For all the certainty about Climate Change espoused by the crowd predicting calamity and the end of civilization, there’s plenty of doubt within the public at large, mostly because there’s a cult-like feel to the concept. Nowadays the media feeds stories almost daily where just about anything is Climate Change related, from wildfires to poorly baked donuts, severe floods to wine tastings gone awry. It’s rather amusing at times, especially because they think that everyone is as gullible as their groupies. But then they conflate and confuse climate with pollution. It’s not even close and everyone hates pollution.

But let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that Climate Change is a real threat, and let’s examine the culprit with information from reliable sources such as NASA, a prominent and often quoted fountain of wisdom. Please notice that while Global Warming gave way to Climate Change, we’re now back to Global Warming, although NASA’s website on the subject is titled “Global Climate Change,” an interesting marriage of words, as if Climate Change was a local phenomenon. A pdf was created of the web page for posterity in case NASA eventually changes its mind about headlines, slogans or definitions.

Without a doubt, the graph below produced by NASA and titled “The relentless rise of carbon dioxide” shows an increase in CO2 emissions after 1950 that stands out like a sore thumb. Anyone is hard pressed to fight the evidence, although it’s important to cross-examine the witness. We’re going for reasonable doubt as a starting point, which is a sacrilege in today’s politically correct Climate Change environment.

The first question pertains to the source of atmospheric carbon measurements, considering that plenty of deficiencies and discrepancies exist regarding the collection of temperature readings around the world. We find that starting in 1958, Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii has been the source for CO2 measurements, and you’ll understand why there’s reasonable doubt about the evidence due to the characteristics of the location, although it’s explained away:

Mauna Loa is indeed an active volcano; it last erupted in 1950, 1975, and 1984. Between eruptions, it emits variable amounts of carbon dioxide (CO2) and sulfur dioxide (SO2) from fissures at the summit.

The average person in the jury box would undoubtedly question whether there are better spots around the globe to collect CO2 data. However, “NOAA’s Earth Science Research Laboratory program also measures CO2 in weekly flask samples taken at over 60 remote locations around the world” which is still puzzling, but we’ll take it at face value.

However, it’s virtually impossible to ignore the coincidence of the data collection starting point in Mauna Loa in 1958 and the 1950 spike highlighted on the NASA graph. It also must be noted that Charles David Keeling started the CO2 monitoring program and the now famous “Keeling Curve” is a popular piece of evidence, although it lacks context because it starts in 1958, painting an extremely dire scenario to the unsuspecting bystander.

But what is missing is the reasoning as to why atmospheric carbon almost doubled and was then cut in half throughout the ages, while the top line of 300 ppm set about 350,000 years in the distant past was only breached during a Hawaiian vacation 60 years ago. Let’s not forget that Homo Sapiens is only 200,000 years old. Was the spike caused by the cumulative effect of the Industrial Revolution, fossil fuel consumption, fire power and explosions from two world wars? Or was it Asia’s new found success that didn’t happen until the late 1990s?

Along comes an article tiled “How the World Passed a Carbon Threshold and Why It Matters,” published in 2017 by none other than The Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies, or Ivy League at its best. The introduction starts by stating that “Last year marked the first time in several million years that atmospheric concentrations of CO2 passed 400 parts per million.” However the following excerpt stood out because it goes to the heart of the calamitous reading shown in the NASA graph that starts with the 1950 annual mark.

The last time the planet had a concentration of 300 to 400 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere was during the mid-Pliocene, 3 million years ago — recently enough for the planet to be not radically different than it is today. Back then, temperatures were 2 degrees C to 3 degrees C (3.6 to 5.4°F) above pre-industrial temperatures (though more than 10 degrees C hotter in the Arctic), and sea levels were at least 15-25 meters higher. Forest grew in the Canadian north and grasslands abounded worldwide; the Sahara was probably covered in vegetation.

Obviously we were much greener before, which implies that a decrease in CO2 produces deserts and hunger. The Arctic was literally smoking, and getting to the beach was a lot faster. Funky volcanoes aside, why were CO2 levels and temperatures during the mid-Pliocene period equivalent to current readings? Here’s the verifiable truth: Population on Earth was extremely smaller 3 million years ago, Chevys, Volkswagens and Rolls-Royce jet engines were not around, fossil fuels were undisturbed, and wood burning was all the rage. Could a reading of 500 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere provide an unparalleled bounty of forest green? Climate Change science is inconclusive at best and self-defeating at worst.

Given enough time and an unbiased mind, every claim can be deconstructed to everyone’s satisfaction, or annoyance. Now it’s incumbent upon you to formulate a fair and unbiased conclusion and deliver a verdict.

Lastly, keep in mind that there are pros and cons to everything that humans do, and before everyone jumps on the “clean energy” bandwagon and extols the virtues of electricity over petroleum and combustion engines, please realize that the consequences of increased exposure to electricity are not fully understood. The World Health Organization offered some guidance after acknowledging that “It is not disputed that electromagnetic fields above certain levels can trigger biological effects,” or defects.

Based on a recent in-depth review of the scientific literature, the WHO concluded that current evidence does not confirm the existence of any health consequences from exposure to low level electromagnetic fields. However, some gaps in knowledge about biological effects exist and need further research.

As old as electricity is, we’re in the infancy of its usage in terms of quantity, and don’t be shocked if in 50 years humans are born with two noses, three eyes and half a brain.

---