Monday, April 08, 2013

My name is David and I am a denier

No, amazingly I do not deny the 80% or so of my mother's family from Poland who were killed by the Nazis, every single one of them on the family tree and clearly noted. I don't even deny the temperature has risen and so has CO2, but I am not sure one has caused the other, or more than the bare minimum possible as I was born with a natural level of perception, the same one we all are, further trained by studying law and related topics, to make sure there is always enough evidence to draw a conclusion beyond the level of clues or speculation.

Apparently anyone who does not totally accept man made CO2 is both responsible for today's rise in temperature since 1850, and far more importantly believes this will become so high as to become dangerous is termed a denier, so as a result, I have to be a denier. It has, by taking on the historic role of 'nigger', 'kaffir', 'infidel', 'leper', 'apostate', 'pariah', pretty much every term applying to the lowest possible level of enemy of the state, rolled them all together and raised it by a power of many more. You are not just a denier of the murder of millions of people, but as I have been reminded more times than is healthy, a baby killer. Not a real baby mind you, or I'd be typing this from high security, but a baby who hasn't been born yet. Our unborn grandchildren, in the words of their messiah, Al Gore.

I am not apparently at the worst level, those who deny the greenhouse effect. They would at best be transported to the gulags and worst vapourised by those who see them as the greatest threat to the world since Adolf Hitler. I am not a scientist so I simply, to quote myself here, don't give a fuck about questioning the greenhouse effect. It is a separate scientific argument not relevant to the current man made global warming, as if you accept the greenhouse effect as stated by the majority of scientists (albeit based on laboratory experiments and calculations, not anything direct in the atmosphere, hence its openness to questioning by those qualified to do so), you are only accepting a doubling of CO2 adds 1C to the total temperature, doubling again adds another ad infinitum. This means you need a level of over 1000ppm to guarantee a rise above the UN's turning point of 2C, where the known benefits of warming (see the IPCC reports) may be outnumbered by the problems. That is the agreed issue in global warming, without a 2C plus rise we are fine. That is official.

Now for the figures. I do accept (within the adjustments, as they are sometimes as large as the original figures themselves) the temperature has risen 0.8C since 1850. I'm almost certain CO2 has risen 50% from 260-390ppm in the same period. Bear in mind CO2 varies all day at all locations just like temperature, but is only measured in one, Mauna Loa, by a volcano. But they must have a reason they rely on it so I will as well. I do not know if the CO2 is man made, and do not know if it has caused some, all or any of the rise. The UN only assign half the rise to it anyway, as it was rising for thousands of years, so using their own figures the 1C rise from CO2 is unlikely as they only assign half to CO2 and the rest to the existing trend. Their questionable part is the 1-6C rise by 2100 which they are using as an entire reason to stop using fossil fuels. I deny this as it's not verifiable (it's outside our lifespans), testable or repeatable, or part of a linear system.

As out of the whole scenario the only part used to take a passing observation to an impending disaster that has to be stopped at all cost, then I deny all of this is possible to know due to the scientific criteria it fails on all counts. This is the only part of the picture which we are supposed to accept without challenge or question, yet the least able to stand up using both the scientific and logical principles. Even using legal principles there is not even enough on a balance of probabilities, let alone the required beyond reasonable doubt, to use to convict mankind of a crime equal to mass murder and genocide. So technically we may not all be deniers, but we are nearly all murderers (anyone reading this is, as they are using electricity to run their computer), so I suppose of the two being a denier is nothing compared to being a perpetrator, and if you deny it can be known that we will raise the temperature enough in the future to cause climate chaos, then you can't be a murderer either. I'll take that any time in preference. And if the scientists prefer the untested and untestable thesis then they ought to surrender their degrees.


Unknown said...

If the only CO2 measurements are taken from near a volcano, doesn't that make the apparent figures much higher than they really are, like GW scare figures being based on temperatures taken near city car parks and central heating vents, or does the volcano need to be erupting for that to apply?

Perhaps I should try that again in English: is CO2 near a volcano higher than elsewhere all the time, or only when it's erupting?

David said...

The Mauna Loa is something clearly dubious on the surface but accepted by convention. I've only seen one article implying its lack of reliability, plus in 1961 the world CO2 figure was a variable one, not a fixed one, as it far more honestly accepted you can't homogenise something which varies as much as it does. And the figures were 200-400ppm, meaning today's figures are still normal although near the top of the scale.

If I find a specific article giving details I'll link it here, but even if it was 1000ppm today the temperature rise is still negligible, which is all that matters as it means there can be no global warming.

David said...
This comment has been removed by the author.