We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
As a university professor, I am best positioned to report on the widespread incompetence and malfeasance found specifically in academe. A work colleague once corrected me on a matter concerning the greenhouse effect. With no scientific training, he had recently moderated a panel discussion on climate change in an attempt to convince students to support our university president’s Green Initiative, which as far as I could tell reduced carbon dioxide emissions not at all but placed undue strain on the university’s finances, which in turn put upward pressure on tuition costs. I mentioned to my colleague in passing that, from an educational standpoint, the term greenhouse gas was an unfortunate misnomer since the architectural design of an actual greenhouse is not closely related to the physical properties of tropospheric greenhouse gases. ..
The self-styled “Climate consensus” define themselves as the only legitimate voice in climate science.
Climate change means man-made change, because 90% of modern climate change is man-made.
This climate change is mainly due to increasing emissions of greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide. Made by burning fossil fuel. This greenhouse gas warms earth because it causes less outgoing radiation to be emitted to space, so warming the earth due to the consequent energy imbalance.
In the real world, satellites show: More OLR (outgoing long wave radiation) leaving planet over last 33 years. By a big margin too, of about 2W/m².
Satellite data diametrically contradicts the “climate consensus” greenhouse gas model which explains how greenhouse gases warm the climate.
It follows that either the satellites are wrong, or the self-styled “climate consensus” are wrong.
There are three kinds of believers in AGW:
1. The Marxist socialist who wants your money and your rights.
2. The misinformed, miseducated who may mean well or may simply want your money and your rights.
3. The average guy who isn't sure and doesn't want to harm the world or anything and would rather err on the side of caution.
You cannot fix the first with facts or logic, but perhaps with a rope or a guillotine.
You may be able to change the mind of the second group but they have years of indoctrination to overcome.
The third group are a diverse group but they could probably be swayed with facts and reason.
Sometimes AGW is conflated with simple pollution or environmental issues that are not AGW. Because of this you must get past the meme that if you are not a true believer in the AGW god that you are for dirty water/air or throwing trash in the ocean. This conflation and confusion is no accident it is the pied piper technique the first group uses to keep the other two groups following them.
Anybody who has not taken and passed at least one college-level, calculus-based physics course, at least one college-level course in thermodynamics, and at least one college-level course in chemistry is simply not qualified to write or otherwise opine about global warming.
Greenhouse gases are a fart in the wind of global warming when compared to the variation in energy imparted by the sun due to solar cycles. End of story.
AGW is just a subset of an entire array of neoMalthusian/earth day gaia worshiping promoted by the usual characters who kicked God out of the public square and replaced him with Karl Marx. It's a great rush to accumulate power, control, and money in the new globalist world order. Just say NO and laugh at them and their narratives.
Most college students simply can't do the math for courses like thermodynamics or analytical mechanics. When I took the mechanics course 36 students started the course and 6 of us finished it. What was funny was that at the end of the course the professor tried to talk us into taking the statistical mechanics course in the fall semester. He told us we would find it easy after analytical mechanics. I didn't sign up for it.
C P Snow's Two Cultures has become more true, not less, over the years since 1959.
Assistant Village Idiot
I am a forester by trade and worked in the field for 43 years. As part of that profession I was deeply involved in reading and understanding current research. About 25 years ago I noticed that more and more, every paper and study contained a reference to global warming as a variable, however tenuous, in whatever the subject matter was. This gradually became more and more strident as time went on. Now there are whole departments at universities and government research facilities devoted to “global warming” and the research is less and less useful. It is not a coincidence that much, if not most, of this research is conducted under the funding of government grants and appropriations.
It is common to hear people support an argument on defense spending with reference to Eisenhower’s reference to a “military/industrial complex”. It is less common to hear a reference to the next section of that farewell address referring to the dangers of government funded research:
“Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been over shadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.
The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.”
The old saw is still valid. “Who pays the piper calls the tune”