The OffGuardian has a bee in its bonnet about the science of global warming. For a minute, one could think that Offguardian is defending the flat-earth theory till it dies in the bum as no-one is falling off the edges — all in the name of freedom of speech. Or virtually send Galileo to a Chinese reform school for Uighurs, for expressing his Copernicusian theory. The OffG seems to be prepared to claim that the Catholic Church’s view on the earth being the centre of the universe to be valid, for free speech-sake… We want equality of wrongness!

I have tried to present the boffins at OffG with a reasoned explanation why global warming is happening and is entirely due to human activity, for publication on their site, but, because of their obsession with their nemesis, the Guardian, that has espoused the theory, the OG would rather let their house burn down in hellfire or be destroyed by the storm of the “century” rather than accept the global warming scientific “consensus" which they dismiss with utter disregard:


This isn’t about the subject matter. This is about the destruction of ethical debate. The complete disregard for honest discussion, and the attack on the right to disagree. 


It is through this undermining of the idea of civilised discourse that propagandists generate a fake “consensus”. Anybody who steps outside this “consensus” is summarily “othered”, de-humanised and dismissed.


It happens all the time.

It happens with climate change, it happened with the Ukrainian coup in 2014, it happened with the Skripal “poisoning” and you can see it happening live with the “pandemic”.

—————————

Dear OffG, this is not the way to tackle essential knowledge. Basket-casing all of the above in one lot and forgetting the realities of verifiable investigations is disingenuous. 


One is not immune to any honest discussion, in regard to the “consensus” about global warming. Yet, the opponents in the discussion are often (always) dishonest in their interpretations and/or ignorants of facts, including OffG, in defence of free speech. Yes I know, what are facts? You may ask this hermetic question, as philosophically we don’t even know if this world isn’t an illusion. But when a problem crops up and a solution needs to be urgently devised, we could go to sleep instead, make allowances, or pedal in the wrong direction. 

Politics and sciences do not mix well usually. The latest Covidian pandemic relies on statistical analysis and some people in white overcoat fiddling with test tubes… Science works mostly empirically and works on repeating experiments, expecting the same results, for confirmation. But in this Covid case, it appears science has been highjacked early by the technologist and the politicians in search of profit, while fear is rampant by necessity of dealing with the unknown… I would be one person to question the political reaction to Covid19, WHICH ISN’T A DECISION FOR SCIENCE TO MAKE, especially when the science is still in a flux and searching for clues.

Thus in regard to a Covid infection, things are different, scientifically and politically, to, say, a global warming analysis. Why is this so? The caliber of the scientific people opposed to the global warming “consensus” is way way below par, even if they make more noise than the “consensus” scientists. Here, it is also impossible to prove why “DNA-directed nanofabrication of high-performance carbon nanotubes field-effect transistors” works, though it does. Observations of processes and events are essential in defining scientific realities. E = mc2, does not happen by loonitude. So far one cannot disprove it though many serious scientists still try. 

Yet the theory of relativity is far more complex than the global warming theory. Your microwave-oven works… Why? Magic? Your can toast your bread in the toaster...

Covid19 at present is in a similar "basket" as smoking. The statistics are dire: Tobacco kills more than 8 million people each year. More than 7 million of those deaths are the result of direct tobacco use while around 1.2 million are the result of non-smokers being exposed to second-hand smoke. Over 80% of the world's 1.3 billion tobacco users live in low- and middle-income countries. Yet we let people smoke. Why? The death rate of smokers versus the number of people who smoke is comparable to a Covid19 infection. Some live, some die… Yet with Covid, we are forced into isolation and pantomime mask-wearing… But in reality, our statistics are INCOMPLETE. In many of the low- and middle-income countries, people also die young from other causes such as malaria, thus we don’t know the full extend of when they would fall of the perch from smoking.

I suffer from lungs problems brought on by “passive smoking”: other people’s smoke. Proof? No proof! Except I get into a coughing fit should I get too close from a smoker. Social distancing here is 5 metres on a still day and 25 metres minimum if the breeze is blowing my way. Wearing a mask is as useful as letting a sheep drive a combine-harvester to feed a herd of pigs.

Okay this is for statistics and personal empirical fits — YET IS IS NEAR IMPOSSIBLE TO “PROVE” THAT SMOKING KILLS. I know (I knew) some smokers who died before they reached 40. I know some smokers in their 90s. But the stats are here: if you smoke you’re likely to die much sooner from various diseases, including lung cancer. Yet we let people smoke… There is too much riding on the process: government collect taxes, farmers cultivate tobacco and undertakers count their dinaros…

In regard to global warming, the problem and its realisation is of a mega-magnitude. And the amount of statistics are giganormous… Yet it is a simple exercise of how much energy one sun puts in and get out… The sun rays warm up our atmosphere. This is a wonderful thing for life to be in it. No atmosphere, no life. No heat, no life. Since Lavoisier, we have discovered a few things which I suppose the OffGuardian will dismiss with free speech. 

But bear with me. Via specific experiments, we have found what the atmosphere is made off. Still with us, OG? In there, in the air we breathe, there are gases, such as water vapour, nitrogen and oxygen… And there is a small amount of CO2. This amount can be measured precisely, unless one is full of free speech that says it ain’t so… May as well live like 13th century monks in the Black Forest of ignorance.

Here comes the shit: what is the influence of this CO2 on the nice temperature we enjoy daily? What is the influence of water vapour on the temperature of the atmosphere? How much energy do we need in our microwave-oven to warm up a litre of water? What are the specific electro-magnetic waves (EMW) used to warm up the water? All this information has to be known with a high degree of precision, otherwise, you’d kill yourself when pressing the start button. The oven is a box in which the specific electromagnetic waves cannot escape, nor can they be disturbed by metallic objects… As well, the door of this oven has a metal grille that prevents waves escaping while letting you see what’s cooking… Brilliant.
One could do a microwave-oven cooking CO2 using specific infra-red spectrum of EMW. But it would be useless like a rotten banana smoothie for Dracula. We DON’T NEED TO WARM UP CO2 IN OUR KITCHEN… But the process is known with a high degree of precision in the atmosphere. The sun rays warm up CO2 and water vapour for us to enjoy life. We know that, despite its random flux (clouds, clear vapour, snow, ice), water vapour sets a specific quotient of this warming (about 75 per cent) and CO2 (plus a few other gases such as methane) does most of the rest by warming to specific infra-red electromagnetic waves (sub-light spectrum). After many observations and studies of past records, variations of CO2 are seen to be the main drivers of change in global temperatures. Many studies of other factors ARE CAREFULLY TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT. This of course is disputed by fossil fuel priests who would not know the back-arse of a front-end loader.  But we can cope. 

So what is happening? 

One would have to be a refusenik sandalista (an hermit in sandals) not to see that the planet is warming. THE EARTH IS WARMING UP. 

Daily measurements of variations since the 1960s show this trend clearly to all of us, unless one has a degree in contrary free-speech hubris of negationing. Not only this, we should be able to note that THE ICE IS MELTING by the billion tons yearly. This is precisely measured from year to year, as glaciers have also been retreating. 

As contrarians, we can push the concept that this is a natural occurrence. Fair enough. I accept this possibility with a sceptic stick… Oh, it’s not warming by much and that’s not noticeable by mere mortals with a damp-finger pointed in the air, except if you live on the edge of a cliff that has just collapsed with your swimming pool garden with it. But this might not be enough to convince the mere mortals we are enjoying global warming. We need some mighty proofs! Mind you, we don’t need proofs to believe in Jesus Christ or the resurrection… WE BELIEVE! 

In regard to global warming, the conjecture is very strong. More CO2 in the atmosphere and the temperature goes up. It’s like going in a big dipper. Someone has to calculate the forces exerted onto the rails at any moment of the ride as not to loose passengers along the way… Engineering accounts for the safety of the gizmo. 

We know that “CLIMATE CHANGES”. No scientist is disputing this fact. What about OffG? No? This "fact” got flushed down the toilet?… And we know what makes these natural climatic changes. Most are due to the wobbly axis of the planet… So we take this into account… as well as many complex (still quite simple compared to quantum mechanics which work to perfection in blowing up atom bombs) parameters that involve feedback mechanism and albedo. For example, as the planet warms up and the ice melts, the icy waters spread and cool off some areas of warmer waters. It’s all measurable but observations confirming what we already know demand a lot of data. Other factors are delays between causes and effects, atmospheric heat exchanges and simple convections. 

And the mega-computers are crunching the numbers that can predict the catastrophe. It’s not a question of if, but of when and by how much. We have some clues on how much we can fiddle with the planet’s warming of the atmosphere: not much. And what are our fiddles? Well, we’ve added about 50 per cent of CO2 in the atmosphere, since the beginning of the industrial revolution. And we are adding roughly about 0.33 per cent per annum, despite our tanking Covid-affected economy. What does this mean in terms of increase of temperature average? about 0.03 degrees added on per annum IF ALL GOES WELL. 

The latest calculation are in: more crap coming our way, including rising sea level by about half a metre. And things rarely do go as planned. More likely to be worse. By 2100, the planet will have warmed up 3 degrees Celsius above the 1960-1990 average. This means that the record temperatures of today will be warmer by another 3 degrees. In winter our average 19 in Sydney will become 22, while in summer our high of 49+ in Penrith will be 52+ Degrees Celsius. Plants, animals and humans will suffer — and your houses on the sand cliffs will have sunk into the rising surf. But we can cope. It’s a small price to pay for the luxury of driving an enormous gas-guzzler today...

The science of global warming is 99.999 per cent accurate in the formulation... and about 99.999 per cent accurate in the bracketing of the incoming troubles. That only 97 per cent of scientists subscribe to the theory only means that 3 per cent of scientists are dumb... We can cope. 


Gus Leonisky

Theorist of the third kind...