Hi Loren,
Randall Carlson admits that humans are influencing the climate, and that there's a worthy controversy going on. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has ben dramatically increasing over the last 100 years, and he doesn't question that. And, I don't see how anyone can question that the climate is getting warmer and more violent. So the question is: correlation, or coincidence?
Carlson says that naturally occurring factors such as changes in the sun also effect the climate. I suppose it's possible that some other natural factor (independent variable) is causing this, but I don't know of anything that's been identified as a likely candidate. Carlson makes the point that the change in CO2 is less than 100ppm, and that the changes are small in comparison to global carbon stocks; but it's disingenuous to claim that this means the change in CO2 is not significant. On the contrary, CO2 is a very potent greenhouse gas, and small changes in CO2 can cause big changes in climate, according to models of the global energy balance.
I would agree that the "scientific consensus" is driven by politics & funding. In spite of all the money that's been spent, some crucial variables in the climate change debate are still unknown. Models of the influence of CO2 levels on temperature predict much larger effects than we're actually seeing, and the difference is thought to be caused by aerosols (dust) primarily from coal burning, but the predominance & effects of these aerosols are very poorly understood. But, some of the dissenters & debunkers of the "human driven global climate change consensus" are also unsavory characters with a history as hired guns of industrial capitalism.
At the end of the video, Carlson claims that there is 200-year-old atmospheric sample data that contradicts widely-accepted ice core data regarding pre-industrial CO2 concentration. Well, umm, maybe?....
Randall Carlson admits that humans are influencing the climate, and that there's a worthy controversy going on. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has ben dramatically increasing over the last 100 years, and he doesn't question that. And, I don't see how anyone can question that the climate is getting warmer and more violent. So the question is: correlation, or coincidence?
Carlson says that naturally occurring factors such as changes in the sun also effect the climate. I suppose it's possible that some other natural factor (independent variable) is causing this, but I don't know of anything that's been identified as a likely candidate. Carlson makes the point that the change in CO2 is less than 100ppm, and that the changes are small in comparison to global carbon stocks; but it's disingenuous to claim that this means the change in CO2 is not significant. On the contrary, CO2 is a very potent greenhouse gas, and small changes in CO2 can cause big changes in climate, according to models of the global energy balance.
I would agree that the "scientific consensus" is driven by politics & funding. In spite of all the money that's been spent, some crucial variables in the climate change debate are still unknown. Models of the influence of CO2 levels on temperature predict much larger effects than we're actually seeing, and the difference is thought to be caused by aerosols (dust) primarily from coal burning, but the predominance & effects of these aerosols are very poorly understood. But, some of the dissenters & debunkers of the "human driven global climate change consensus" are also unsavory characters with a history as hired guns of industrial capitalism.
At the end of the video, Carlson claims that there is 200-year-old atmospheric sample data that contradicts widely-accepted ice core data regarding pre-industrial CO2 concentration. Well, umm, maybe?....