With regard to Dr. Barry Cooper's climate-change column yesterday, I have been following 'climate science' for more than a decade now. What got me started was an innocent question I now no longer remember, but the answer was "take off your tin foil hat.".As a scientist myself I knew that if there was no way to question the 'consensus,' then this was no longer 'science.'.The only consensus in climate science, is that the climate is changing. (Most scientists think it's getting warmer.).The reasons however, are an active area of debate and range from 100% anthropogenic causation to 100% natural, and everything in between. In other words, there is no consensus..More important (and concerning to me) was watching numerous scientists lose their jobs for speaking to what their data said and not on behalf of the 'consensus.' For example, Susan Crockford, Peter Ridd, Roger Pielke Jr., Judith Curry (technically chased out of academia,) etc..I started reading the likes of Jim Steele, Patrick Moore, John Christy, and so many others. They all were sounding alarms that the data being used to create the climate panic was hugely flawed and personally when I looked at the numbers, the 'alarming' trends were little more than one standard deviation and could easily be explained by common errors..Instrumentation errors for example, or errors in combining proxy data to real data, errors in placement of the temperature recording, etc..Then there was the chemistry side (my personal background.).Carbon dioxide (CO2) has a very interesting chemistry. It can make carbonic acid (rain water) with a pH of ~5, but it also preferentially sheds the other H+ for a more stable pH of ~8.3 (ocean water.).This is a fantastic buffer which means it is extremely difficult to get the pH to shift. So with respect to 'ocean acidification,' has anyone looked into where the point measurements are being taken?.I am betting not in the middle of the ocean, but in ports and near developments where we dump raw sewage and other things into the ocean, and yes that pH is <7, but not because of increased CO2 in the atmosphere..Then there are the very natural hydrothermal vents in the ocean with extreme temperatures and pH and whole other ecosystems living there..But the other side of CO2 chemistry is the tendency to form carbonate (a solid,) particularly calcium carbonate (shells and limestone.) This is a whole other set of equilibrium chemistry that no one looks into..It is assumed higher amounts of carbonic acid in the atmosphere will dissolve shells, but in fact the opposite happens as it makes carbonate for shell building more available. It is other acids that dissolve shells..Anyway, my personal view is that CO2 is not a temperature control knob on the Earth's climate..However there is the much bigger 'political' science which uses highly inaccurate computer modelling as the 'science' that can not be questioned. The computer models cannot accurately model something as complex as the climate, so they dumb it down and only look at assumed CO2 inputs, and not other variables..This is the unquestionable god of 'climate change' and we are all going to die..I did notice the very same unquestionable computer models were used to model COVID and how we should respond for best outcomes..I would love to see a true debate on climate science and I would love to see the truth actually get out there, but one thing sticks with me, and unfortunately I think that person was right: The debate, politically, has already been lost. It was lost more than 15 years ago, before most of us knew this was a problem. You cannot be elected into any office without some sort of plan for mitigating 'climate change.'.Most popular has been the carbon tax because some economist who did not look at all inputs said this was the best way to mitigate CO2 outputs without damaging the economy..Huh? Any idiot could see it was going to cause significant inflation among other things, such as making the right thing to do more difficult because most things are fossil fuel based..So I think, for now, the debate really needs to happen politically..What are the best ways to mitigate climate change? There are the ideas that Premier Smith subscribes to which are letting our industry leaders do their thing and lead with new technologies that can be implemented from carbon capture to uses for CO2 in new products..Supporting these new technologies only adds to the economy as the government is not theoretically shutting down the older companies/technology..Then there are people, such as Bjorn Lumberg, who subscribe to using the monies we are spending to prevent climate change, to do things such as reduce poverty, end world hunger, clean our water ways, have every community with top waste water treatment, have better ways of dealing with garbage, etc..All of these things, while not limiting CO2, do better the environment in much more meaningful ways and are actually cheaper than what we are currently spending to prevent climate change..There is also spending money to help adapt to climate change instead of preventing climate change, which is much more positive and forward thinking..I personally think we need to return to reduce, reuse, recycle, repurpose and repair, but governments need to get out of the way..It is their regulations that reduce initiative and stop people from thinking outside the box..Alberta-based Kelly Carter is a data analyst.
With regard to Dr. Barry Cooper's climate-change column yesterday, I have been following 'climate science' for more than a decade now. What got me started was an innocent question I now no longer remember, but the answer was "take off your tin foil hat.".As a scientist myself I knew that if there was no way to question the 'consensus,' then this was no longer 'science.'.The only consensus in climate science, is that the climate is changing. (Most scientists think it's getting warmer.).The reasons however, are an active area of debate and range from 100% anthropogenic causation to 100% natural, and everything in between. In other words, there is no consensus..More important (and concerning to me) was watching numerous scientists lose their jobs for speaking to what their data said and not on behalf of the 'consensus.' For example, Susan Crockford, Peter Ridd, Roger Pielke Jr., Judith Curry (technically chased out of academia,) etc..I started reading the likes of Jim Steele, Patrick Moore, John Christy, and so many others. They all were sounding alarms that the data being used to create the climate panic was hugely flawed and personally when I looked at the numbers, the 'alarming' trends were little more than one standard deviation and could easily be explained by common errors..Instrumentation errors for example, or errors in combining proxy data to real data, errors in placement of the temperature recording, etc..Then there was the chemistry side (my personal background.).Carbon dioxide (CO2) has a very interesting chemistry. It can make carbonic acid (rain water) with a pH of ~5, but it also preferentially sheds the other H+ for a more stable pH of ~8.3 (ocean water.).This is a fantastic buffer which means it is extremely difficult to get the pH to shift. So with respect to 'ocean acidification,' has anyone looked into where the point measurements are being taken?.I am betting not in the middle of the ocean, but in ports and near developments where we dump raw sewage and other things into the ocean, and yes that pH is <7, but not because of increased CO2 in the atmosphere..Then there are the very natural hydrothermal vents in the ocean with extreme temperatures and pH and whole other ecosystems living there..But the other side of CO2 chemistry is the tendency to form carbonate (a solid,) particularly calcium carbonate (shells and limestone.) This is a whole other set of equilibrium chemistry that no one looks into..It is assumed higher amounts of carbonic acid in the atmosphere will dissolve shells, but in fact the opposite happens as it makes carbonate for shell building more available. It is other acids that dissolve shells..Anyway, my personal view is that CO2 is not a temperature control knob on the Earth's climate..However there is the much bigger 'political' science which uses highly inaccurate computer modelling as the 'science' that can not be questioned. The computer models cannot accurately model something as complex as the climate, so they dumb it down and only look at assumed CO2 inputs, and not other variables..This is the unquestionable god of 'climate change' and we are all going to die..I did notice the very same unquestionable computer models were used to model COVID and how we should respond for best outcomes..I would love to see a true debate on climate science and I would love to see the truth actually get out there, but one thing sticks with me, and unfortunately I think that person was right: The debate, politically, has already been lost. It was lost more than 15 years ago, before most of us knew this was a problem. You cannot be elected into any office without some sort of plan for mitigating 'climate change.'.Most popular has been the carbon tax because some economist who did not look at all inputs said this was the best way to mitigate CO2 outputs without damaging the economy..Huh? Any idiot could see it was going to cause significant inflation among other things, such as making the right thing to do more difficult because most things are fossil fuel based..So I think, for now, the debate really needs to happen politically..What are the best ways to mitigate climate change? There are the ideas that Premier Smith subscribes to which are letting our industry leaders do their thing and lead with new technologies that can be implemented from carbon capture to uses for CO2 in new products..Supporting these new technologies only adds to the economy as the government is not theoretically shutting down the older companies/technology..Then there are people, such as Bjorn Lumberg, who subscribe to using the monies we are spending to prevent climate change, to do things such as reduce poverty, end world hunger, clean our water ways, have every community with top waste water treatment, have better ways of dealing with garbage, etc..All of these things, while not limiting CO2, do better the environment in much more meaningful ways and are actually cheaper than what we are currently spending to prevent climate change..There is also spending money to help adapt to climate change instead of preventing climate change, which is much more positive and forward thinking..I personally think we need to return to reduce, reuse, recycle, repurpose and repair, but governments need to get out of the way..It is their regulations that reduce initiative and stop people from thinking outside the box..Alberta-based Kelly Carter is a data analyst.
