Feb 022017

oil well

When it comes to climate, one theory holds that there’s a fifty-fifty chance that we’ll be unable to adapt to climate change 90% of the time. For the other 10% of the time there’s still a fifty-fifty chance that our odds will remain even. Of course, it depends on which side of the C02 / carbon tax issue you’re on, and on which political party you support.

Sound confusing? Confusing us is the whole point of playing the percentages warns Dave Plumb, who joins us today for a continuing discussion about both the science and politics of climate change.

Here’s a 100% certainty: CO2 production is a natural and healthy occurrence. You could even say that efforts to rid our planet of CO2 are unnatural and unhealthy.

Playing the percentages is just one of the ways politicians justify “fighting climate change” by taxing CO2 production.

Citing man-made CO2 production as a reason for “fighting climate change” – and in turn using the “fight against climate change” as a premise for taxing man-made CO2 – is a circular and fraudulent way to impose a new tax that will neither reduce world CO2 levels nor prevent climate change.

Consider two of our guest’s key observations in today’s discussion: (1) CO2 is the “gas of life”, without which life on this planet today would not exist, and (2) climate change and the instability of our planet’s natural environment are essential to the existence of life of this planet.

Now consider this: most politicians are opposed to both of these life-creating and life-sustaining conditions. Should we be surprised? Meanwhile, many critical and real (i.e., life threatening) environmental concerns remain unattended.

There’s a lot to sort out behind all the complexities of our planet’s climate, but the simple non-complex starting point is that CO2 is not a pollutant, nor is it a threat to life on this planet. Concerns about CO2 levels point to no climate crisis, but to a political crisis.

Join us in a continuing conversation that sorts the science from the politics. Knowing the difference is the key in any effort to arrive at a balanced view of our earth’s climate that is Just Right.

  One Response to “490 – Guest: Dave Plumb – Climate change crisis: What are the odds?”

  1. I realize in listening to the podcast that there are a couple of minor technical errors that need to be addressed, as follows:

    1. Where I spoke of cosmic rays in discussing the ozone layer I should have more specifically said gamma rays.

    2. In discussing Milankovitch Cycles I erroneously referred to obliquity (degree of axial tilt) when I was actually discussing eccentricity (degree of non-circularity of Earth’s orbit). So, to clarify, eccentricity varies from minimal (75,000 Km out of perfectly circular) to maximal (9,000,080 Km out of circular) over a 100,000 year cycle. Eccentricity is principally caused by Jupiter’s gravitational influence, and it is the primary driver of climate on Earth. Obliquity factors in, varying from a minimum tilt (non-perpendicularity) of 22.1° to maximum tilt of 24.5° on a 41,000 year cycle. The third cycle is precession, operating on a 26,000 year cycle.

    My apologies to any well informed listeners who may have found the discussion a little confusing at those points.

    Dave Plumb

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.