Many Climate Change Activists Are Deniers
John Tyndall measured how different gases interact with radiation way back in the mid-nineteenth century. Ever since then, we have known that, all else being equal, increasing greenhouse gases would increase the temperature in the lower atmosphere.
Since then, the questions have been: Is all else equal? By how much? Is that good or bad? What, if anything, should we do about it? What are the trade-offs?
Various groups, have arrived at their own group-think points of consensus.
The dominant celebrity cult is that anthropogenic climate change will be catastrophic. The talking heads chant: Population is not a problem. Tax carbon and technology will save us!
Follow the cult or be branded "denier".
Oddly, the talking heads still claim that the global warming is "anthropogenic" --- which is to say that it is caused by people...
Well, if people are causing climate change, don't you think that it is time that someone plotted CO2 and temperature against human population?
Population and CO2 slowly increase for the first 100 years of the Industrial Revolution.
After 1950, population takes off and CO2 climbs. We see about 1 degree C of global warming.
The green and red lines show a simple model based on one empirical metric. Before 1950 1 billion people raise CO2 by 0.12 ppm in 1 year. After 1960 1 billion people raise CO2 by 0.30 ppm in 1 year.
Why the change? That's when petroleum powered machines became widely used to power humanity.
If we plot CO2 against time, we see measurements, plotted in blue. The model fits well (orange line).
It is difficult to predict the future.
Better to use the model to illustrate what might have happened:
If population had stabilized at 2 billion (yellow).
If population stopped growing in 1750 (magenta).
Obviously, most of the observed increase in atmospheric CO2 was caused by population growth.
How many times have I listened to talking head activists who blame climate change for every ill that befalls man and beast. Lies.
Let's look at some more data: the population of lions and house price relative to annual income.
One degree of global warming didn't kill the lions and it didn't squeeze common folk out of the housing market.
Population growth did that.
Human overpopulation does lots of unpleasant stuff that has absolutely nothing to do with climate change.
I have said nothing profound. It's all obvious to anyone who has observed and thought a while. However, for every ten thousand scientific publications about about carbon emissions and climate change you will be lucky to find even one that squares up to the population part of the problem.
Why is that?
Much of the analytical/investigative work of a scientist may be solitary but the funding of science is a purely social activity. So is the publishing of science. Mostly these social activities are manipulated by big government and big business. Government and business are the proximate cause of climate-change science being infected with a population-denialist pathology. We must look deeper into ourselves to understand the fundamental matters that corrupt and cloud thinking.
There is no better place to begin than with democracy. If you want to rule, then make sure that your tribe is biggest. Numbers can be handy for winning any type of conflict. Political parties, like religions, like nations, seek to grow their number in order to express their authority. President Erdogan says: "Muslims should not use contraception". His goal is domination. To the same end, Justin Trudeau uses the old trick of cultivating dependents by paying benefits for child production. For anyone outside the growing group, this is an act of aggression. They feel it instinctively. They respond by growing their own number.
It's called the Darwinian breeding strategy. It works but it is not congenial.