A Really Inconvenient Truth

An Inconveneint Ex-VP(photo credit)

Contributed by “The Ed”

Al Gore, in his documentary “An Inconvenient Truth”, said this:  “The debate is over!  There’s no longer any debate in the scientific community about this. But the political systems around the world have held this at arm’s length because it’s an inconvenient truth.”

In that documentary, there is a graph that shows the relationship between carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and the earth’s temperature.  The graph is compelling.  You can see how temperature and CO2 correlate.

Gore’s argument is that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.  More CO2 in the atmosphere means that the earth will hold its heat better.  His solution is to cut down on the production of CO2.  CO2 is produced when making energy.  Our economy is built on the use of energy for transport, for production, for electricity, for communication and for living.  That certainly would make the greenhouse argument “An Inconvenient Truth”, but is it true?

If I look at the graph, I see the CO2 shooting way up (red line).  So why isn’t the temperature following it (light blue line)?

There are lots of inconvenient truths out there.  If I want to find them, all I have to do is listen for the person shouting “The debate is over” on ANY controversial issue. Al Gore ignores a lot of inconvenient truths.

21 March 2007 - Gore Speaks to House and Senate Committees(photo credit)

He claimed in front of Congress that the science is settled.  If that is true, then skeptics should be hard to find.  But when Forbes did a survey of geoscientists and engineers they found only 36% felt that the globe is warming due to man’s activity.  The rest put the blame on nature.

I recently got into a debate with a researcher whose research grants – his livelihood – often depend on the greenhouse gas theory of climate change.  He has a lot of investment in the theory.  I’m not invested in it, other than to say that I don’t want to give up my transportation, the goods I can purchase, my electrical conveniences, my ability to communicate and my ability to make a living.  All this would happen if we shut off our use of energy.  That would be an extreme case.  My investment was for the distant future.  The researcher’s investment was for his here and now.

His argument was that so many prominent scientists agree that we are causing our earth to warm up because of the carbon we burn.  He said they have done the scientific models and they all prove that global warming is real.  I countered with the fact that when they are all similar models they will all get similar results.  That makes them all wrong if one is wrong.  I could see I was not getting anywhere so I added, “Besides, it doesn’t explain the Coca-Cola problem.”

Evidence of a Simple Truth - CO2 SolubilityMy statement was such a surprise, it almost seemed to be a non-sequitur for him.  But curiosity got the better of him so I got a chance to explain:  The problem is that if Coca-Cola is warm it rapidly loses its CO2 fizz.  But if it is cold it holds CO2 better.  Before he could interrupt I went on.  The solubility of CO2 in water falls as temperature rises.  When it warms up, CO2 will come out of the water.

(photo credit)

We have millions of square miles of ocean surface area with billions of tons of CO2 dissolved in its waters.  If the ocean surface warms it will release CO2.  Did CO2 cause higher temperatures (as Gore wants us to believe), or did global warming cause higher levels of CO2 by forcing CO2 out of the oceans’ surface layers (as fizz is forced out of warm Coca-Cola)?  Which is the cause, and which is the effect?

He knew the chemistry and physics of solubility better than I do.  It flummoxed him.  The global warming argument goes to pieces if warming temperatures cause higher levels of CO2 and cooling temperatures cause lower levels of CO2.  It puts their effect before their cause, turning their theory on its head.

Look again at the graph at the top of this article, while I reiterate a point I’ve already made:  The CO2 (red line) is shooting way up.  If CO2 causes warming, why isn’t the temperature (light blue line) following the temperature upward?  Answer:  because Gore has it backwards…the higher temperature causes the increased CO2.  Coca-Cola proves it.

It was an alternative explanation that he had not looked at.  So, logically, the debate really should not be over.

“Well I am sure that they have incorporated that into their models,” he said.  Then he showed me how smart he was by finding more ways to call me an idiot than I could possibly remember.  I won’t belabor this article by trying to list them.  For him, logical or not, the debate is over.

His statement about CO2 coming out of ocean water when the air warms already being accounted for in the models was not one of science but of blind faith.  Faith is a good thing but it does not belong in the realm of science except when the rules laid out make the world predictable because they have been proven.  I have faith that when I drop a pencil it will fall to the floor.  The laws of gravity have been proven.  They are constantly tested with predictions followed by measurement. So far, the temperature measurements do not follow the global warming predictions.  Indeed, the predicted warming has not shown up in the last ten years.

Just ask Al Gore’s least favorite polar bear:

Al Gores Least Favorite Polar Bear(photo credit)

The accuracy of forecasts that extend beyond 5 days is shaky.  I would not have wanted my name on anything that predicts a rise or a fall in the global temperature.  I do not share the faith that CO2 causes global warming.  Given what would happen to our way of life if we gave up carbon based fuels, I do not think we should base public policy on it – especially policies with extreme economic consequences.


About Necessary and Proper

Jeff believes in the Individual's ability to excel when liberty and freedom of choice are protected. Also believes in the Community's ability to take care of the vast majority of its own issues and needs when the federal government leaves the Community's resources and sphere of control alone. State and local choice produce better results than centralized federal control. https://necessaryandpropergovt.wordpress.com/
This entry was posted in Contributed by 'The Ed', Our Political Economy and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

16 Responses to A Really Inconvenient Truth

  1. rmekrnl says:

    I think in either that same presentation or in his book Gore also claimed the lack of snow on Mount Killimanjaro was due to global warming (back when it was still called global warming instead of climate change), when in fact the reason was a long drought — no moisture, no snow.


  2. ilamont says:

    That was very interesting. I did not know about the Coca-cola problem, though it makes such sense now.
    Thank you for the insight!


  3. tannngl says:

    This is great. I’ve never thought of the coca cola effect. But I do know that the CO2 graph rise FOLLOWS AFTER the temp rise on the graph. So which came first? Higher temps.

    Also read recently that the physicist who followed Einstein at Princeton and fills the spot as the ‘most brilliant physicist on the planet’, says that climatologists are no Einsteins, that their computer models are full of ‘fudge factors’ and he doesn’t believe it. http://blog.nj.com/njv_paul_mulshine/2013/04/climatologists_are_no_einstein.html

    Interesting! I’ve always said to follow the money. These ‘scientists’ must keep their research grants so must come up with solid evidence to keep their grants and the creation of the fraud of buying carbon credits is bogus and has made huge profits for Gore and others!


    • The Ed says:

      It is amazing. Gore pandered to an audience that wanted to hear that we are killing the planet by our actions and got gratified with a nobel prize, (note the lower case because it has become meaningless) and an oscar. Meanwhile he is flying around in a private jet. And to think he was almost president! Agh!


      • tannngl says:

        The nobel prize is neither noble nor a prize. These people usually are liberal kooks.
        I remember when Gore was running for prez. In a debate he was made up with make up to look like Reagan. He’s so empty of any real thought or morals. No integrity. I’ve often wondered just how low his IQ is. Praise the Lord he wasn’t elected as president.


  4. Hi Jeff! The coca cola effect puts it all in perspective. Who knew?


    • LL…Thanks for visiting!

      Actually, this article was contributed by Ed, and he may reply…but I will too:

      “Who knew?” Well, lots of people. But you wouldn’t know it from the one-sided liberal-leaning media coverage. They either ignore the views of the skeptics, or they portray us as loons or “deniers.” (a term designed to Infer that we’re as ignorant as the holocaust deniers.)

      What is brilliant about Ed’s article is that he used a simple physical piece of evidence (the behavior of cold Coca-Cola vs. warm Coca-Cola) to prove that there are OBVIOUS alternative explanations for the heightened levels of CO2. This bypasses all the layers and layers of statistical BS that the global warming alarmists ladle on us like cheap pancake batter, and presents a simple rationale that even a cave man could understand (if they hadn’t all been wiped out by the Ice Age).

      Please come back and visit again…often.
      – Jeff


    • The Ed says:

      Science is something that should always be challenged. Global warming isn’t even real science. I say that because the real scientists come up with theories and then constantly look for ways that they can be wrong. These “scientists” stick their fingers in their ears and yell so that they don’t have to hear anything that would contradict their theories.

      Newton’s physics stood unchallenged for centuries. But then quantum physics challenged Newton”s place in the world. That is a good thing. Now we have lasers, transistors, integrated circuits,computers, and a long list of technological advances that would not have been possible without quantum physics. Science should be challenged. It is how we advance.

      Follow the money. Al Gore was rewarded for this position. And so are the global warming “scientists”. Who knew? If the global warming “scientists” didn’t know, they should have.


  5. Jack Curtis says:

    Nice job on an abstruse issue…
    Perhaps the global–uh,’warming’– is less of the problem than the REALLY inconvenient fact that way too much science these days depends on government–hence politically awarded–money, directly and indirectly. Scientists have therefore, become politicians and their science, politically correct.
    Anything that will provide as much revenue as a carbon tax is politically correct, seems to me, with or without the science…. as you have indicated.


  6. If readers appreciated the straightforward logic of this article by “The Ed,” you might also enjoy this book I recently heard about:

    The Mad, Mad, Mad World of Climatism: Mankind and Climate Change Mania

    In the following podcast of an interview of the author, Steve Goreham, he makes the EXACT same point as “The Ed” about CO2 solubility in the ocean being the result of temperature change, not the cause of temperature change. And (at the 25:30 mark) Mr. Goreham even used the same comparison to a bottle of soda pop losing its fizz when it is warmed as “The Ed” described here. Check out this 35-minute podcast.

    – Jeff


Chime in! Leave Jeff a comment...

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s