thus introducing your simulated sun heat into the gas, that the gas THEN, started to emit infa-red light in all directions, thus deflecting that heat away from the target earth. The Law of Conservation of Energy tells us, that the infa-red heat the gas is emitting is the heat that entered the gas from the thermal emitter, the gas is not burning a fuel and making the heat, the heat is exogenous to the insulation gas.

YOUR hypothesis states heat enters through the insulation gas unaffected, but then where it is radiated back out by the earth, it is blocked partially from leaving giving the earth a greater heat balance.

So please, direct me to the published scientific article in which YOU or the IPCC proves this hypothesis? I"d like to read this violation of the First Law of Thermodynamics and of Conservation of Energy. I'm sure the rest of the world is interested in these violation as well.

What experiment did you do to prove your hypothesis?

YOU are making the claim, you must prove it scientifically.

Or

2. Demonstrate vie observation of the natural world, that this hypothesis is supported by observed facts.

I've noted that Venus, an observed fact, has a solar temperature of only -444 degrees F. YOUR hypothesis states that it should be suffering from a run-away-greenhouse effect because of all that CO2 in its atmosphere, but it is not, it is very cold. The insulation gas has insulated the surface of Venus from the sun's heat, as all thermal insulators will do.

Science DOES NOT HAVE TO SHOW manmade CO2 based greenhouse gas warming is NOT real, YOU must prove that it is. You must explain:

1, WHY Venus is so cold when it has so much CO2 in its atmosphere; and

2. How it is possible for the sun's heat to magically pass, undiminished, through the earth's blanket of insulating CO2 gas, as it enters the earth's atmosphere, and yet then be blocked by the same insulating CO2 gas, when it tries to leave.

I have read no such paper proving this hypothesis. Tell me or show me YOUR scientific experimental results, or the published article in which you have announced these results?

No such article exists as we both know, and no such experiment has been successfully conducted, as we both know.

I will give you an opportunity to refute the observed facts and the Law of Conservation of Energy by explaining to me now, how with no scientific experiment and no observed facts your hypothesis is correct?

Or to the contrary. Tell me how nature and the law of Conservation of Energy have not proven that CO2 gas greenhouse effect is impossible?

What errors are there in my post or math? You didn't state your grounds for stating:

"You are incorrect in supposing you did anything to show man made global warming is not real."

You merely state the though with no scientific support. Just like people who state that God created the earth 30,000 years ago, Evolution deniers!!!

Interesting that you, a supposed scientist, have lowered yourself to their deflection arguments rather than providing me with scientific data to back up your argument Father Keating.

I eagerly await your scientific reply, though I'm expecting a religious argument from you instead.

I await your reply Father Keating.

Best
and Happy New Year!

Response:

There is a lot of false statements here. Let’s begin with the first sentence. No, it was not the IPCC, or even me, that showed the science on global warming and climate change. You are clearly under a massive misunderstanding on both global warming and the IPCC.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is an international scientific organization that was set-up, by international request, under the auspices of the U.N. Its purpose is to consolidate the massive amount of research being done and to produce an assessment report. It does no research of it own and did not originate the concerns of climate change. In fact, the reason governments asked for it is because of the growing concerns over global warming and climate change. This is why I find it perplexing that so many deniers get foamy at the mouth at the mention of the IPCC.

Let’s set the record straight – the IPCC does not do scientific research, it produces periodic assessment reports of the international research that is being done. The fact the assessment reports run into thousands of pages is an indication of just how much research there is. The science has been going on for about 150 years and there was already a scientific consensus long before the IPCC was ever organized. Watch this video for a very good presentation on the history of the science:

And, climate change is not a hypothesis. Global warming and climate change is a fact and the science behind the conclusion is very well supported and proven. The reality is the conclusions on climate change and global warming are the result of many independent theories, each of which has been tested and verified over many decades and centuries. Deniers want to call it a hypothesis and want someone to produce a single scientific paper putting it forth, but that isn’t the way it works. Climate science is the single most complicated science because it involves all disciplines of science, even down to quantum mechanics and particle physics. Thinking of climate change as being a single theory is like thinking of a sky scraper as a single, manufactured piece of material rolling out of a factory.

You state that it is ‘you’ that has to do the experimentation. By ‘you’ I am assuming you are referring to the plurality of the scientific community. Strange that you would automatically put yourself outside of the realm of science like that. But, you are correct, the scientific community must do experimentation to verify the science. As I said above, this effort goes back about 150 years and even that original research was built on previous experimentally demonstrated science.

It is true that greenhouse gases do not block out the sunlight. This is because those molecules are transparent to sunlight. We can demonstrate this experimentally. Look outside during the daytime. Do you see things? If the answer is ‘yes,’ then you have experimentally proven that enough of the sunlight gets through the atmosphere to reach the ground.

Now, do another experiment. Stand in the sunlight for a period of time (how long is up to you). Does being in the sunlight make you get warmer? If the answer is ‘yes,’ then you have experimentally proven that incoming sunlight warms the surface.

For our next experiment, I want you to go into the shade out of the direct sunlight. Are you cooling down? If the answer is ‘yes,’ you have experimentally demonstrated that a body warmed by the sunlight will reradiate the energy.

Now, go into a dark place as you are cooling off and look at yourself in a mirror. Are you glowing in visible light? If the answer is ‘no,’ then you have experimentally proven that reradiated energy is in a different wavelength than the incoming visible light that you absorbed.

By experimentation, we have now proven that solar energy passes through the atmosphere, heats the surface, that energy is then reradiated and it is reradiated at a different wavelength than the originally absorbed radiation.

This is the key to understanding global warming because there are molecules that do not absorb visible light, but will absorb other wavelengths of light. In this case, the specific radiation we are interested in is infrared light. Greenhouse gases will absorb infrared light but not visible light. These molecules, just like your body, will reradiate that light. The difference between these molecules and the surface is the greenhouse gas molecules will reradiate it at the same wavelength they absorb – IR wavelengths. This radiation was emitted by the heated surface and was originally going in a generally upwards direction and would have gone out into space if nothing had gotten in its way, but something did (i.e., greenhouse gas molecules). Now, those molecules of greenhouse gas will reradiate it again, but now it is going in a random direction. Approximately half will go up and half will go down. Once reradiated, those photons of IR light can then be absorbed by something again, just to be reradiated yet again. In this way, greenhouse gases slow the cooling process of the surface. But, don’t forget that sunlight is still coming in and continues to add to the energy in the surface.

This, and much more, has all been demonstrated experimentally. So, you see, scientists have done the hard work. Now, it is YOU that has to accept we have done our share. YOU cannot say scientists have to prove it and then IGNORE the results when they come back. The scientific community has fulfilled its obligation in this matter. YOU have not.

As for Venus, how is it possible for you to claim the temperature on Venus is minus 444 degrees F? The amount of scientific literature on this topic is truly massive and the confirmed surface temperature of Venus is nearly 900 degrees F. There is no dispute in the scientific community on this issue.

I can tell you, if you are going to believe Venus is minus 444 degrees F, you will have ZERO credibility in the scientific community. You might as well discuss how aliens built a city on Mars.

The science has been proven and it has been proven conclusively. Those results are available for anyone that wishes to do their homework. I think I have addressed every one of your questions either here in this response, or in response to challenge submissions. You can see a list of those submissions here.

One last thing, I have tried to be as civil as I can to you. Please respond in kind. You have no idea of what my religious beliefs are and they would be irrelevant in any case. Stick to the science. You may address me as Dr. Keating, Professor Keating or Mr. Keating. You can even address me as Christopher or Chris. But, keep your uncivil bigotries to yourself.

Guest Submission: The FRAUD of Greenhouse gas global warming

My response can be found at the end of this guest submission.

From: Bill Andrews

Date:12/31/2014 11:13 PM (GMT-06:00)

To: DOGW.email@gmail.com

Subject: The FRAUD of Greenhouse gas global warming.

How do you do.

The FRAUD of Greenhouse Gas emissions raising the temperature of the Earth can be proven false by two distinct methods. 

   1.  By examination of what Insulators are and do; and,

    2.  By examining planet VENUS.  

IF Greenhouse gases can warm a planet then Venus should prove it.  Venus is wrapped in a 50km thick layer of 95% CO2!  If that much CO2 can't warm VENUS, then the Earths messily 0.06% CO2 can't either.

Enjoy reading Science, for a change.  And remember, 

DON'T BELIEVE ANYTHING YOU READ ON THE INTERNET.  VERIFY EVERYTHING PEOPLE TELL YOU., AND DO THE MATH YOURSELF!!!!

NICE PEOPLE LIE TOO, VERIFY!!!!!!

PART 1.

INSULATORS,  WHAT THEY DO FOR YOU.

in•su•late

ˈinsəˌlāt/

verb

1.   protect (something) by interposing material that prevents loss.

As the definition above indicates, and insulator is a "material", which protects you from what is on the other side of the material.

We use insulators in many ways.  Some insulators protect us from sounds.

Others from the electrical flow in wires or machinery.  In our lesson we are going to only be speaking about THERMAL INSULATORS.

A Thermal Insulator is any material that is used to REDUCE or STOP HEAT TRANSFER. 

The Third Law of Thermo-dynamics tells us that Heat moves from High concentration to Low concentration; or, from hot to cold.   This process is know as THERMAL EQUILIBRIUM.

The most common form of thermal insulation in peoples lives is the insulation in their homes. 

Your home has insulation in the outer walls and roof, and possibly in the floor as well.  This keeps the heat of summer OUT of your house.  In the Winter it keeps the heat IN your home.

The gases and water vapor in the Earth's atmosphere do the same thing for the Earth that they do for your home, they insulate us FROM the Sun's heat and light rays, cooling the Earth and protecting us from the harmful high energy rays that cause skin cancer. They also help keep us from loosing waste heat, especially at night when we are facing away from the sun.

The important question is, what is the total NET EFFECT of the insulating going on in the atmosphere?

Does it block out more heat than it helps to keep in, thus cooling the Earth? or, 

Does it capture more heat than it blocks out warming the Earth?

The answer to this question is simple, isn't it?  

The Sun:  big burning ball of gas,  VERY hot.

The Earth:  Cold rock floating in space, warmed by the Sun.

The Sun sends in 30,000,000 times more heat than the Earth re radiates out each day, and most of this heat stays here.  That's not surprising is it?

If the Earth radiated all the Sun's heat out each day, then the Earth would be Zero degrees Kelvin every morning, since there would be no heat because it all radiated away at nigh.  All water would freeze solid every night, and life on Earth would be impossible, plants would all die of frostbite and mankind would never have come into existence.  

For water to remain liquid, it MUST HAVE SOME HEAT to keep its temperature above freezing. 

The heat that radiates out is Earth's WASTE HEAT.  The heat that is not absorbed by the Earth's life and seas.  

So for every 1 degree of heat the gases and water vapor help keep in at night, the sun sends in 30,000,000 degrees of heat.

Thus, if there is a 1% insulating gas in the atmosphere, it will stop 1% of the heat entering and leaving from entering or leaving.  BUT the amount of heat blocked out will always be 30,000,000 times greater than the heat reflected back in.  

Thus, the NET EFFECT of any insulating gas or vapor in the atmosphere will always create a greater COOLING effect than a warming effect, since the net effect is it will keep far more heat out than in.    

So let me ask you a question?

Tell me, what the Earth would be like if Mankind put a perfect 100% insulator into the atmosphere?

Yes it would keep in all the heat already in the Earth's atmosphere BUT, it would also block out ALL of the Sun's heat and light from entering as well,  Eternal Night!  

What would that be like?  Would it create a Runaway Greenhouse effect, or a very cold and dark Earth with no life on it?

Or think of it like this:

In the fall as harvest time nears, farmers are always afraid that an early frost will set in and kill their crops.  Whenever news of a cold spell is in the air, the Farmers all pray for warm weather, or Cloud cover if it does gets cold.  

WHY clouds?  

Water vapor is the MOST insulation gas of them all and clouds are all water vapor. 

When the sky is overcast, completely covered in clouds at night, the waste heat radiated from the ground into the air is partly captured by the water vapor and redirected towards the earth.

This helps to keep the ambient air temperature higher.  With no cloud cover the heat would find it much easier to shoot out into space and the Earth would cool much more rapidly.

BUT during the day, when the heat is coming from outside our atmosphere, from the Sun, clouds have the opposite effect.  Clouds lower the temperature by blocking out the sun's heat from entering the atmosphere.  Here in sunny Southern California an August day can drop from the mid 90's to the low 70's with a cloud bank overhead.

Clouds don't create a global warming effect do they? And water vapor is thousands of times more insulating than CO2!   Clouds block out the Sun cooling the Earth.  Even though the earth is radiating heat back out during the day just like it does at night.  The heat radiated back towards the Earth by the clouds just isn't enough to make up for the lost heat the clouds have blocked out of the atmosphere.

Whatever the thermal insulator in our atmosphere is, the result will always be the same.  If we block out the Sun's heat we will be colder.  No other result is possible.  We get our heat from the Sun, heat blocked out is lost and cannot be made up for.

PART 2

THE VENUS LIE.  FRAUD BY OMISSION.

The most common lie told by global warming advocates is that the Earth will become like Venus if we continue to put CO2 into the atmosphere, it will be incredibly hot they say, because Venus is!!!

In Part 1 I argue that that it is impossible!  It's impossible for Venus to be hot, it has a 95% CO2 atmosphere, and not just that, but it is 50 kilometers thick.  Over 5 times the thickness of the Earth's Nitrogen/Oxygen atmosphere.  

THAT much CO2 will almost completely block out the sun itself!!!  So how can Venus be hot?

To find out let's look at Venus and see if its 50km thick atmosphere of insulating CO2 gas is cooling or heating the planets surface shall we?

According to NASA's web site [http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/profile.cfm?Object=Venus] Venus' has a temperature of 864 degrees Farenheit [F] (462 degrees Celcius [C],735 degrees Kelvin[K]).

That's...hot?!?!?!

According the United States' National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association web site [https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/2012-state-climate-earths-surface-temperature], the average temperature of the Earth in 2013 was 57.2 degrees F (14 degrees C, 287 degrees K).

I seem to be wrong don't I?  Venus is much hotter than the Earth, when I said it should be much colder because all that CO2 would insulate the planet's surface from the Sun's much greater heat at only 2/3rds the distance of the Earth from the sun.  

Boy do I feel dumb!

Or...maybe I don't, what do you think?

Well now, the title of this second part does mention "fraud by omission".  That means that someone isn't telling you everything you need to know to understand that you are being lied to, defrauded. 

I'll presume you want to know what I know, so I'll tell you how they are defrauding you.

Do you remember leaning in high school science a little law know as GAY-LUSSAC'S LAW? 

You might have learned it as the PRESSURE TEMPERATURE LAW.

It tells us that pressure and temperature are directly related.  Any change in one creates an identical change in the other. 

This relationship was discovered by the French Chemist/Scientist Joseph Louis Gay-Lussac, and he published his findings 1702. 

In short it tells us that there are TWO TYPES OF HEAT.  One is temperate heat, while the other is Pressure heat.  

Heat and Pressure are in fact... the same thing!  They are measures of the amount of Kinetic Energy in a gas.  

You can increase the Kinetic energy of a gas by :

1. Compressing it into a smaller space, or 

2,  By burning a fuel and heating it.

When we are speaking of man made global warming, we aren't speaking about Pressure Heat, we are talking about temperate heat from the Sun.  

How does the concept of Pressure Heat apply to Venus?  It is how they are lying!

The Earth's atmospheric pressure is 1 (one) atmosphere (atm).

Venus however, has an atmospheric pressure of 90 atms!  Ninety times greater than the Earth.

That's a lot of Pressure heat!

So if we are to know the Solar Temperate Heat of Venus, we need to remove all that Pressure heat.  Thankfully, Gay-Lussac drew up the formula for doing just that, it is this:

P1/T1 = P2/T2.    

This says that the Starting Pressure (P1) [in atmospheres] divided by the starting Temperature (T1) [in degrees Kelvin] is equal to the ending Pressure (P2), divided by the ending Temperature (T2).

If you prefer multiplication to fractions it is written this way:

P1 x T2 = P2 x T1

The starting Pressure times the ending Temperature is equal to the ending Pressure times the Starting Temperature. 

Makes perfect since... right?

So, let's do the math and find out if I'm lying, or the climate changers are lying shall we? 

We want to know the temperature of Venus at 1 atm like the Earth.  So we are looking for T2, the ending temperature at the lower pressure of 1 atm.  We need to rewrite the formula to find the ending temperature T2 of Venus which looks like this:

T2 = (P2T1)/P1.  

We just moved P1 to  the left side of the formula, which reversed the multiplication to division. 

Now we put in the numbers which looks like this:

T2 = (1atm x 735K)/90atm

1 times 735 = 735.  

735 divided by 90 is 8.166666K.

So  T2 = 8.166666K  which is -264.983334 degrees C, or -444.969994 degrees F!!!!!!!!!!

Well looky here.  When we remove all of Venus' Pressure Heat, the Solar Temperate Heat from the Sun is only MINUS (-)444.969994 degrees Fahrenheit.  

Isn't the average temperature of the Earth (57.2 degrees F) warmer than minus 

(-)444.969994 degrees F?  

I think it is!

AND THAT IS WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO THE EARTH'S TEMPERATURE IF WE PUT THAT MUCH CO2 INTO EARTH'S ATMOSPHERE AS WELL!!!

It will block out almost all the heat from the Sun and turn the Earth into an ice cube!

NOW DO THE MATH YOURSELF!

Don't trust me, nice people lie too.  Verify I'm telling you the truth. Google Gay-Lussac's law and make sure I didn't cheat.  Get the temperature and pressure of Earth and Venus, then do the math yourself, you've a calculator and computer use them.  Chumps trust people, Verify everything you are told, don't be lazy.  

AND NOW YOU KNOW THE TRUTH!

You may now thank me.

Response:

I have seen this one making the rounds in bits and drabs. This is the most complete version that I have see, though. Without resorting to hyperbole, this is one of the most anti-science claims I have ever seen. Truthfully, this submission exemplifies why I say the only way you can be a denier is to reject science.

Mr. Andrews stated, “Don't trust me, nice people lie too.  Verify I'm telling you the truth.” No problem.

Part 1: Insulators

This has become a very common false claim by deniers – if CO₂ absorbs heat, then that means it is absorbing the Sun’s radiation and actually cooling the planet. Not surprisingly, the first person I heard making this claim was an executive in the coal industry.

If you had any doubts about the validity of Mr. Andrews’ claim, this one line should convince you it is totally crazy:

“The Sun sends in 30,000,000 times more heat than the Earth re radiates out each day, and most of this heat stays here.  That's not surprising is it?”

He says to get your calculator out and do the math yourself. Well, let’s see, daily incoming heat is 30,000,000 times the amount of outgoing heat and let’s multiply that by 365 days a year and that comes out to…. I can’t read it because the entire room has erupted in flames! My calculator has melted in the charred remains of what used to be my hands!

If thirty million times as much heat comes in every day as goes out, then the total amount of energy will climb at an astonishing rate. The amount of heat going out has to be close to the amount coming in or the planet will not just warm up, it will incinerate – literally, at Mr. Andrews’ quoted rate. It is very important to the planet to have a net heat balance of zero, meaning just as much heat goes out as comes in. What greenhouse gases have done is to alter that balance very slightly in the positive direction. This is enough to change the climate because one day’s worth of incoming heat from the Sun is roughly equal to 100 years of total human energy production (at current rates). We get a lot of energy from the Sun, so even a very small change in how much is retained makes a difference. Thank our lucky stars it isn’t a factor of thirty million different.

Mr. Andrews then states,

If the Earth radiated all the Sun's heat out each day, then the Earth would be Zero degrees Kelvin every morning, since there would be no heat because it all radiated away at nigh.  All water would freeze solid every night, and life on Earth would be impossible, plants would all die of frostbite and mankind would never have come into existence.

This is very similar to the situation on the Moon. The temperature gets very high in the sunlight, but very cold in the shade and at night. The important part is what he isn’t telling you here and you have to wonder why he leaves it out. Why doesn't this happen here on Earth? The reason we don’t go to zero Kelvins every night is because we have an atmosphere and it holds heat in. At some point in the past, a small amount of heat was retained by the atmosphere. In theory, the atmosphere would eventually reach thermal equilibrium where the amount coming in is equal to the amount going out and the temperature would be steady. Of course, the situation is constantly changing from a multitude of causes and thermal equilibrium is never perfectly achieved, but the planet is very close to it as a whole. That means there is a heat reservoir in the atmosphere that prevents us from freezing at night. Picture being in a bed with a blanket over you. At first, you might be cold when you get under the blanket, but then it warms up and you reach some constant temperature. You have achieved a thermal equilibrium where the amount of heat entering the blanket from you body is equal to the amount of heat radiating out through the top. If this didn’t happen, you would continue to get hotter and hotter. Then, suppose you get up to get a drink of water. When you come back to bed you find the blanket is still warm. It has acted as a heat reservoir and it takes time for it to lose its retained heat. The atmosphere works the same way. It gets heated during the day (by infrared radiation from the surface, not the sunlight). When nighttime comes, it will retain that heat for a while and any additional IR radiation coming from the heated surface. Given enough time, it would continue to cool down to unpleasant levels, but that would take many days or months (the polar regions do this when they experience long a nighttime in winter).

Simply put, if we didn’t have an atmosphere, the planet would be about 33 degrees C lower than it is currently. The net effect of the atmosphere keeps us warm, not cold.

His final statement in this section is,

Whatever the thermal insulator in our atmosphere is, the result will always be the same.  If we block out the Sun's heat we will be colder.  No other result is possible.  We get our heat from the Sun, heat blocked out is lost and cannot be made up for.

This is a false argument. He is giving you only one option – block out the sunlight and we will be colder. What he is not saying is colder than what? If you stand in the shade in the middle of a summer day you will be colder than if you are standing in the direct sunlight. That does not mean you are cold. Yes, clouds in the daytime helps keep us cooler by reflecting sunlight back into space. They also keep us warmer at night by trapping heat that would otherwise radiate back into space. The total role of cloud cover in the climate change mix is not fully understood and it is sometimes called the ‘wild card of climate change'.

Part 2: Venus

It doesn’t take Mr. Andrews long to make a false statement:

The most common lie told by global warming advocates is that the Earth will become like Venus if we continue to put CO2 into the atmosphere, it will be incredibly hot they say, because Venus is!!!

There are a few people warning about a possible Venus scenario, but the general scientific population discounts that possibility. Oneresearcher that investigated this found we would need to go to CO₂ levels of about 30,000 parts per million (ppm). We are currently at about 400 ppm. It would take burning about 10 times as much oil, coal and gas as exist to reach that level. So, is it possible? Yes. Can we cause it to happen by burning fossil fuels? No, we can’t.

He finally says something I agree with,

I seem to be wrong don't I?  Venus is much hotter than the Earth, when I said it should be much colder because all that CO2 would insulate the planet's surface from the Sun's much greater heat at only 2/3rds the distance of the Earth from the sun.  

Boy do I feel dumb!

I’m glad to hear that because it was pretty much what I was thinking. Unfortunately, he isn’t satisfied with that and has to continue on the downward slope.

When we are speaking of man made global warming, we aren't speaking about Pressure Heat, we are talking about temperate heat from the Sun.  

To get straight to the point, there is no such thing as ‘pressure heat.’ Mr. Andrews needs to do a little homework on the laws of thermodynamics.  He is engaging in a misdirection by employing what is known as the Gay-Lussac’s lawor Amonton’s law. What this law says is if you are given a gas that is isolated from any surrounding environment, the gas pressure divided by the gas temperature will always be the same. Thus, if you increase the pressure, the temperature must also increase at the same rate. If you double the pressure, the absolute temperature (measured from absolute zero) will also double.

This is what Mr. Andrews is calling ‘pressure heat’ and, again, there is no such thing. The reason is that this heat is already IN THE SYSTEM! We cannot create or destroy energy. When we compress a gas, the amount of energy in the gas remains the same, but now has a smaller volume to occupy and the energy density will go up. Another word for energy density is temperature. Pressure does not create any heat.

Mr. Andrews wants to say all of the heat trapped in Venus’ atmosphere is ‘pressure heat’ and if you remove that heat the temperature on Venus would be 265 degrees below zero Celsius. Mr. Andrews is actually somewhat correct, but not the way he wants you to think. This is where he is either stunningly ignorant of what he is talking about (very possible) or his in intentionally working to deceive (also very possible). His terms would actually be pretty valid if we were to take the atmosphere of Venus and suddenly expand it to 90 times it's current volume so the average pressure dropped to the atmosphere of Earth. This is how air conditioning and refrigeration work. What Mr. Andrews isn’t telling you (he does that a lot) is that once this expansion occurred, the incoming solar radiation would then heat it up again. Then, once it was heated, if you compressed it back to its original volume the temperature would sky rocket way past the original temperature. 

What he is also not telling you is that this could not occur. The atmosphere of Venus cannot suddenly expand to 90 times it's current volume. Gravity prevents that from happening. What he is also not telling you is the part about the gas has to be isolated from the surrounding environment. That cannot happen. We can keep the interaction to a minimum if things happen quickly, but no system can ever be completely isolated from its surroundings.

His claim that Venus is hot because of ‘pressure heat’ is 100% false and there is no science to even suggest such a thing.  He is merely trying to misdirect people into thinking CO₂ is not responsible for trapping heat. Sorry, Mr. Andrews, but you are completely wrong. CO₂ absorbs outgoing infrared radiation and reradiates it back out in random directions. This slows down the rate heat can escape the planet. The more greenhouse gases there are, the slower the energy will escape and the higher the temperature will rise. This is what is happening on Venus and it is what is happening on Earth.

 

Sorry, Mr. Andrews. You’re claims are not only invalid, but incredibly invalid.

You may now thank me.

Thank you for giving me this opportunity to debunk this silly claim.

 

Guest Submission: Moral Case for Fossil Fuels II

The following guest submission was sent by the same individual that made the first guest submission on this topic. You can read his first submission, and my comments, here.

From: David Okner

Date:12/30/2014 11:00 PM (GMT-06:00)

To: "dogw.email"

Subject: Re: Moral Case for Fossil Fuels

And I’ll respond to your response:

1.  The first and biggest point is you didn’t actually read my submission, which was the book. I suggest you debate Alex Epstein, not me. I know the book is a lot, but just say you don’t want to read it rather than invoking logical fallacies.

Take a one look at Alex Epstein's history and it easy to see this issue is entirely false. 

The first clue is his education - a B.A. in philosophy. Where are his scientific credentials to justify his claim he is smarter than all of the world's climate scientists are wrong? Answer: He has none.

2. Seriously? This is a logical fallacy and actually a philosophy background is exactly the best background to have to make sure everything has been integrated to look at the big picture and thought of correctly. That doesn’t come from credentials though. Climate experts are just one area of expertise. If you had any background in philosophy you would know that science is based on philosophy, reason. Perhaps you wouldn’t use so many logical fallacies if you were familiar with logic. Smarter than all the world’s climate scientists? Are you serious? Is that how you think science works? You just give an intelligence test and then whoever is the smartest then whatever he says is true? Also, Alex is not a climate scientist, he is showing you the work of the “smartest climate scientists” you advocate. Alex never said he was smarter than the world’s climate scientists. What you are saying is that you are an authority to be obeyed, not an expert to be consulted.

The next clue? He actually brags about working for the fossil fuel industry. It is not surprising he will simply, out-right lie for them. Which he does. For instance:

“One point I like to stress is that we should think of coal, oil, natural gas, and nuclear, as clean energy.”

Nothing about fossil fuels could possibly be further from the truth. I won't mince words, anyone saying this is a liar. All of these energy sources listed are lethal poisons. Now, don't misunderstand me, I am not saying we need to get rid of them, I am simply pointing out they are lethal poisons and not 'clean' as Mr. Epstein wants you to believe. The only possible reason he would say something like that is to deceive because there is just no truth to that statement. Hopefully, even the deniers can recognize the truth to that.

'

3. Again, character attacks. Logical fallacies. I could also attack your character and dream up hidden motives which are irrelevant anyway. The idea that the only way somebody would support fossil fuels is if they are paid off is ridiculous. You are looking for hidden motives and not examining the arguments in the book. And likewise the only reason somebody would oppose fossil fuels is because they are paid off is equally ridiculous in credit to your side. That is not a valid argument.

I watched his video and I can sum it up with one word - ridiculous. He begins right away with crazy claims that you are required to accept as truthful without any supporting references or evidence. Not only is it filled with nontruths (It is good the world uses fossil fuels and it would better if we used more), but is, in essence, an enormous bait and switch.

4. The book is full of references, which you would know if you actually read it. Just say you don’t want to read it instead of making ridiculous logical fallacies. Debate Alex if you don’t want to read his book. Show everybody how wrong his thinking is.

Here is the fallacy in Mr. Epstein's entire argument - he wants you to believe the only kind of energy source are fossil fuels. He states, 'the truth must be exposed'. Well, here is the truth about Mr. Epstein's argument - it isn't fossil fuels that have improved lifestyles, it is available energy at affordable prices, but Mr. Epstein wants you to believe the only source of that energy is fossil fuels. That is the big lie he is selling. He continues the lie by wanting you to believe it is a good thing for us to change the environment and we need to do as much to change the environment as we possibly can.

5. No fossil fuels aren’t the only source. There is nuclear too, but that doesn’t cause greenhouse gasses, so who cares. If you read the book you would know that fossil fuels are the cheap, reliable and plentiful source of energy, which is what matters when it comes to energy. Energy that doesn’t meet these requirements isn’t very useful. You can get energy from a lot of things, but who cares.

Yes, no one will deny that fossil fuels have provided affordable energy in the past, but now it is no longer true. The total cost of fossil fuels has become unacceptable. The amount of damage to the environment and climate and the world economies has reached proportions that it is lowering standards of living around the world (contrary to his claims) and is resulting in increased deaths (also contrary to his claims). Don't take my work for it, do a little research for yourself. Here is just one study on the matter. And, another. How about this one? Or, this one? And, don't forget this.

6. No, fossil fuels are the cheapest, most abundant and reliable source of energy. Weather disasters happen and thanks to fossil fuels climate related deaths from all the kinds you mentioned are at a record low.  There is no comparison. This is the issue of looking at the big picture. You can’t ignore the positives and being philosophically minded like Alex and myself allows one to make sure the big picture is being integrated and being thought of properly. The first chapter of the book is free. http://www.moralcaseforfossilfuels.com

So, Alex Epstein is accepting funds from the biggest polluters the world has ever seen and telling us this pollution is not only good for us, but we need to do more.

7. What? More character attacks about motives and also ignoring the big picture? Pollution is at an all time low thanks to modern filtering technology and also you can’t ignore the positives of fossil fuels. It is wind and solar that are dangerous to our environment because they can’t provide cheap, reliable and plentiful energy and of course they pollute too. If we were to switch to those our environment would be destroyed and our protection from climate danger would be almost non existant. Hundreds of millions would die if we followed your ideas. People who love what fossil fuels do for our lives pay Alex for his ideas. The reason is because we don’t want our environment destroyed and climate danger to drastically increase because of your bad ideas. Can you fault us for loving our environment and wanting to live and thrive on Earth?

A point made in the book is that some people have humans as their standard of value and want to improve our environment. Others have a totally different standard which is based on minimizing impact on “the environment”, which means sacrificing humans for a untouched Earth out of a bias against what humans do as morally wrong. If you want to minimizing impact on our environment then I think Alex would agree with you that we should stop using fossil fuels. But I and others in humanity want to maximize our impact on our environment and do so in an extremely positive way so humanity can thrive, because that is our standard of value. They are his ideas, just like your ideas are yours. People who like your ideas pay you for your ideas. The question is who has the right ideas. You don’t examine the ideas, you use logical fallacies to evade.

Read the book if you care about the issue. There is no other book that addresses the heart of the subject directly and in the big picture. The first chapter is free: http://www.moralcaseforfossilfuels.com

-David

Response:

Paragraph 1:

One thing you are correct about is that I did not read the book and I won’t be. That is pretty close to the only thing you are correct about. Here are some references I consulted on the topic:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/book-review-the-moral-case-for-fossil-fuels-by-alex-epstein-1417477909

http://industrialprogress.com/about/

http://www.desmogblog.com/alex-epstein

http://www.amazon.com/The-Moral-Case-Fossil-Fuels/dp/1591847443

No, I am not going to read the book. I don’t need to. It is easy for people to tell a book’s claim is false without reading it – such as books that claim the Moon landings were faked, the Holocaust didn’t happen, Elvis Presley is alive and we are holding aliens captive in Area 51. For the record, yes, I am grouping this piece of work in with those others and I apologize to those other authors for including Alex Epstein in with them. Those others are merely nuts, not overtly harmful.

Paragraph 2:

No, the best background to integrate science is a science one.  You continue to demonstrate your logic failure by assuming I don’t have a background in philosophy. I do. And, no, I did not use a logical fallacy by criticizing Mr. Epstein’s credentials. Would you allow a philosophy major to perform surgery? Why not? After all, according to you, it is the best background to integrate all of the issues to obtain the big picture. I mean, don’t you want your surgeon to have the big picture when he’s standing out your wide-open body? To answer my questions for you, just to make sure you get them correctly – No, I want a surgeon that knows the science and has the skills to perform the job. Same thing with science. It takes decades of hard work to obtain the necessary skills. Mr. Epstein simply decided one day that reading Aristotle and Kant was enough to be able to prove all of the world’s scientists wrong. We aren’t even talking about climate scientists alone because he isn’t limiting himself to the single most complicated science of all, he’s taking on all of science and all scientists everywhere. There’s a term for that in philosophy – hubris.

Paragraph 3:

Showing someone’s motives is not only valid, but is critically important. Why is someone saying the things they are saying? We have learned, from Mr. Epstein himself, he is saying the things he does because he is funded by the fossil fuel industry. That is important information to know and explains why people such as Richard Lindzen and the Oregon Petition Project work so hard to hide that information.

Notice, did not engage in character attacks on Mr. Epstein. I only questioned his motives. I did not discuss his sexual orientation, if he kicks his dog, how he votes or if he undertips the waiter. Those would be character attacks and those kinds of things would be irrelevant. Keep your false arguments in line, please.

Paragraph 4:

I would love to debate him in a public forum.

Paragraph 5:

Fossil fuels are not so cheap anymore (Nuclear is not even close to being cheap, and I’m a nuclear energy supporter.) Also, when you start including the cost of damage done by fossil fuel they become one of the least affordable sources of energy of all.

But, wait! We just identified why the fossil fuel industry is supporting Mr. Epstein. Mr. Epstein wants us to believe fossil fuel pollution is GOOD for us. So, when it spoils our water, poisons our air, makes our children sick and kills us, it is all a GOOD thing for us and we shouldn’t be saying bad things about those benevolent fossil fuel people. After all, Mr. Epstein tells us they have made our lives so much better. And, don’t even THINK about holding them accountable for their actions because changing the environment is a GOOD thing.

Speaking of using false arguments, that whole line is nothing more than a crock of horse manure.

Paragraph 6:

This paragraph has so many false statements (short and poisonous) that I don't know where to begin. Let's just address your claim that "thanks to fossil fuels climate related deaths from all the kinds you mentioned are at a record low." Then, tell me how you explain these facts:

• Climate change affects the social and environmental determinants of health – clean air, safe drinking water, sufficient food and secure shelter.
• Between 2030 and 2050, climate change is expected to cause approximately 250 000 additional deaths per year, from malnutrition, malaria, diarrhoea and heat stress.
• The direct damage costs to health (i.e. excluding costs in health-determining sectors such as agriculture and water and sanitation), is estimated to be between US$ 2-4 billion/year by 2030.
• Areas with weak health infrastructure – mostly in developing countries – will be the least able to cope without assistance to prepare and respond.
• Reducing emissions of greenhouse gases through better transport, food and energy-use choices can result in improved health, particularly through reduced air pollution.

 Source: World Health Organization

Paragraph 7:

Do you really expect someone to believe that pollution is at an all time low?

More of the same. Yes, I am justified in questioning his motives, especially when they are so transparent and his claims are so false.

Then, you make a statement that is actually sick:

It is wind and solar that are dangerous to our environment because they can’t provide cheap, reliable and plentiful energy and of course they pollute too. If we were to switch to those our environment would be destroyed and our protection from climate danger would be almost non existant. Hundreds of millions would die if we followed your ideas. People who love what fossil fuels do for our lives pay Alex for his ideas. The reason is because we don’t want our environment destroyed and climate danger to drastically increase because of your bad ideas. Can you fault us for loving our environment and wanting to live and thrive on Earth?

So, the scientific evidence is conclusive – fossil fuels are destroying the environment and the climate. And, you want to justify them by saying “Can you fault us for loving our environment…..?” I can – and do – fault you, but it’s for lying.

Just another one of your false arguments. You make the claim that anyone not wanting to use fossil fuels wants to “sacrifice human” and that you and others (presumably, those that want to use even more fossil fuels) “want to maximize our impact on our environment and do so in an extremely positive way so humanity can thrive.” These are both incredibly false arguments and you will certainly get people to fall for them because they sound so nice. “Trust us, we’re the good guys and those environmentalists over there are the bad guys. They want to turn off your lights! They want all of you to die so the air and water are clean. How unreasonable of them! Bad environmentalists! Bad! Bad!”

Some of the several false arguments you make with your statement is that people that oppose the use of fossil fuels want to ‘sacrifice humans’ when it is actually the opposite. By keeping the air and water clean, it will improve the lives of humans, not sacrifice them. And, of course, the biggest false argument you make is that the only way we can have energy is by burning fossil fuels. This is not only every obviously false, but we are seeing an increasing number of people turn to alternatives. Solar power alone will likely rewrite the entire energy industry. That is another example of why the fossil fuel industry is paying Mr. Epstein – they don’t want people to realize they can break free of fossil fuels and IMPROVE their standard of living at the same time.

And, when you speak of ‘maximize our impact on our environment’ you automatically assume that any change is good. That is the central false argument Mr. Epstein makes the entire time – the natural state of the environment is actually bad for us, so changing it (no matter how or why) has to be good. Go back to your philosophy and logic classes. This is a completely false argument with nothing to support it.

Really, do you think I would hesitate to debate Mr. Epstein on these issues in a public forum?

By the way, no one is paying me for my ideas. I would love to get financial support from some source, but I don’t.

In summation, your entire statement is an amazingly bad failure of logic and science.