One definition of obsession is: “the uncontrollable persistence of an idea or emotion in the mind, sometimes associated with psychiatric disorder”. The upcoming Paris Conference on Climate Change will be an expression of this definition to some degree. The hoped for results of this meeting of representatives of some 180 countries varies widely. Many countries hope to receive large monetary gains through the transfer of wealth from industrialized nations to less advanced nations, presumably to aid the latter in reducing carbon dioxide emissions, and to compensate them for perceived damages caused by past carbon dioxide emissions of the industrialized nations. The industrialized nations profess to reduce supposed Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming by agreeing to drastically reduce future emissions. Other motives are, perhaps, to gain economic advantages through modified trade agreements. While the non-industrialized nations will surely benefit from the success of the Conference in the short term, the long term results are more problematic.
The reductions of emissions by the industrialized nations, while purported to be by means of developing alternate sources of power, will in fact, if proposed reductions are actually achieved, be a huge reduction in economic activity, along with enormous increases in the cost of energy, resulting in burdensome reductions in the standard of living for middle class and poor citizens. No doubt, the first step will be a so called carbon tax on all carbon dioxide emissions, the proceeds of which to be used for the aforementioned transfer of wealth to non-developed nations. Since there are no viable alternate sources of power to replace the use of coal, oil, and natural gas, restrictions on the use of these fossil fuels will result in ever increasing costs of energy, along with crippling reductions in industrial activities. This will result in large reductions in tax revenue at a time when the United States national debt is approaching twenty trillion dollars.
All this will be a major, major disruption in the world wide economy, based solely on the notion that the burning of fossil fuels generates enough carbon dioxide to drive the earth’s climate to catastrophic warming, while the facts are that any carbon dioxide emissions that fossil fuels generate is tiny compared to the production of atmospheric carbon dioxide through natural processes. Furthermore, atmospheric carbon dioxide does not cause rising temperatures; rising temperatures cause increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide. You know this to be true if you have ever opened a warm carbonated soft drink bottle. If you open a cold soft drink bottle you will hear a brief sigh as carbon dioxide is released. If you then put the cap back on the bottle and set it in the sun for a while and then open it, you will be greeted by a powerful blast of releasing carbon dioxide, demonstrating that, as all chemists know, cool liquids can hold more dissolved carbon dioxide than warmer liquids. Most of the free carbon dioxide in the entire world is dissolved in the oceans. As the ocean surface is warmed by naturally occurring climate change, carbon dioxide is released into the atmosphere.
To believe that a fossil fuel produced 1/85,000th part of the atmosphere is driving climate change is to disregard the geology that you learned in high school. For the past two and one-half million years (at least) the earth’s climate has cycled between warm periods and ice ages when most of the northern hemisphere was covered in thousands of feet of ice. It is more than clear that something far more powerful than tiny amounts of atmospheric carbon dioxide is driving the climate of the earth. Do scientists know all this? Of course they do. Why do many of them say otherwise? Why do so many politicians and world leaders claim to believe them? Why does the mainstream news media support the idea? And, most important of all, why do you believe them? Those are the questions you should be asking.