For a few years now, I’ve been writing letters to the editor to the Otago Daily Times newspaper about climate change because in his editorial, the previous editor wrote that he would not print anything that opposes the IPCC’s narrative. So I began to ‘inform’ them. They never print any of them, so we have to ask why, and of course they have word number limitations and lots of other letters to consider… and it is their paper so they are entitled to print what they like. But is hiding information good journalism?
I’ve decided to post a few of my letters here, because I like to challenge those newspaper people… and the climate alarmists. But basically, here is where I’m coming from.
There’s no doubt that the climate changes, there are definite cycles and cycles within cycles that are obvious. There are also anomalies that happen that have an effect on weather. What I don’t believe is that carbon dioxide is in any way the control knob of climate. Here are two examples. Anyone with an interest in weather will have noticed there have been more floods in random areas over the past couple of years. No question. But it isn’t climate change. The undersea eruption in Tonga sent a huge volume of water into the stratosphere, increasing the water vapour up there by at least 10%... so that water has to return to the planet surface. The other, arguably more significant fact is that global warming has occurred since 1850. Simply put, the end of the Little Ice Age was 1850. So, if an ice age is going to end, it has to be with warming, so warming should be expected… and people prefer to live where it is warm, so why are they saying it is bad.
For a few years now, I’ve been writing letters to the editor to the Otago Daily Times newspaper about climate change because in his editorial, the previous editor wrote that he would not print anything that opposes the IPCC’s narrative. So I began to ‘inform’ them. They never print any of them, so we have to ask why, and of course they have word number limitations and lots of other letters to consider… and it is their paper so they are entitled to print what they like. But is hiding information good journalism?
I’ve decided to post a few of my letters here, because I like to challenge those newspaper people… and the climate alarmists. But basically, here is where I’m coming from.
There’s no doubt that the climate changes, there are definite cycles and cycles within cycles that are obvious. There are also anomalies that happen that have an effect on weather. What I don’t believe is that carbon dioxide is in any way the control knob of climate. Here are two examples. Anyone with an interest in weather will have noticed there have been more floods in random areas over the past couple of years. No question. But it isn’t climate change. The undersea eruption in Tonga sent a huge volume of water into the stratosphere, increasing the water vapour up there by at least 10%... so that water has to return to the planet surface. The other, arguably more significant fact is that global warming has occurred since 1850. Simply put, the end of the Little Ice Age was 1850. So, if an ice age is going to end, it has to be with warming, so warming should be expected… and people prefer to live where it is warm, so why are they saying it is bad?
Cover Letter
The original terms of reference of the IPCC were to quantify anthropogenic causes of global warming, but their role has morphed to climate change and policy to mitigate its onset. However nowhere in and of their reports does it mention crisis, catastrophe or armegeddon. We have governments, including the United Nations where politicians and bureaucrats are ‘telling’ scientist and universities what to say by funding anything to do with climate change… yet papers written against the climate narrative are never printed, which is the bread and butter of scientists. Likewise, the media reflects the same narrative.
Anyway, to support my submission, here is the graph, which is self-explanatory, and to help you with your arithmetic 420 parts per million carbon dioxide equates to 0.042 percent of the atmosphere, making it a trace gas. Methane is 1900 part per billion equating to 0.00019 percent of the atmosphere. Versus the sun, its and Earth’s orbits, ice, oceans and clouds? As for extreme weather events, even the IPCC says they are not increasing exponentially.
Submission
There’s no question that our planet has warmed since 1850, how else would an ice age end? (Little Ice Age 1330-1850). Therefore, it’s fair to say that any warming is mostly due to natural variability… but what about carbon dioxide? Ninety five percent of atmospheric CO2 occurs naturally, and less than four percent is due to burning fossil fuels, so if CO2 is causing warming, how do we know which CO2 is causing it? It’s unlikely that plants spit out the CO2 from fossil fuels, and when we plant trees to mitigate climate change, how do we know which CO2 they are converting to carbon?
Simply put, the sun, orbits, water (solid, liquid and gas), and their natural cycles are the drivers of climate, not a piddling amount of CO2. Anyway, our planet has always been a hostile, dangerous place.
No comments:
Post a Comment