Science The Climate Scientist Will Not Address!

Anyone who knows me knows that for very specific scientific reasons I hold the concept of Anthropogenic Climate Change to be complete nonsense. It is apocalyptic science-fiction on a grander scale than the Zombie Apocalypse, which itself is a pretty popular indulgence.

What I am not, is a “Denier”. I am in fact a man of science with accomplishments and results that can be seen, felt and touched out in the environment. I will be the first to admit, there is nothing speculative or theoretical about my science. I do recognize the climate is changing but my mastery of science allows me to maintain an open mind for other possibilities and theories.

The only “science” I have ever witnessed that blocks out alternative thought is the “science” of Anthropogenic Climate Change” (ACC). Imagine if those who didn’t agree that things like Thalidomide, DDT, Round-Up and asbestos were labeled “deniers” and blocked from scientific discussions. This in itself is the first proof that ACC is flim-flam for its’ proponents refuse to entertain any thought that does not support their beliefs. And make no mistake, ACC is simply a belief, nothing more.

Now, this is not to say that I don’t despise the way we are polluting, abusing and neglecting our environment. I save water for a living. I have done this throughout the world. In industry, municipalities, aerospace, medicine, labs, food and beverage and R&D, I have solved water and waste issues. What man is doing to the planet is unfathomable; it is shameful and horrible.

But ACC stands on shaky ground. Its’ “science” is unsound because it tramples on other known, proven and indefatigable science that has stood since the beginning of time. Here then, are the questions and challenges the ACC proponent cannot and will not address for fear of exposing this concept as bogus. All of these questions are proposed by the very foundations of science.

  • CO² raises our heart rates and makes breathing difficult. If the gas has increased 50 ppm why is mankind not being affected as such?
  • CO² reduces the efficiency of combustion. If the gas has increased 50 ppm why are our engines not losing horsepower and mpg?
  • CO² is the main ingredient in fire extinguishers. If the gas has risen 50 ppm why are forest fires not easier to put out? The gas is absolutely known to reduce burning.
  • Historical CO² and temperature data are expressed in the 1/10 and 1/100 parts by the ACC proponent. However, digital instrumentation capable of such accuracy and precision did not exist until roughly 1980. How could one know the temperature of say, 48.03º F in 1935? In arithmetic, we can add two numbers, divide by two and use a decimal point number as the average, however, scientific protocol does not work this way. Any university professor should admit that the representation of his results cannot ever exceed the accuracy and precision of his instruments. If you did this with drug research the FDA would send you to jail for fraud.
  • Scientific research requires the standardization of methods and results for academic acceptance. What this means is that the readings have to be taken with demonstrable consistency and record keeping. So with temperature and CO² data, for instance, to be scientifically accepted the data would have to have been collected from the same points, at the same time schedule, using instruments and methods that were calibrated to the same standard. ACC “science” offers none of this. It instead selectively chooses random data that fits a certain narrative. No science anywhere in the history of mankind has operated on this kind of loose, undefined set of data. The ACC proponent will claim that the large number of samples taken averages out statistically and therefore eliminates the challenges to the data validity. This is not true. Taking large sample numbers DOES minimize the worry over operator error, this is called accuracy. So, for example, if one had a million tests to examine, the few glitches where the operator goofed would be made insignificant because so many other samples were taken. HOWEVER, taking a large number of samples DOES NOT increase the precision of the data. So for instance, a bathroom scale tells you that you weigh 140 pounds. The reality is that the scale is only accurate to within 2 pounds so the scale reading is actually telling you that you weigh somewhere between 138 and 142. It expresses 140 as an average. ACC lies about the precision of its’ data. This constitutes fraud.
  • Boyle’s Law, one of the most inflexible foundations of NASA and space exploration presents a real headache for the CO² Naysayer and ACC proponent.
  • Boyle tells us that in a closed environment if the concentration or volume of one gas increases then the concentration of the other gasses in that environment must reduce in an exact proportion. So, if you believe our atmosphere is contained (If it were not, it would just float out into space) an increase in CO² would have to be accompanied by either a reduction in other atmospheric gasses like N² and O². ACC proponents cannot demonstrate such a phenomenon. HOWEVER…..let’s say you do believe our atmosphere is contained but also believe CO² is increasing, then we have a situation identical to adding air to a tire. The tire (atmosphere) cannot expand, so the pressure would have to increase. ACC proponents also cannot demonstrate an increase in atmospheric pressure that would have to accompany the creation of more gas in a fixed environment.
  • Now let’s say that you do not believe the Earth’s atmosphere is contained, so Boyle’s Law does not apply. Even then the ACC proponent is left without answers. If in fact, our atmosphere is not contained, that means an increase in gas, specifically CO² would add more volume to our atmosphere. If it is not fixed in size, then it is like a balloon. In this case, if what ACC proponents believe is true then the size of our atmosphere would have increased in size, and it hasn’t. Science does not allow us to have it both ways.

At the end of the day, we are indeed making a mess out of our surroundings. However, man does not occupy enough space to affect the planet one way or another. We could put all of mankind into the state of Florida and give each person more than 1,000 square feet to themselves. The majority of the planet is uninhabited by man and the rejuvenating forces of nature are at work 24/7 far overcoming the mess we are making.

It is true that we are making a mess of our individual proximities, and with as much natural resources as we consume we are indeed planting seeds for the way man 50 – 100 years from now will live. However, to imagine that we have a right to sustain the modern lives we currently live is to indulge in stupidity. As if the Earth is not behaving properly if one day we can no longer drive cars, fly, build and vacation as we do now?

Our biggest downfall is to think that we can alter the planet, or guide it into doing what we want it to do. We are helpless in this. It doesn’t mean we should not stop our horrible practices and do a better job of taking care of the environment, but it does mean, we need to realize that the Earth is in charge and we are along for the ride. It is we who need to adapt to the planet, and not the other way around.

I am 100% on board with all the ACC proponents efforts to be better caretakers of our planet. However, as a hands-on scientist of over 40 years, I also know that man cannot affect the planet in any long-term, meaningful way.

Many of my colleagues don’t believe in God, the Father of Jesus, but isn’t it curious that for all of our science, for all of our pomp, self-importance, technology, wisdom, and efforts, we remain as pimples on the buttocks of Earth? The mighty dinosaurs, the “brilliant” Mayans and other impressive ancient civilizations all perished at the hands of Earth. And each successive generation is going to manage the planet? Now, I realize that the very mention of Christianity will lead most proponents of ACC to discount everything else I wrote, but let’s be honest, most proponents of ACC are not open-minded about anything that doesn’t feed this goofy CO² narrative anyway. It is sad to see how drunk we have become on ourselves!

Psalms 104:5

“He set the earth on its foundations so that it should never be moved”