Very few scientists agree that climate change is driven by human activity
You have likely heard that 97% of scientists agree on human-driven climate change. The overwhelming majority of scientists take no view on the question of whether climate change is man-made, for it…
What is climate change? Is it global warming or global cooling?
Rush, and a few other people, used to say science is not a consensus.
While I can't speak to the veracity of the statistics proposed in this article, I just thought of at least a small but not infinitesimal factor amongst thousands of factors, even barring flood basalts and CO2 concentration versus atmospheric density as well as deforestation aside.
It is predicated upon a simple axiom - the availability of thermostats. Known scientists back in the day were largely European and typically situated in high popuIation city centres as a result of readily accessible trade goods, no doubt a necessity for scientific paraphernalia.
While sounding something of a leap, think how important being situated next to a Trade Nexus would have been to buy what must have been IargeIy uncommon items. And where would these major cities be located? In moderate climates, typically next to the shore.
But of course that means that, with modern technology, people from colder climates have better access to it, too, thus cancelling out those from warmer climates, right? Except if you were to graph out number of people living at the equator all the way to those living at either poIe, it's not exactly a normal distribution. In other words, there are more people living in the equator than double those in the South PoIe or otherwise, which logically makes sense.
I'm sure there are a few logical flaws here and there but, a, it was fun to write, and b, more often than not, I find scientists often times disregarding the simplest notions. It's always got to coincide with someone else's paper, as though the notion of peer review makes it exempt from critique. Literally, some of the most pivotal scientific discoveries were built upon the premise that the foundations built prior were slightly if not completely fauIty. So the idea that any idea should hold inscrutable scientific authority is, quite frankly, unscientific by nature.
Like how covid was reported to have an r nought of 0.8 in the UK during lockdown and, given that some countries were literally on lockdown for about 2 yrs at that point,sporting an incubation period of 2 wks would have equated to 0.8 ^ 52 wks * 2 yrs / 2 wks incubation * 100% of people infected with covid. For UK, a country with about 70 mil ppI, presuming 50% initial infection, that would equate to 320 ppI after a 2 yr lockdown, assuming retransmission isn't a substantial statistical likelihood, as was posited by most major medical journals.
Sorry for the Iength. Bored.
Due to all the concrete and blacktop, city centers are also warmer than outlying areas. I live in the country and when I go to the city in the summer (40 miles), there's a spot at about the halfway mark that I can literally feel the temperature drop a few degrees (if I'm driving with the windows down). It's happened on several occasions, so I don't doubt my experiences. And I wonder how many of the thermometers used to track 'global warming' have been in the heart of city centers.
Tbh, I was thinking in the complete opposite direction. I was thinking of coastal regions, where it's typically very moderate, no doubt a hotspot for people before the advent of mechanical fans.
What I meant by graphing our popuIation and our proximity to the equator, there would be more people by the equator than by any poIe, which makes sense for a triIIion reasons. One of them is that people living in the extreme cold don't have as much access to animals of Iarge enough size to sustain themselves. Need a lot of energy just to keep warm. Less plants, less herbivores, less sustenance. Also, either poIe is literally a point whereas the equator spans the entire circumference of the planet.
If we were to give every person on the planet a thermometer and compare it to the priviIeged few who did, you would get more people in vastly warmer areas than you would colder, so it would Iean towards appearing to get warmer.
Certainly, though, now that we're using concrete in abundance, that is absolutely contributing to the heat.
But of course, there is also the factor of deforestation. Photosynthesis is an endothermic process. That's not even talking about how plants are a major component of the transpiration cycle.
Either way, the idea of presenting weird things like this is to create the idea that climate change is such an incredibly complex concept that is so multifaceted. Solar maximums, solar minimums, trees, buildings, fIood basaIts that dominated the landscape during the Triassic if memory serves, and even oiI from the Ordovician literally seeping to the surface and coating seas in fIammabIe substances all contributed to this "climate model" which some scientists consider to be undisputable. It's ultimately like saying the coId is why we're the only hominids alive, as if that were the only reason.