Ipsism Cerebri*

Climate change (formerly hawked as global warming) is used as code by the left for, 'man-made (anthropogenic)' change - I'll just call it change and its proponents, changers.
 
This is condensed to bullet points but Ipsism has documentation of all points.
 
First, let's state the Leftists' model of change (simplified):
 a - sun shines and heats the Earth with radiant energy.
 b - that heat is emitted away from the Earth, into space, as thermal energy
 c - all of the heat from the sun has to be emitted, for Earth to stay the same; emit less heat than produced by the sun and the Earth heats, emit more heat than received from the sun and the Earth cools
 d - carbon compounds (principally CO2 and methane) form a greenhouse effect and trap the emitted heat
 e-  trapped heat causes progressive warming / change
 f - man is responsible for atmospheric carbon
 g - if man is stopped from using carbon, the change will be stopped / slowed / et c.
 
Points a and b are true. No one denies or is skeptical of these facts. The best lies are built on basic truths.
 
While c appears reasonable, it disregards other facts; namely that sunshine is not the only source of heat being lost from the Earth; more, later.
 
Point d has been the leftist indoctrination since the late 1800's. A greenhouse is a simple concept, familiar to everyone. But, while a physical greenhouse has a hard glass interface allowing sun to shine in, it CONFINES the atmosphere in the greenhouse. The glass does not reflect thermal energy (though it may appear to because sunshine also heats the glass). A greenhouse works because its glass prevents the warmer air inside the greenhouse from mixing with the outside air. Using the analogy of the greenhouse, changers try to convince us that there's a layer of carbon that can discretely reflect thermal energy. In doing so, they completely abandon the mechanics of the greenhouse, namely enclosing a small amount of air so that it can't mix with the great outdoors. To postulate an atmospheric carbon layer means that the whole Earth is inside the greenhouse.
 
What's the science of an atmospheric carbon layer? There isn't a layer of carbon. CO2 and other carbons are uniformly dispersed throughout the atmosphere. Well, can't that carbon still reflect thermal energy back to Earth? No. Carbon compounds DO absorb thermal energy, just as oxygen, nitrogen and the other components of the atmosphere absorb thermal energy. That's why CO2 distributes uniformly with other components of air.
 
It's true that carbon compounds lose energy and the changers say that the heat is radiated back to the Earth, causing warming.  However, since there is no layer of carbon, when CO2 loses the absorbed energy, it radiates spherically, 360 degrees, not just back at the Earth. And, since carbon is dispersed throughout the atmosphere, that radiated thermal energy ping-pongs out into space. That being the case, when the atmosphere cools - at  night or seasonally - ALL of that thermal energy has been lost into space and cannot be stored as heat in the Earth.  Thus, point e is a fallacy.
 
Alright, what if we deny true science and agree with the changers that their preposterous model of a global greenhouse is a possibility?
 
That brings us to point f, the speculation that man is responsible for all of the carbon going into the atmosphere. In order to believe that, we have to deny all true science. Humans do exhaust carbon by-products into the atmosphere -- a lot. But, how does that compare to the carbon exhausted into the atmosphere by nature -- natural processes of decay, the carbon exhausted by animals, even insects? It turns out that humans are responsible for between three and seven per cent (3 to 7%) of the total atmospheric carbon burden.
 
Remember the issue of Time magazine (April 3, 2006 - look it up) with the polar bear adrift on an iceberg? Time reported that humans were responsible for seven gigatons of carbon exhaust and that nature was responsible for 87 gigatons . We also need to recognize that as there is warming of the Earth, it will cause a natural increase in release of carbon into the atmosphere, particularly by the Arctic tundra. It's been stated that the Arctic tundra releases 100 time more carbon into the atmosphere than all of humanity's carbon waste. And this could explain why, historically, elevated carbon levels FOLLOW warming climates, the rise in carbon DOES NOT precede warming and CANNOT be the causative factor.
 
Now we get to point g, the crux of the changers objective. Will decreased use of carbon by humans lessen climate change?
 
Before considering that less than 10% of atmospheric carbon is due to humans, we need to be aware that of the thermal energy lost by Earth, almost half of that heat is from exothermic nuclear reactions from the Earth's core, NOT the sun. What does that mean? Almost half of the Earth's heating is going to occur regardless of the amount of carbon in the atmosphere. And let's not forget volcanoes spewing lava. Think that's rare? Consider the 'ring of fire', volcanos rimming the Pacific basin and continuously erupting. Do you really think all that molten lava being dumped on the ocean's floor has no eventual effect on the ocean's temperature?
 
Let's look at the numbers. First, the USA is responsible for only about 25% of global human carbon exhaust. Much of the world will NOT decrease their carbon use. Some Carbon credit schemes even allow for the third world to increase carbon use (carbon credits being an economic scheme to distribute wealth, NOT constrain total carbon exhaust). What happens if the US decreases its use of carbon by 20% -- a drastic reduction?  First we have to factor in the US per cent of total carbon. That means total human carbon exhaust will be decreased about 5%. And since human carbon exhaust is less than 10% of total global carbon, that becomes less than a 0.5% decrease in total carbon. At today's level of approximately 400 ppm Carbon in the atmosphere, a 20% decrease in US consumption will result in a level of 398 ppm instead of 400 ppm.
 
Hardly a result that's going to affect the atmospheric carbon model -- whatever that might be.
 
Don't forget that almost half of the heat radiated by the Earth is from nuclear reactions, meaning that only half of change could be attributed to carbon, if we accept the changers' fallacy.
 
Next, let's see how accurate the changers' model of change have been for the past twenty years so we can decide how much weight to give their models for the next 80 years.
 
If various changer models, proposed during the last twenty or so years, are compared to the ACTUAL temperatures recorded during that time, essentially all of the changer models have OVER predicted the observed temperatures by two to four degrees or more. Those FACTS demonstrate that changer models are grossly inaccurate and unreliable.
 
Okay, let's look at what effect models say that FULL implementation of the Paris Accords will achieve. If we spend 150 TRILLION dollars over the remainder of the century, the changers' models say that it will prevent the Earth from warming 0.2 degrees.
 
Regardless of what the actual number is in the future, the changers will say that the Paris Accord worked, because ALL changer climate models OVER predict future temperature rises. And, we'll never know what the rise would have been without implementing the Accord.
 
As has been said, science is not a consensus, facts do not depend upon who states scientific fact. It is not enough to say that change is suspect because of the changers' political leanings. Only having presented the true science of climate change can one surmise that ANTHROPOGENIC CHANGE IS A POLITICAL SCHEME TO REDISTRIBUTE WEALTH!
 
The changers choose to ignore TRUE sciences which have provided empirical evidence that the Earth has COOLED more than ten degrees over the past ten millions years.
 
And, if the changers ask if we have an alternate explanation of true climate variation, we can say, yes. The Vostok Ice Core project gave us a picture of climate variation over not just the last century, but of the last 540 MILLION YEARS. True variation can be explained, in part, with astrophysics. Scientists have observed cyclical variation and, like the Russian mathematician, Milus Milanovitch, have quantitated some celestial orbits which give excellent correlation with climate variations, not just on Earth but also explain the change seen on Mars and other planets within the Jovian orbit - where there is NO anthropogenic causation.
 
Now we can say that anthropogenic change is a scheme because it is contrary to true science, considers only items that support its conclusions and ignores contradictory facts which are the true causes of natural climate change.