I want to refute anyone that tries to change our minds about anthropogenic global warming, or AGW, being a serious issue. And now, although I have not made for myself the resources necessary to refute prominent people, I feel that it’s my duty to pick apart the half truths spoken by the vice president of the American Enterprise Institute, Danielle Pletka, here on a site that, unfortunately, may never be seen by many.
There’s videos on Youtube that explains the clever psychology AGW skeptics use – to subtly change your mind, with. I’ll post links in hopes that I help spread the word.
And, of course, it’s these videos from whence I found out about Danielle’s quest to downplay AGW on none other than “Meet the Press”.
Arguments against concern over AGW and MY debunk.
The “CO2 follows warming” argument. Well, of course higher temps will cause more CO2 and I’m sure there’s proof of it in the past. However, this time, the actual effects of the GHG is causing infrared radiative forcing to the tune of about 1.5 W/m^2 which is about 75x the extra heating caused by all our energy usage. Note that, hundreds of millions of years ago, we’re talking different planets and even different stars! Different land masses cause different ocean currents, smaller sun require more CO2, etc. A good “control” is the isthmus of Panama. It was there 3 million years ago during the Pliocene. For some reason, the ppm was about 400 and the seas were between some 15 and 80 meters higher. Probably depending on natural variations like earth’s wobble, orbital eccentricity, etc.
The “CO2 is insignificant” argument. GHGs have to be insignificant in proportion to the amount of air we actually need. It doesn’t matter much that there’s only .o4% CO2. The lower amount of .028% is what did the job at keeping the biosphere warm in the first place. Note also, that it was way down to some 190 ppm during ice ages! If you really think it’s ok to adjust the GHGs in OUR air, you had better get another “control planet” to prove me (and billions of other people) wrong with.
Some “downplay” tactics. People that don’t believe, or don’t care will try to convince you of such. However, they know that it’s not easy to change somebody’s mind. Therefore, they will go along with it, before denouncing. Take Danielle’s sentences, that I will pick apart, for example,
The problem for many is that they perceive this as an agenda that is much more about corporate and much more about law and much more about the kind of governance that America has and much less about climate.
That has no scientific relation to AGW but makes it seem like AGW is more of a political issue – which it is not. Next is,
So from the standpoint of those who have doubts about this, and I don’t think we can have any doubts that there is climate change, whether it’s anthropogenic, I don’t know, I’m not a scientist.
Again, no scientific reasoning against AGW, but willing to believe it, but not know it. Perhaps suggesting that it is ok to think it is not anthropogenic. Next line,
I look at this as a citizen and I see it so I understand it.
She just said she doesn’t know if it’s anthropogenic (caused by people). Perhaps said said this to reinforce the “I’m with you” stance. Next,
On the other hand, we need to also recognize that we just had two of the coldest years, the biggest drop in global temperatures that we’ve had since the 1980s, the biggest in the last 100 years.
Let’s just look at the ever upwards trending graph and focus only on a little drop in temps. And is it the largest drop in temps since 1980 or since 1918? Let’s look at the “global temps” graph… From temperature record.
You have to actually go there to see the years, and to select and drag to zoom in, like I did for this image. This shows from just 1980 to a few months past 2018. Surely, there’s the down spikes she used to downplay with. However, as you can see, the lowest point is still higher than what the highest point was in 1980’s time period! Furthermore, this graph shows that nature will go up and down, but gradually up. It’s lower in the 1970’s where the “0 mark” seems to average out at, too. Go there to see since the year 1000, to zoom in and to see other data. It’s nice to see all the way across the computer screen. Anyways, Her next sentence is,
We don’t talk about that because it’s not part of the agenda.
Yes we do talk about that, otherwise it would be a big elaborate conspiracy plot that doesn’t show any data! She is clearly making it sound, again, like a political agenda, like it’s ok to not like to believe, or know about, AGW. Next,
The United States has been dropping in C02 emissions since we pulled out of Paris.
It has gone down, slightly. Gee, let’s all celebrate the fact that we have become slightly more efficient (put roll eyes here). That’s to be expected, thanks to science and technology. What’s not to be celebrated is the fact that her fanboy, the U.S. president wants to cut emission standards for cars. If so, then obviously, that line would go up! She said,
…and let’s admit that Donald Trump does actually speak for… a pretty substantial bunch of people.
With that, we get the clue that there’s a lot of people who follows a leader that don’t care about AGW. Of course, there’s other, perceptibly more important reasons why 46% of the people would follow Trump. Next, she says,
There are actually good things that are happening.
Yes, there is. Next,
We are not using dirty coal anymore. It’s the Europeans who are using dirty coal. There actually is some corporate leadership on this. Yes, we need to deal with these problems, yes we need to mitigate the things we see. But we shouldn’t be hysterical.
Ya, blame it on the Europeans! I thought it was they who also do a good job at developing non fossil fuel sources – especially France! I believe, unfortunately, that she did a pretty good job at minimizing the concern over the conversion of very many cubic miles of oil and coal, pictured below, into over a trillion tons of excess CO2!
1 Cubic Mile of OIL
This post will be continuously added on to, to include more anti-science debunking, as it’s not nearly complete!
Hank picks apart how she tries to make us believe that AGW isn’t something to get “hysterical about”. She tries to make us think that Europe is worse than the U.S. concerning emissions. And that it’s really no big deal.
The Majority Report w/ Sam Seder
Sam and company relates to how ineffective her downplaying should be because (she says) she’s not a scientist and relates to how car companies might not want to ratchet down emission standards when the next guy in office will most probably raise them back up.
Here’s a link to the transcript of that particular episode of Meet the Press. What more can I add? How about the beginning text, from CHUCK TODD:
This Sunday, President Trump takes on his own government, the CIA, dismissing its finding and siding with the Saudi crown prince in the Khashoggi murder.