Over the past few years, we have been bombarded with sound clips used to persuade and frighten rather than inform, especially when it comes to our changing climate. Fortunately, The Gazette announced that it was raising funds to further explore the theory of climate change. I hope this means that other points of view will be presented.
So far, the topic has not been presented as controversial as only one side has been offered. Therefore, the public is led to believe otherwise.
There are many books available that challenge some of the claims that attempt to describe climate change as a ‘crisis’ or ‘established science’. The media have so far banned reporting of evidence to the contrary, just as they have failed to report the game-changing Hunter Biden scandal and other news that does not match their biased position.
Yet the questions to ask are: Did they take the time to seek other opinions? Has the media coverage of climate change been completely honest? Does the overly simplistic theory that carbon dioxide is the engine of global warming really make sense? If CO2 is such a threat, why have more than 400 private jets brought hypocritical scientists to Glasgow for the annual party of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change?
Atmospheric scientist Robert L. Stott has wisely noted: âClimate is the most complex coupled nonlinear chaotic system known to man. But what result will they get by playing with it? a variable (CO2) at the margins? I’m sorry, this is scientific nonsense.
So if climate is such a complex subject, why do climate alarmists focus on just one part of the puzzle instead of, say, the sun, volcanoes, and the complex currents of our oceans that cover over 70% of the world? Earth ? Could it be that they want to keep it simple, knowing that most of the public didn’t go beyond their high school chemistry background, so they will easily buy into the CO2 argument?
There are several scientists who offer evidence that helps us better understand why the climate is changing (and has changed for millions of years) and clarifying how much human influence is really involved. Written by Dr. Steven Koonin, âUnsettled: What Climate Science Tell Us, What It Doesn’t and Why It Matters,â it presents a well-curated explanation for interested readers.
Throughout the book, he makes a point of clarifying the erroneous information disseminated by certain media and politicians. For example, two of these topics relate to hurricanes and tornadoes which are said to be more and more frequent and cause more damage due to climate change.
Koonin did some very ancient research on the history of hurricanes and found that “there are no significant trends beyond the natural variability in frequency, intensity, precipitation, or flooding caused. by storms. There has been no significant trend in the global number of tropical cyclones (hurricanes and typhoons) and no trend has been identified in the number of hurricanes hitting land in the United States.
As for the argument that the economic damage from hurricanes is increasing, it is simply because more people and more valuable infrastructure are found near the coast than before and have nothing to do with the change of hurricane force. Likewise, a chart in his book shows that the annual number of tornadoes has increased, but that’s only because, thanks to the use of more powerful radar to detect tornadoes, more are being recorded than ever before.
Most tornadoes bypass towns and villages and range from EFS-0 to EFS-6 (EFS: Enhanced Fujita Scale). The recent devastating EF-5 tornado was of record size, but in March 1875, seven estimated F-4 tornadoes killed 96 people and injured 367 and on March 18, 1925, the Great Tri-State Tornado killed 695 people. . Plus, it’s been over eight years since an EF-5 hit the United States and it’s the longest duration on record.
Koonin’s research also found that heat waves in the country are no more common than they were in 1900, and that the hottest temperatures have not increased in the past 50 years. A graph shows that in the mid-1930s, during the Dust Bowl, temperatures were hotter than any that have occurred since then.
Another false claim is that climate change is responsible for forest fires when the real reason is human failure to follow sound forest management procedures, which dramatically reduce carbon dioxide emissions entering the atmosphere. by forest fires. In 2020, the California Fire Emissions Data Base reported that 91 million metric tons of CO2 were produced by the state’s wildfires. Therefore, everyone benefits from proper forest management.
The IPCC periodic reports rely on climate models generated from computers used to process information from several sites around the world which have been averaged and incorporated into the reports. If the average citizen tried to read the original reports, they would quickly be overwhelmed by the complicated scientific jargon and give up.
Analysis of the reports is filtered by several IPCC groups, one of which is the political arm of the IPCC. (It should come as no surprise that a political pandemic has infected the IPCC as well as our education, law enforcement, entertainment, immigration, economy, military, religion, sports, journalism and justice.)
Computers may be here to stay, but no matter how hard they try, no computer can predict the future, especially when it comes to the climate in 50 years. Try to use the most powerful computer in the world to calculate which of the 32 NHL teams with more than 700 players will win the next Stanley Cup.
Tragically, the misguided effort to get rid of our fossil fuels in order to control a small part of our complex climate change will do nothing to alter its course, but has already caused serious damage to jobs and to our economy.
Bob Couch lives in Easthampton.