What percentage, or what proportion, of the air around us is carbon dioxide? Is it
A) More than 50 percent
B) More than 25 percent
C) More than 10 percent, or
D) Less than 1 percent
So, what do you think? How much carbon dioxide is in the atmosphere relative to other gases?
The answer is less than 1 percent. ……….. Did you know that? How many people do you think know that? The answer is significant, very significant, because climate change proponents claim that carbon dioxide is having a massive effect in the atmosphere? But how can something that is present in such tiny quantities in the atmosphere create such havoc. And actually, carbon dioxide is much much less than 1 percent of the gases in the atmosphere. It is actually 0.039 percent. So it is not even a half of a percent. In fact it is not even a tenth of a percent. It is about one twenty-fifth of a percent. If you look at it on a pie chart, carbon dioxide does not even show up. That’s how small a percentage it is. It exists in such small amounts that it is referred to in science as a trace gas. The dominant gases in the atmosphere are nitrogen (about 78%), and oxygen (about 20 percent).
If we were to represent carbon dioxide with dots, for every 2,500 dots of air, one dot would be carbon dioxide. This is how rare carbon dioxide is in the atmosphere. And I started out with this point because I think it is the strongest evidence against global warming for the following reason:How can a gas that exists in such minuscule quantities relative to the other gases essentially override all the other gases and impact the atmosphere in such a big way? It is like carbon dioxide is this bully, who, even though there are 2,499 other entities out there, negates all of them and somehow dominates and controls what’s happening in the atmosphere.
It doesn’t pass the commonsense test, and climate scientists haven’t been able to give a valid explanation of how this is possible. Instead, they have viciously attacked the people who brought up this point.
You know, years ago when I first heard of the global warming theory, I thought that the planet was drowning in carbon dioxide, and that carbon dioxide was bad. But not only are we not drowning in carbon dioxide, or even close to it, carbon dioxide is actually not harmful. It is not a pollutant. Plants use carbon dioxide. Without carbon dioxide plants would die. And there is evidence that air that is rich in carbon dioxide actually improves plant growth. Also, I’m sure you know that the gas in soda is carbon dioxide, right? If it’s so bad, how come we’re eating and drinking it? So don’t let the media scare you. Carbon dioxide is only one twenty-fifth of a percent of the air around us, and carbon dioxide is not poisonous.
The second point I want to make is regarding the assumption that climate scientists make that the climate is supposed to be stable. Who says that the climate is supposed to stay a certain way? Where did they get that from? If you go back in time, you will find that there has always been climate change. Scientists themselves say that at one time the earth was much colder and then it got warmer. So why is a 1 degree change of temperature over a hundred years being interpreted as something that we should be concerned about? Why is it being seen as something unnatural?
When you bring this point up, the supporters of climate change have no answer except to say that their research proves that the current change in climate is due to manmade factors.
Well, how exactly do you prove that past climate changes, which by the way you have no clue as to why they occurred, are natural, but current and recent climate changes are unnatural? If you don’t really know what caused climate change in the past, how can you be sure that those same forces are not at work right now? Why wouldn’t they be at work right now? Nature never gives up. I would submit that in the same way climate changes occurred in the past, the same way it is occurring now, and it has nothing to do with manmade factors. The only way I would believe otherwise is if there has never been climate change in the past and now we’re witnessing climate change.
The type of research being conducted by climate scientists currently would never be able to give us a definitive answer on climate change because we really don’t know what forces are at work shaping our climate. For example, the sun is the only source of heat in the world, and do we know whether or not the sun produces the same amount of heat on a day to day basis, or on a week to week basis, or on a month to month basis, or on a year to year basis, or on a decade to decade basis? For all we know, the sun might be the main driver of climate. It might be that the heat given off by the sun is not constant. Perhaps the sun goes through cycles; who knows.
There are a lot of things that research cannot prove, because most of the research being done these days are statistical in nature. What the researchers do is they plot one set of data against another set of data and if there is a correlation they announce to world that there is a link between the two things they’re researching. But a statistical correlation does not mean that there is a cause and effect relationship between the two things.
Just because carbon emissions are going up, and temperatures are also going up (if we accept that warming is occurring), that doesn’t mean that carbon emissions are causing temperatures to go up. There are thousands, or probably millions of things that show statistical relationship to one another, but that does not mean that one is causing the other. It might just be pure coincidence.
For example, let’s say I’m a salesman and I were to do a statistical analysis of what I ate for breakfast each day versus the amount of sales I made each day. My analysis might show that on the days when I ate cereal I tended to do very well. Now, does that mean that eating cereal causes me to excel in sales? I don’t think that that would be a valid conclusion because from a commonsense point of view eating cereal shouldn’t have anything to do with how well you do in business.
So an increase in carbon emissions might not have anything to do with temperature, and this whole thing may just be a wild goose chase, because, there is evidence that the warming has actually slowed down in recent years even though emissions continue to rise at the same rate or even greater. So carbon emissions might not be related at all to rising temperature.
The third issue I want to mention is this notion of rising sea levels and shifting coastlines. You know the story: Climate scientists say that sea levels are rising because of melting ice caps in the polar regions. We are being told that entire communities will disappear because the ocean will come up and swallow certain low lying areas.
But how exactly do you measure sea levels when the seabed itself and the coastlines keep changing because of soil erosion and deposition? Oceans and rivers constantly move and deposit soil all over the place, and so you can’t get an accurate measurement of sea levels because the movement of soil causes the seabed and the coastlines to change constantly.
It is therefore difficult if not impossible to tell whether the sea level is changing because of more water or because of more soil on the seabed. So the science of trying to measure sea levels is very suspect and we should be very skeptical of the numbers being thrown around.
The other related point I want to make pertains to the ice caps in the polar regions. While it is true that there has been some melting in the arctic (that’s in the north), the ice caps in the Antarctic (which is the south) are actually increasing. There is no melting in the Antarctic. So how do you explain that? If the world as a whole is getting warmer shouldn’t the ice caps in the south also be melting?
Well, the proponents of global warming have an explanation for that, just like they have explanations for everything else that haven’t turned out the way they said they would turn out. And so this is leads me to the final point I want to make, and it is this:
The story keeps changing.
And you know what that means; it means one thing and only one thing: They have been lying to us. When people keep changing their stories, it is usually the case that they are not telling the truth. For example, when the predicted warming up of the globe didn’t happen as much as they said it would, they changed the term from “Global Warming” to now “Climate Change”.
The truth is that climate scientists don’t really understand the mechanics of weather and climate. Why do they keep lying to us: They keep lying to us because they have a lot of things to protect, and if they give in to the truth everything will just come crashing down.
So climate change is not about the truth anymore. It is about making sure that the kingdom doesn’t fall. There are careers at stake, prestige is on the line, billions of dollars in funding and research must continue to flow, and power over the masses must be maintained at all cost. So they’ll do anything and say anything. Like politics, it all boils down to the power and the money, and the truth be dammed.