Simple Ideas, Robust Evidence, Part 8: Industrial Pollutants Are Warming Earth

But it does not justify elite “solutions.”

I have written on this subject at Substack at length, and there is no need to belabor it. The physics of how Earth warms up in daylight and cools off at night is well known. It has to do with how electrons absorb photons. When those photons are absorbed, it has a warming effect, and when they are emitted, it has a cooling effect. It is really simple and indisputable. Nearly 100% of Earth’s atmosphere is comprised of one- or two-atom molecules, they do not absorb photons in the visible or infrared spectrum, so they have no effect on Earth’s warming and cooling. Carbon dioxide and water do, however, and they are the two leading greenhouse gases that make Earth’s surface far warmer than it would otherwise be. Carbon dioxide is the most important of the two, because it lasts in the atmosphere for a century while water only lasts a week, has an uneven distribution, and it is more of an effect than a cause of Earth’s rising temperature. None of this is controversial to honest and sane scientists.

What is also not controversial is that when humans began burning the hydrocarbon fuels that powered the Industrial Revolution, it dramatically increased the atmosphere’s carbon-dioxide content, which has warmed Earth. Carbon-dioxide levels have increased by 50% since the 1800s, which is likely the most dramatic change in the history of life on Earth. In 1896, the Swedish scientist Arrhenius calculated how much burning fossil fuels would warm Earth’s atmosphere, and they are still the relevant calculations.

Oil-company shills such as Fred Singer purposefully muddied the waters, to create the illusion of uncertainty among scientists when there was not any, and a compliant media enabled that fake controversy for many years. No credible scientist on Earth will dispute the human contribution to today’s Global Warming. The only real debate is how much and how fast. I have to give Donald Trump credit. While he denies or minimizes Global Warming, as nearly all scientifically illiterate right wingers do, he says that nuclear war is a more immediate threat. I will not argue against that, as the neocons have driven the world to the brink of nuclear war over Ukraine.

I have had to listen to irrational objections to Global Warming by right wingers over the years, as they parroted the talking points, which were not far removed from flat-Earth “theorizing.”

Especially in light of what I know, however, there is no legitimacy to the elite “solutions” being proffered today, led by the likes of Bill Gates. They know all about free-energy technology, which would end the issue almost overnight, but they all engage in the charade that it does not exist, to keep elites in control of humanity, as we race to oblivion.

These issues are really simple, the evidence is irrefutable, but many people pretend that the issues are complex or that the evidence is equivocal, depending on their political affiliations. As Brian O’Leary asked, are we really a sentient species? We are about to find out.