MAJ USA RET
Still hearing crickets
9/25/2019 5:09:22 PM (updated 9/25/2019 5:11:42 PM)
Okay… let’s just ASSUME … for the moment… that the alarmists’ science is correct.
The United States produces about 15% of the world’s non-natural carbon output. AND, assume with the “green new deal”, we could reduce our non-natural carbon output to 0%. Therefore we would reduce the amount of carbon contributed to the atmosphere as follows:
2.3 ppm/year global increase X 0.15% = 0.345 ppm/per year reduction by the U.S.
BUT… NO other country is required by the Paris Accord to reduce their carbon output. The burden is placed squarely on the United States. China (as with all other 3rd world counties) is even INCREASING their carbon output!
Therefore we would be abandoning our industrial output, thriving economy, and standard of living… INFORCED BY THE GOVERNMENT… to no benefit. Our reduction would be lost in the noise of international ambivalence.
All of this flies in the face of science, historical data, and current climate data output by our own NOAA Historical Climatology Network Stations (HCN). DATA IS PUBLIC !
As a geophysicist, geologist, certified environmental specialist, and formally trained meteorological observer, I am offended by this blatant propaganda.
1 - CO2 IS NOT a “green house” gas… no matter how many times you are told it is.
2 - Humans and their industry are insignificant in the ever changing, historically documented, changing of Earth’s climate.
3 – please, look up solar cycles and Milankovitch Cycles https://skepticalscience.com/Milankovitch.html
* * * * *
NOTICE - - I will be pleased to publicly debate the Greenland Ice Core data (100,000 yrs BP) and the Vostok Ice Core data (350,000 yrs BP) with any of you anthropomorphic global warming (AGW) alarmists. )PS: I am a geophysicist, registered profession geologist, certified environmental specialist, and formally trained (93E20) meteorological observer.)
AGWs, the Vostok and Greenland data are public. Where’s yours?
Scientists and physicians have produced lists of substances (and radioactive isotopes) which are toxic or hazardous (NIOSH, ERG, EPA NPL, and LA-4400). These substances and isotopes produce specific and documented responses in living organisms at specified concentrations or exposures. They are backed up by validated and publicly peer reviewed research. AGW has been neither validated nor publically reviewed by peers.
I am one of 33,000+ credentialed scientists who petitioned to have AGW publically peer reviewed. Now, do you understand why we hear only crickets?
AGWs may go first: Please, with respect to AGW, explain the origins of the Younger Dryas and the Medieval Warming Period. Please compare the Maunder Minimum to your observations.
As stipulated by the "Theory of Uniformitarianism," the laws of physics and chemistry are not changed or suspended by the history or presence of human beings.