I watched a brown leaf as it danced on the wind

The world of expressed words 

Let’s conclude our study of climatology now that we have laid the groundwork of what real science is:

Climatologists parallel Eschatology on numerous levels. Eschatology is the religious study of how the world will end due to sin. Climatologists have their demon, industry and their sin, carbon. They pursue it with the same zeal you would find in a religious study and make money out of unfounded fears by convincing a minority the sky is falling. They also use the fallacy that we are obligated to take action on their conclusions just in case they are right.

The fact is that carbon is a trace atom in air, yet it is used by our green plants and the sun to produce the energy we call life, beautiful structures of wood, flowers and greenery. It is oxidized back into the system slowly by decay or quickly by burning. Carbon becomes a trace fertilizer for our ecosystem when made airborne as it combines with oxygen.

Climatologists err by using broad estimates to make precise predictions; Use static arguments to describe dynamic systems; use computer models to control the variables; all to manufacture a perception that the sky is falling and we should give to their cause. We looked at how easy it is to get a consensus on studies made with broad parameters and controlled variables. Governments see opportunity to be the saviors of the world and get on board for taxation and regulations. This intervention is similar to the conflicts caused by combining church and state with the state regulating sin, only the sin is carbon and the devil is industry.

The fact is that carbon energy is not only needed for life, but it has powered industry to free populations from the dark ages of slavery to weather. We have tractors and machinery plowing fields, planting and processing our crops providing what we need and giving the excess food to millions. Fresh fruit and vegetables are transported to our communities from far away places. Heat is produced for our homes without burning trees. All of this with far less land than if each person was confined to farming for themselves and chopping wood to heat their homes. Appliances have freed us from slavery to our households so the members can go out and pursue their dreams without leaving a person behind to constantly tend it. We owe our lives and conveniences to carbon energy. As long as we don’t inhibit its use, we can continue to free ourselves from mundane tasks and enough minds will be free to pursue alternatives.

It’s in the incidental things we share

Some action is made to defend ones own pride

We have examined the difference between accuracy and precision. Defining accuracy is up to the participants. Any data can be given a consensus opinion as being accurate so long as everyone agrees on how loose the parameters will be. We cannot make precise conclusions true by using imprecise data and yet it happens all the time in climate science. In simple terms, if I prove that my slingshot can hit the broad side of a barn with accuracy, I cannot claim that it will hit a fly with accuracy. Conclusions formed about the climate millions of years ago have too high a fudge factor to be useful for present day predictions.

When we look at systems, we tend to look at snapshots. But in reality, systems are dynamic, especially living ones. A person will react differently toward a parked car than moving cars on a highway. A person could apply a heat gun to a parked car to warm up a spot but not much heat will hit a car going by at a high rate of speed. This is also true with air. Our atmosphere is dynamic, with air moving both on a molecular level and moving in streams we call wind and currents. It all works together to cool our earth. Heat energy is carried from the lower warm areas and is lifted to the upper and is dissipated to space. Water is the biggest player in this process. Its properties are fascinating. But to look at a CO2 molecule, a mere .00039 piece of air as being a contributing factor to climate doesn’t make any sense. If it could affect climate, the affect would be additional efficiency carrying heat away from the earth to the thin air of the upper atmosphere thus better cooling.

I would like to get into details about the difference between convection and radiant heat, the fascinating properties of water concerning heat; maybe that would be a good book subject. In the name of keeping this interesting, the next blog will be a quick summary and a look at possible motives. Here we question convention, not out of malice or agenda but to enjoy the freedom of examination….

That’s the last offense I’ll take from you