1. Do you accept NASA's summary of the greenhouse effect ?
I do not accept the explanation. The number one greenhouse gas is water vapor, and they should know it. (the link) - They use the term “include”
when talking about methane, Nitrous oxide and Co2 – all pretty much insignificant vs water vapor. For some reason NASA has ignored earth’s
cycles over the last 100s of millions of years. Maybe they get their funding by making stuff up or ignoring data. Milankovitch cycles is one thing
they recently tried to debunk by saying that it does not explain the current earth warming – except the earth is not warming. The little increase we
had form the little global cooling scare in the 70s stopped at the end of the last century. But these guys still persist. In fact do a little research and
you will find many of the same people who were giving us the cooling scare in the 70s were giving us the warming scare until we stopped warming.
But then a paycheck is a paycheck. If you will look at hard data, you fill find the warmest temperatures in the United States occurred in the 1930s.
Just facts.
Independent core drilling in Antarctica and the Amazon, two untouched places, came up with the interesting fact that the earth goes through 34 to
36,000 year cycles. One of those reports in Antarctica was a couple paragraphs in Popular Science about 3 years ago (I subscribe) I recall and the
one on the Amazon was in a book on the Amazon that had nothing to do with climate, but was a couple pages on the details of what the researchers
found. You get data in info by paying attention to processes and people that are NOT in big funded studies, and when you start seeing things like
this pop up you start discounting the big funded reports that are pushing an agenda. In BOTH those cases – totally unrelated, you see very similar
findings, then add Milankovitch cycles which is 100k year cycle roughly 3x of the other two and you have to start questioning all these people who
can’t talk about anything older than a couple thousand years against a 4.2 billion year old planet. It was VERY interesting that the 2 reports I
accidentally ran across basically said that the sea will rise an fall about 360 FEET over these 34 to 36 thousand year cycles. We are in the middle
of a sea rise – in 18,000 or so years be prepared to have beach front property if you are at 180’ above sea level.
The other thing that you MUST pay attention to are out of the ordinary things that have NOTHING to do with Internet articles, research or paid
writers. When I was in Iceland, I could visit the petrified Conifer Trees – it was a tourist brochure. What? Really? That was an attraction. That was
not a climate article – it was a tourist brochure. You have to pay attention to the real world. How did huge Conifer trees grow on Iceland? Until the
Vikings came along Iceland was covered in trees – Vikings made boats – trees never returned. And throughout time – Greenland was actually
green, many articles on that. Researchers have also found remains of human activity as glaciers have receded in Europe. It’s s big global puzzle
and there are pieces everywhere.
Also according to NASA people are causing the planet to be greener. https://www.nasa.gov/feature/ames/human-activity-in-china-and-india-
dominates-the-greening-of-earth-nasa-study-shows I typically do not like many links on the Internet as if I am seeing it on screen it probably
contains a fair amount of opinion that is structured around someone’s pay check – and too may times when that “expert” becomes unemployed or
retires their whole opinion changes. You have to use your brain based on scientific research and you have to have multiple sources. Watch very
carefully who is funding those sources. CO2 make things grow, that’s why growers inject greenhouses with CO2.
https://phys.org/news/2020-01-planet-greener-global.html Now this is interesting as it says more green slows global warming. What is bad with
global warming, if it is warming. Throughout human history we have experienced warn periods and cold periods. And until the last century
measuring devices were crap or nonexistent. Also where they take these temperatures is highly suspect. Phoenix never cools in the summer, the
whole damn city is a heat sink. Go 20 miles out in to the desert and your temperature at night will be 10 degrees cooler.
You also can accurately track warming and cooling periods by studying human history, and not the last 100 years. There were times of famine, and
times of plenty. Crops do not grow when it is colder. Crops are a plenty when it is warmer. Humans also move when crops do not grow. You can
tell when the earth was warm, and the earth was cold.
CO2 and Temperature really do not track very well. An inconvenient truth over the last 350 million years. You see these misleading graphs showing
CO2 going all the up to 400 PPM, and the world is going to end and we are all going to die. Except that the high point of CO2 was during the
Jurassic period (CO2 2,500 ppm) when the earth was FLUSH with vegetation. And the temperatures during that and the Cretaceous period made
things GROW! I ask people – when do you think the oil we use today came from? And by the way, the earth is still making oil. 100 year old wells
have oil in them again.
Maybe it is time for a little warming again – we are certainly due. The atmosphere is EXTREMELY complex, and the one scientist from Canada who
got down into the weeds really explained why all these computer models are pretty much BS. We DO NOT KNOW. Many of these people talk in
terms of the last 100 years, or the last several centuries. What is that as compared to the last 250 million years.
Also according to NASA people are causing the planet to be greener. https://www.nasa.gov/feature/ames/human-activity-in-china-and-india-
dominates-the-greening-of-earth-nasa-study-shows I typically do not like many links on the internet as if I am seeing it on screen it probably
contains a fair amount of opinion that is structured around someone’s pay check – and too may times when that “expert” becomes unemployed or
retires their whole opinion changes. You have to use your brain based on scientific research and you have to have multiple sources. Watch very
carefully who is funding those sources. CO2 make things grow, that’s why growers inject greenhouses with CO2.
https://phys.org/news/2020-01-planet-greener-global.html Now this is interesting as it says more green slows global warming. What is bad with
global warming, if it is warming. Throughout human history we have experienced warn periods and cold periods. And until the last century
measuring devices were crap or nonexistent. Also where they take these temperatures is highly suspect. Phoenix never cools in the summer, the
whole damn city is a heat sink. Go 20 miles out in to the desert and your temperature at night will be 10 degrees cooler.
You also can accurately track warming and cooling periods by studying human history, and not the last 100 years. There were times of famine, and
times of plenty. Crops do not grow when it is colder. Crops are a plenty when it is warmer. Humans also move when crops do not grow. You can
tell when the earth was warm, and the earth was cold.
CO2 and Temperature really do not track very well. An inconvenient truth over the last 350 million years. You see these misleading graphs showing
CO2 going all the up to 400 PPM, and the world is going to end and we are all going to die. Except that the high point of CO2 was during the
Jurassic period (CO2 2,500 ppm) when the earth was FLUSH with vegetation. And the temperatures during that and the Cretaceous period made
things GROW! I ask people – when do you think the oil we use today came from? And by the way, the earth is still making oil. 100 year old wells
have oil in them again.
Maybe it is time for a little warming again – we are certainly due. The atmosphere is EXTREMELY complex, and the one scientist from Canada who
got down into the weeds really explained why all these computer models are pretty much BS. We DO NOT KNOW. Many of these people talk in
terms of the last 100 years, or the last several centuries. What is that as compared to the last 250 million years.
This will help:
I do not accept the explanation. The number one greenhouse gas is water vapor, and they should know it. (the link) - They use the term “include”
when talking about methane, Nitrous oxide and Co2 – all pretty much insignificant vs water vapor. For some reason NASA has ignored earth’s
cycles over the last 100s of millions of years. Maybe they get their funding by making stuff up or ignoring data. Milankovitch cycles is one thing
they recently tried to debunk by saying that it does not explain the current earth warming – except the earth is not warming. The little increase we
had form the little global cooling scare in the 70s stopped at the end of the last century. But these guys still persist. In fact do a little research and
you will find many of the same people who were giving us the cooling scare in the 70s were giving us the warming scare until we stopped warming.
But then a paycheck is a paycheck. If you will look at hard data, you fill find the warmest temperatures in the United States occurred in the 1930s.
Just facts.
Independent core drilling in Antarctica and the Amazon, two untouched places, came up with the interesting fact that the earth goes through 34 to
36,000 year cycles. One of those reports in Antarctica was a couple paragraphs in Popular Science about 3 years ago (I subscribe) I recall and the
one on the Amazon was in a book on the Amazon that had nothing to do with climate, but was a couple pages on the details of what the researchers
found. You get data in info by paying attention to processes and people that are NOT in big funded studies, and when you start seeing things like
this pop up you start discounting the big funded reports that are pushing an agenda. In BOTH those cases – totally unrelated, you see very similar
findings, then add Milankovitch cycles which is 100k year cycle roughly 3x of the other two and you have to start questioning all these people who
can’t talk about anything older than a couple thousand years against a 4.2 billion year old planet. It was VERY interesting that the 2 reports I
accidentally ran across basically said that the sea will rise an fall about 360 FEET over these 34 to 36 thousand year cycles. We are in the middle
of a sea rise – in 18,000 or so years be prepared to have beach front property if you are at 180’ above sea level.
The other thing that you MUST pay attention to are out of the ordinary things that have NOTHING to do with Internet articles, research or paid
writers. When I was in Iceland, I could visit the petrified Conifer Trees – it was a tourist brochure. What? Really? That was an attraction. That was
not a climate article – it was a tourist brochure. You have to pay attention to the real world. How did huge Conifer trees grow on Iceland? Until the
Vikings came along Iceland was covered in trees – Vikings made boats – trees never returned. And throughout time – Greenland was actually
green, many articles on that. Researchers have also found remains of human activity as glaciers have receded in Europe. It’s s big global puzzle
and there are pieces everywhere.
Also according to NASA people are causing the planet to be greener. https://www.nasa.gov/feature/ames/human-activity-in-china-and-india-
dominates-the-greening-of-earth-nasa-study-shows I typically do not like many links on the Internet as if I am seeing it on screen it probably
contains a fair amount of opinion that is structured around someone’s pay check – and too may times when that “expert” becomes unemployed or
retires their whole opinion changes. You have to use your brain based on scientific research and you have to have multiple sources. Watch very
carefully who is funding those sources. CO2 make things grow, that’s why growers inject greenhouses with CO2.
https://phys.org/news/2020-01-planet-greener-global.html Now this is interesting as it says more green slows global warming. What is bad with
global warming, if it is warming. Throughout human history we have experienced warn periods and cold periods. And until the last century
measuring devices were crap or nonexistent. Also where they take these temperatures is highly suspect. Phoenix never cools in the summer, the
whole damn city is a heat sink. Go 20 miles out in to the desert and your temperature at night will be 10 degrees cooler.
You also can accurately track warming and cooling periods by studying human history, and not the last 100 years. There were times of famine, and
times of plenty. Crops do not grow when it is colder. Crops are a plenty when it is warmer. Humans also move when crops do not grow. You can
tell when the earth was warm, and the earth was cold.
CO2 and Temperature really do not track very well. An inconvenient truth over the last 350 million years. You see these misleading graphs showing
CO2 going all the up to 400 PPM, and the world is going to end and we are all going to die. Except that the high point of CO2 was during the
Jurassic period (CO2 2,500 ppm) when the earth was FLUSH with vegetation. And the temperatures during that and the Cretaceous period made
things GROW! I ask people – when do you think the oil we use today came from? And by the way, the earth is still making oil. 100 year old wells
have oil in them again.
Maybe it is time for a little warming again – we are certainly due. The atmosphere is EXTREMELY complex, and the one scientist from Canada who
got down into the weeds really explained why all these computer models are pretty much BS. We DO NOT KNOW. Many of these people talk in
terms of the last 100 years, or the last several centuries. What is that as compared to the last 250 million years.
Also according to NASA people are causing the planet to be greener. https://www.nasa.gov/feature/ames/human-activity-in-china-and-india-
dominates-the-greening-of-earth-nasa-study-shows I typically do not like many links on the internet as if I am seeing it on screen it probably
contains a fair amount of opinion that is structured around someone’s pay check – and too may times when that “expert” becomes unemployed or
retires their whole opinion changes. You have to use your brain based on scientific research and you have to have multiple sources. Watch very
carefully who is funding those sources. CO2 make things grow, that’s why growers inject greenhouses with CO2.
https://phys.org/news/2020-01-planet-greener-global.html Now this is interesting as it says more green slows global warming. What is bad with
global warming, if it is warming. Throughout human history we have experienced warn periods and cold periods. And until the last century
measuring devices were crap or nonexistent. Also where they take these temperatures is highly suspect. Phoenix never cools in the summer, the
whole damn city is a heat sink. Go 20 miles out in to the desert and your temperature at night will be 10 degrees cooler.
You also can accurately track warming and cooling periods by studying human history, and not the last 100 years. There were times of famine, and
times of plenty. Crops do not grow when it is colder. Crops are a plenty when it is warmer. Humans also move when crops do not grow. You can
tell when the earth was warm, and the earth was cold.
CO2 and Temperature really do not track very well. An inconvenient truth over the last 350 million years. You see these misleading graphs showing
CO2 going all the up to 400 PPM, and the world is going to end and we are all going to die. Except that the high point of CO2 was during the
Jurassic period (CO2 2,500 ppm) when the earth was FLUSH with vegetation. And the temperatures during that and the Cretaceous period made
things GROW! I ask people – when do you think the oil we use today came from? And by the way, the earth is still making oil. 100 year old wells
have oil in them again.
Maybe it is time for a little warming again – we are certainly due. The atmosphere is EXTREMELY complex, and the one scientist from Canada who
got down into the weeds really explained why all these computer models are pretty much BS. We DO NOT KNOW. Many of these people talk in
terms of the last 100 years, or the last several centuries. What is that as compared to the last 250 million years.
This will help:
2. Do you accept NOAA's CO2 measurement data > https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/ ?
Item 2 - sure, why not accept it…sort of. Co2 PPM to 400. More food for the plants means more food for humans. I am not sure MAUNA LOA in
Hawaii is the greatest place to take a reading however https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6aotZGvhsI0. Probably the LAST place on earth I would
want to get accurate atmospheric data, especially with Kilauea right next door doing its thing since the early 80s.
Both of these questions are independent from whether or not the earth has historically seen lesser or greater amounts of CO2 and/or average
temperatures - that is a different topic.
3. Do you support our society reducing the amount of CO2 we put into the atmosphere? This is a general position question understanding that the
cost/impact in economic, and 'living being' terms of specific solutions must be considered.
Item 3. No I do not. Without CO2 we die. Plants die. Crops die. Makes no sense. The big problem is that the public is confused by CO2 and
pollution. Pollution bad – CO2 good. Makes things grow.
The majority of the CO2 is stored in the ocean. And when the ocean warms, it releases CO2. Cooler water absorbs and holds more CO2. Typically
warming occurs FIRST then CO2 follows. Not the other way around unless you are trying to raise money through scare tactics. Buy a SodaStream
and charge a room temperature bottle and a refrigerated bottle. Room temp water will instantly release the Co2. Just science. Also, when you order
soda water from a bar, it is always COLD as there is a cooling compressor that chills the water so CO2 will absorb. I have both systems. A simple
test in your own kitchen destroys hundreds of BS web sites.
Also 70% of our oxygen comes from the ocean, not the trees.
Also – you know what was really irritating the other day at the council meeting? The “sustainable” lady (what a waste of OUR taxpayer money)
putting up a slide of the temperatures of the southwest increasing like that had something to do with the planet and like it has never happened
before. I guess she does not know anything about the Southwest and why the Indians left when their crops stopped growing and the water dried up.
It is that kind of irresponsible stuff that drives people nuts Bill.
THIS is what the HIGH DESERT looked like. This is today.
Another dose of reality?
From Sky News - data https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5pIvNOlkcM
A reality check on extreme weather https://electroverse.net/category/extreme-weather/
The planet goes through cycles - doing it for millions of years.
Alex Epstein
Bringing the moral case for fossil fuels to Colorado college students
What makes everyone's lives possible.
A few weeks ago I told you about my experience speaking about the moral case for fossil fuels to college students at Colorado Mesa
University. As I said then, this may be my best speech so far introducing The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels. You can view (and share)
the entire speech here.
The Q&A largely featured questions from students in the university's "Sustainability" program. Here are clips of each question along
with my answer:
• The truth about CO2 and sea level rise
• The recklessness of eliminating fossil fuels
• Why some countries with fossil fuels don’t prosper
• Is CO2 causing mass extinctions of animal species?
• More fossil fuels, more clean water
• More fossil fuels, better health
• We won’t run out of fossil fuels
• Why experts get energy and climate issues wrong
• Does government deserve credit for clean air and water?
• Why nuclear champions should support fossil fuels
• The truth about fossil fuel subsidies
What will replace fossil fuels?
During a recent speech I was asked, “Is there an inevitable end to fossil fuel use and if so what’s the replacement?” Here's a (lightly
edited) transcript of my answer:
Well, I believe there’s an inevitable end to the sun in about 5 billion years. So if it all depends on your timescale. I definitely don't
think there's a relevant, inevitable end to fossil fuels in our lifetime.
And the main thing I would say is we don’t need to have an idea of what the replacement will be. We just need to advocate the
freedom to find a replacement.
The reason to advocate for fossil fuels today isn’t because that’s the only thing we should ever use. It’s because the fossil fuel
industry has discovered the best process we have for producing energy given our knowledge and abilities right now.
And over time, that can and should evolve as people are free to compete and look for better energy processes. What we need to
oppose is policies that would take away our freedom to use fossil fuels and dictate some inferior replacement.
Now, my guess is that nuclear energy will be the future. And the basic reason is that one of the advantages fossil fuels have—
particularly oil—is that they're super concentrated and that allows you to do a lot in terms of mobility. It also allows you to move fuel
all around the world and empower people everywhere, unlike something like hydro. And nuclear is by far the most concentrated
source of energy we know how to harness.
So that's that has enormous potential. But at any given stage, we should be free to use the best sources of energy. And today, for
most people, most of the time, the best source of energy is fossil fuels.
Item 2 - sure, why not accept it…sort of. Co2 PPM to 400. More food for the plants means more food for humans. I am not sure MAUNA LOA in
Hawaii is the greatest place to take a reading however https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6aotZGvhsI0. Probably the LAST place on earth I would
want to get accurate atmospheric data, especially with Kilauea right next door doing its thing since the early 80s.
Both of these questions are independent from whether or not the earth has historically seen lesser or greater amounts of CO2 and/or average
temperatures - that is a different topic.
3. Do you support our society reducing the amount of CO2 we put into the atmosphere? This is a general position question understanding that the
cost/impact in economic, and 'living being' terms of specific solutions must be considered.
Item 3. No I do not. Without CO2 we die. Plants die. Crops die. Makes no sense. The big problem is that the public is confused by CO2 and
pollution. Pollution bad – CO2 good. Makes things grow.
The majority of the CO2 is stored in the ocean. And when the ocean warms, it releases CO2. Cooler water absorbs and holds more CO2. Typically
warming occurs FIRST then CO2 follows. Not the other way around unless you are trying to raise money through scare tactics. Buy a SodaStream
and charge a room temperature bottle and a refrigerated bottle. Room temp water will instantly release the Co2. Just science. Also, when you order
soda water from a bar, it is always COLD as there is a cooling compressor that chills the water so CO2 will absorb. I have both systems. A simple
test in your own kitchen destroys hundreds of BS web sites.
Also 70% of our oxygen comes from the ocean, not the trees.
Also – you know what was really irritating the other day at the council meeting? The “sustainable” lady (what a waste of OUR taxpayer money)
putting up a slide of the temperatures of the southwest increasing like that had something to do with the planet and like it has never happened
before. I guess she does not know anything about the Southwest and why the Indians left when their crops stopped growing and the water dried up.
It is that kind of irresponsible stuff that drives people nuts Bill.
THIS is what the HIGH DESERT looked like. This is today.
Another dose of reality?
From Sky News - data https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5pIvNOlkcM
A reality check on extreme weather https://electroverse.net/category/extreme-weather/
The planet goes through cycles - doing it for millions of years.
Alex Epstein
Bringing the moral case for fossil fuels to Colorado college students
What makes everyone's lives possible.
A few weeks ago I told you about my experience speaking about the moral case for fossil fuels to college students at Colorado Mesa
University. As I said then, this may be my best speech so far introducing The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels. You can view (and share)
the entire speech here.
The Q&A largely featured questions from students in the university's "Sustainability" program. Here are clips of each question along
with my answer:
• The truth about CO2 and sea level rise
• The recklessness of eliminating fossil fuels
• Why some countries with fossil fuels don’t prosper
• Is CO2 causing mass extinctions of animal species?
• More fossil fuels, more clean water
• More fossil fuels, better health
• We won’t run out of fossil fuels
• Why experts get energy and climate issues wrong
• Does government deserve credit for clean air and water?
• Why nuclear champions should support fossil fuels
• The truth about fossil fuel subsidies
What will replace fossil fuels?
During a recent speech I was asked, “Is there an inevitable end to fossil fuel use and if so what’s the replacement?” Here's a (lightly
edited) transcript of my answer:
Well, I believe there’s an inevitable end to the sun in about 5 billion years. So if it all depends on your timescale. I definitely don't
think there's a relevant, inevitable end to fossil fuels in our lifetime.
And the main thing I would say is we don’t need to have an idea of what the replacement will be. We just need to advocate the
freedom to find a replacement.
The reason to advocate for fossil fuels today isn’t because that’s the only thing we should ever use. It’s because the fossil fuel
industry has discovered the best process we have for producing energy given our knowledge and abilities right now.
And over time, that can and should evolve as people are free to compete and look for better energy processes. What we need to
oppose is policies that would take away our freedom to use fossil fuels and dictate some inferior replacement.
Now, my guess is that nuclear energy will be the future. And the basic reason is that one of the advantages fossil fuels have—
particularly oil—is that they're super concentrated and that allows you to do a lot in terms of mobility. It also allows you to move fuel
all around the world and empower people everywhere, unlike something like hydro. And nuclear is by far the most concentrated
source of energy we know how to harness.
So that's that has enormous potential. But at any given stage, we should be free to use the best sources of energy. And today, for
most people, most of the time, the best source of energy is fossil fuels.
| You’ve heard that our addiction to fossil fuels is destroying our planet and our lives. Yet by every measure of human well- being life has been getting better and better. This book explains why humanity’s use of fossil fuels is actually a healthy, moral choice. |
| People need a reality check. CLIMATE CHANGES |
 |
 |
| The Green New Deal |
| Fossil Fuels: The Greenest Energy |
| Can We Rely on Wind and Solar? |
| Do 97% of Scientists really Agree? |
| Why You Should Love Fossil Fuels |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| Climate - Reality Check |
| This page still under development |
 |
 |
