Rational Thinking About Irrational Numbers
I am drawing this reference from this article from someone who I look up to and admire – Dr. Roy Spencer.
In the last 100 years, the amount of CO2 in the air has increased from three molecules per 10,000 molecules of air, to four molecules out of 10,000 molecules of air.
Which means we are being asked to believe the increase of one molecule of CO2 out of 10,000 molecules of air in the last 100 years is causing catastrophic climate change that threatens mankind.
This is all fascinating to me, given Secretary of State John Kerry’s comments on the immense threat of a catastrophe based on out of control climate, when we have groups like ISIS and Hamas running around.
Seems to me that there is a lot of inconsistency here. The idea from John Kerry is that CO2-induced warming is an imminent national security threat. So he is saying the increase of one molecule of CO2 per 10,000 molecules of air in the last 100 years is a threat on par with what is going on in the Middle East? How can that even be close. The real threat when it comes to CO2 is the agenda that paints it as a threat. One, it makes us more reliant on an unstable area of the world. Two, the policies limiting its use starve the lifeline of our economy. As I have opined before, it’s the global warming agenda that is the major threat, not global warming.
I for one am much more concerned about Hamas, ISIS, etc., than CO2, except that it’s the focus of an agenda that is stopping our nation from progressing.
But think about what is going on here. Hamas fires untold amounts of rockets into Israel. Israel tries to protect itself. Hamas uses its citizens to protect its missiles. Israel uses its missiles to protect its citizens. But Israel is ripped up and down. How does that hook into CO2? Which is a bigger threat to global stability: an organization like Hamas or ISIS, or the increase of one molecule of CO2 out of 10,000 molecules of air in the last 100 years? Why would anyone be even thinking about the latter, given the example of the former, unless of course the absurdity of blaming Middle East problems on climate change is the goal? (Better tell that to Jacob and Ishmael, and everyone that followed.)
But let’s really put this whole CO2 scare (scam) in perspective, okay?
Here is the infamous hockey stick graphic, the last 50 years of warming based on the most reliable temperature measurements versus tree rings that decided to show cooling instead of warming. This, of course, has stirred up the angst of Dr. Michael Mann when people suggested there was something very wrong with switching the way one measured temperatures after 950 years when that way no longer agreed.
Now here is the real hockey stick, the increase in GDP per capita since the coming fossil fuel age really took off over the last 100 years.
That is a real correlation. No switching measurement horses midstream. During the time of the increase of one molecule of CO2 per 10,000, earth’s per capita income went up. And think about how many more people there are now against 1900.
But let’s look more closely at this in the U.S., since we naturally want to lead the world to a brighter tomorrow.
It is estimated that the U.S. has averaged 20% of the CO2 input from man over the last 100 years . Assuming all the increase of CO2 is man-made, that would mean in 50,000 molecules of air, the U.S. has added one molecule of CO2 in the last 100 years, while the global GDP skyrocketed.
How much is that a year? Well we have to divide the figure above. One molecule per 50,000 in the last 100 years means we have averaged one molecule of CO2 for every 5,000,000 molecules of air per year. So we are asked to believe that is changing the climate?
But wait, let’s think locally to act globally (I have a sweatshirt that says that).
300,000,000 people. How many molecules of CO2 does the average American add to the atmosphere every year?
One molecule of CO2 out of every 1,500,000,000,000,000 molecules of air each year.
Why you selfish capitalist pig. You are destroying the planet by your very existence (though the plants love you – I saw a tree hug a human the other day).
You may say, “Joe, this is an absurd exercise.” Exactly. You must fight the absurd by showing how absurd it truly is. And nothing in our national debate today comes even close to this agenda when put in proper perspective, yet we have people trying to say this threatens our way of life. It threatens theirs, given the gravy train of $165 billion spent on climate change in the past 20 years at the expense of the American people as a whole.
So here is the question to, let’s say, Leonardo DiCaprio, given he flies around the world and makes movies with untold amounts of energy use: Do you really believe the U.S. or the rest of the globe, given the absurdly small amount of CO2 that has been added to the air, is actually changing the climate in any measurable way? Do you understand how irrational that is given the actual numbers?
Another question: Given the major problems facing man today, one of which exemplified above, how can any rational person try to even address this issue as being remotely a problem?
Final questions for inquiring minds: Was the iceberg that sunk the Titanic caused by global warming? How long did you train to hold Kate Winslett so she didn’t fall off the boat? Are you going the way of Brando, and when can we expect you to tip 250, 300 lbs? You understand that weight gain means more of a carbon foot print.
I figure he might have the answer to those last three, because he certainly doesn’t the others – nor do any of the people pushing this agenda.
[Originally published at The Patriot Post]