1/6

I do not believe that climate change is being driven by man. To begin, let us lay out some information that is widely agreed upon. One, the planet's climate is changing. This is undeniable, we can see it with our eyes, we can see a record of the change a number of ways (mostly using air samples trapped in ice cores). Secondly, man-made pollution has an effect on our environment. Carbon dioxide and methane are greenhouse gases that have the ability to raise temperature and change the pH of the oceans, while other types of waste are toxic to the planet itself.

However, the extent to which our pollution is driving climate change is the question. Scientists have created model after model showing the catastrophic future that we are headed towards. Models are complex algorithms that take a series of inputs and try to predict an outcome. For a model to work, not only must all of the inputs be identified, but their relative effects must be quantified. For climate change, this means we must identify all inputs that could cause fluctuating temperatures (CO2 level, methane level, earth’s orbit, earth’s axis, solar output, solar flairs, etc) and we must understand the extent to which each affects temperature. WE DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE ENTIRE SYSTEM AND ARE UNABLE TO MAKE ACCURATE PREDICTIONS ABOUT THE NEXT 20, 50, OR 100 YEARS. Not only are we missing inputs, we are unsure of how to weight the effect of each factor. If we are unable to accurately predict the weather a week or even a day in advance, you should have some doubt about how accurate our ideas for the next hundred years must be.

The notion that CO2, at a mere 400ppm (1/2500 of our atmosphere), is the primary factor affecting global temperature seems unlikely. Especially when you consider that CO2 levels have been between 1,000 and 4,000 ppm (http://jeremyshiers.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/globalTempAndCo2_last600MillionYears.png) for the majority of the last 600 million years. Furthermore, comparing changes in CO2 levels to temperature levels show no clear connection (http://oi61.tinypic.com/2mmu35f.jpg) over time. Yes, in a close system, CO2 can retain heat and result in warming. To suggest that our atmosphere operates like a closed system container in a laboratory is disingenuous.

>>6109241

2/6

It seems much more logical that the sun, our primary source of heat, would be the primary affecter of global temperature. Our sun emits galatic cosmic rays and when these rays reach the earth’s surface, highly reflective, low-level clouds tend to form. Due to their high albedo, much of the sun’s energy is reflected and results in temperatures cooling when large amounts of these clouds form. The amount of cosmic rays that reach the earth are determined by the sun’s own magnetic field. When the sun goes through period of high intensity, this magnetic field is stronger, and more cosmic rays are deflected away from earth. Less cosmic rays hitting the earth results in less cloud cover. When there are fewer clouds present to reflect the sun’s energy, more of that energy is absorbed by the planet and the climate warms. On the flip side, when the sun goes through period of less activity and its magnetic field is weaker, more rays hit the earth, more cloud form, more solar energy is reflected, and temperatures cool. This is called the Svensmark’s Solar-Cosmic Ray theory (https://principia-scientific.org/strong-evidence-that-svensmark-s-solar-cosmic-ray-theory-of-climate-is-correct/), and I implore that you read up on it for yourself.

As the activity level (and therefore the solar magnetic field) of the sun changes, there is a 25 year lag before temperature changes occur on earth. This is due to ocean-thermal inertia, meaning that because water has a higher heat capacity than air, it maintains its current temperature longer than air does in the face of changing amounts of energy. This lag time matches up with independent calculations reached by Wetherald et al in 2001 (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/245702529_Committed_warming_and_its_implications_for_climate_change) and Abdussamatov et al in 2012 (https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/grand-minimum-of-the-total-solar-irradiance-leads-to-the-little-ice-age-2329-6755.1000113.php?aid=12810).

So why do we never hear about the legitimate and well researched alternatives to CO2 drive climate change?

Unfortunately, our modern approach to science is broken. Scientific research is dependent on outside funding to finance their work. The more publications a scientist has and the more ground breaking their discoveries, the more funding they will receive. This pressures researchers into rushing publications and trying to make their findings as earth shattering as possible, creating an era of scientific sensationalism. Unfortunately, scientists are now in a position where inconclusive results or suggesting that they do not fully understand a problem is unacceptable. Their livelihood and financial security depend on their production of definite and major discoveries.

>>6109244

3/6

Furthermore, funding agencies may pull their financial support if their desired outcomes are not backed by the ‘science’. For example, a surprising study from 2015 suggested that there was no link between soda consumption and childhood obesity. These findings make much more sense when a bit of research reveals that Coca-Cola was the entity funding the research.

At this point, I hope you at least have some doubts about our scientific process. Science has become a religion to many, blindly buying into whatever scientists say because they are told the masses are far too dumb to follow along (which is not true at all). Scientists are a modern day clergy, passing on whatever message their funders decide is important. If you question them you are labeled as an idiot or a conspiracy theorist (always be wary when you are told you cannot question or you are labeled if you do question).

Here is a chart (https://grist.org/climate-energy/the-32-most-alarming-charts-from-the-governments-climate-change-report/) showing global warming. You can see the sharp increase in temperature timing up very well with man’s industrial revolution. Look at the x-axis. The chart starts in 1900, and this period was cherry picked to show a desired result. What good is looking at a 200 year range when evaluating the climate of a 4.5 billion year old planet? People are mocked if they use the weather of a single day to

>>6109247

4/6

question a trend based on weather data that we have been collecting for 200 years. But why aren’t climate change supporters questioned for using 200 years of data to explain 4,543,000,000 years of earth’s climate history?

Here is another chart (https://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c01b8d0f76684970c-pi), showing the past 2000 years. While this is still a tiny portion of the planet’s history, the window is large enough to see that the current rise in temperatures is in no way out of the ordinary. You can see similar rises in temperature from 350-400AD, 550-600AD, and 700-900AD. Let us go even further back! If we look at the last 10,000 years (http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/lappi/gisp-last-10000-new.png), you can see that our temperature is well below where it has been in the past. However, scientists can focus on the last hundred years, allowing them to manufacture this notion of man-made climate change.

In the 1980’s acid rain was going to destroy our planet. In the 1990’s, our ozone layer had been irreversibly destroyed. In the 2000’s global warming was going to cause massive extinctions and sea level rise. In the 2010’s, falling temperatures forced us to now fear climate change.

>>6109254

5/5

Alfred Wegner developed the theory of plate tectonics. This fact of science today explains how convection currents within the mantle are responsible for the movement of continents. When continents collide, mountains are formed.

When Wegner first proposed his theory, he was laughed at and mocked, all the way to his death bed. Scientist of the time knew for a fact that mountains formed due to the contraction of the earth's surface as it cooled. Some 50 years after his death, the discovery of hydrothermal vents in 1977 was the final data necessary to prove his entire concept correct.

We don't know everything about this planet. We are still learning, and much of what we believe today is wrong. That is the nature of science. Be wary of anything you aren't allowed to question or gains you a label such as idiot or conspiracy theorist if you ask.

I used to believe fully that humans were the problem. I earned my degree in Organismic and Evolutionary Biology from Harvard and climate change was drilled into my mind. Looking into the information myself, I have now come to my own conclusions. I support environmental regulations. I am a naturalist and believe that our planet should be protected for the treasure that it is. I do not believe that humans are responsible for changes in climate.