by Dr. Ed Berry, PhD, Physics
Location: Performing Arts Center, Boys and Girls Club, Ronan, Montana. 7:00 PM, March 22. Sponsored by the Lake County Pachyderm Club
Dr. Ed will NOT show pictures of melting glaciers, starving animals, or rising oceans because the effects of climate change do not tell us what caused the climate to change.
The United Nations IPCC CLAIMS human CO2 emissions causes all the rise in atmospheric CO2 above 280 ppm. But data prove human CO2 increases atmospheric CO2 by only 18 ppm and nature increases CO2 by 392 ppm, to produce today’s 410 ppm.
Nature, not human CO2, causes climate change. Efforts to reduce CO2 waste our time, money, and talent, and threatens our lives, economy, and national security.
The major GHG is water not CO2. Since Fossil fuels such as gasoline, diesel, kerosene and natural gas have the formula CnH2n.
I am surprised that all those who claim that Climate Change is manmade never mention this fact.
Besides, I would like to know where on the globe has any Temperate climate actually changed to Semi-tropical, or Tropical for example.
Our real problem is that too many people can’t see the difference between real science and politically manipulated science.
It is well known that Water Vapour is the major green house gas. The amount of Water Vapour in the atmoshpere is however depending upon temperature, higher temperature – higher concentrations of WV and vice versa. WV is therefore considered to be a feedback, and not the driver of warming.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/greenhouse-gases.php?section=watervapor
The dutch government is glad with the outcome of a political debat that reducing ‘human CO2’ not only will effect the change in climate but also that, economically spoken, about 70.000 jobs will be created. So there is a win-win situation according to these politicians. When the climate will not change, politicians will change their mind and will put the claim that despite all, jobs were created. Not to say that billions from taxation were taken. Henceforward, you will loose the battle cause the majority will be glad, real science or not.
Hello Henk, I think you will find from the evidence of the same experiment in Spain, that 4 real jobs were lost for every one green job created. If Holland follows, the creation of 70,000 jobs will mean the loss of 280,000 jobs in other areas.
“Spain
· Since 2000, Spain spent 571,138 euros on each green job, including subsidies of more than 1 million euros per job in the wind industry.
· The programs creating those jobs destroyed nearly 110,500 jobs elsewhere in the economy (2.2 jobs destroyed for every green job created).
· The high cost of electricity mainly affects production costs and levels of employment in metallurgy, nonmetallic mining and food processing, and beverage and tobacco industries.
· Each “green” megawatt installed destroys 5.28 jobs elsewhere in the economy on average.
· These costs do not reflect Spain’s particular approach but rather the nature of schemes to promote renewable energy sources.
Spain has found its foray into renewable energy to be unsustainable. Bloomberg reports that Spain slashed subsidies for new solar power plants.[6] As analyst Andrew McKillop observes in the Energy Tribune:”
The Myth of Green Energy Jobs: The European Experience
http://www.aei.org/article/energy-and-the-environment/the-myth-of-green-energy-jobs-the-european-experience/
Most of those 70,000 jobs, if at all plausible, will be government bureaucrats.
And holland will start looking like France with too many burocrats, high taxation, and high unemployment.
Climate change is but one threat that all politicians pose who have signed on to globalization. It matters not, that scientifically speaking, they cannot prove that “climate change” is man made. This significantly adds to the chaos that progressives want as established by Saul Alinsky, rules for radicals. This nation is under siege and it will not stop, short of civil war/revolution.
I had to comment here after seeing this at WUWT (https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/03/21/obama-appointed-judge-blocks-wyoming-oil-lease-sale-over-climate-change/ )
With this judges ruling for lack of completeness in analyzing climate change affects for oil leases the need for disseminating Dr. Ed’s work becomes more urgent. I am hoping Dr. Happer will get it included in the PCCS.
Can someone please help me with this new article circulating around on social media? It says they can prove causation but I don’t understand the math in the methodology. Thank you!
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep21691
Heidi
I am not qualified to review the referenced paper but note that it states a detected causality of temperature anomaly change by greenhouse gas (especially CO2 ) in the atmosphere. I note that Dr. Ed’s work shows that the atmospheric CO2 content is barely affected fossil fuel emissions so even if they are right, we did not cause it. There are several other papers that would challenge this one in that they find no correlation between temp and CO2. Wallace and Munshi are the ones I can think of.