The Rittenhouse trial offers a window on the current state of America. It is not pretty. I watched much of the trial to determine if the narrative of the killer, white supremacist, racist kid was true or if indeed he acted in self-defense. Plus if Rittenhouse acted in self-defense, no question the media jackals would double down on the narrative instead of admitting their error. Or if convicted, Rittenhouse supporters would likely spin their own narrative. Only the facts would reveal the liars.
Watching the trial suggests strongly Rittenhouse acted in self-defense. Even some of the prosecution’s witnesses corroborated Rittenhouse’s story. Are they racists too? The prosecutor did not present a strong case and in fact it was painful to watch. He asked questions that either reflected his lack of firearm knowledge or were designed to misrepresent the situation. The most bizarre line of questioning insinuated that having a gun pointed at you was not grounds for self-defense because the person hadn’t pulled the trigger yet. Ideology or grasping at straws?
As the facts piled up in favor of self-defense, not surprisingly the jackals began attacking the judge. Another white supremacist of course. If watch the trial instead of relying on media personalities for information, it is crystal clear the judge became angry when the prosecutor blatantly attempted to trample Rittenhouse’s constitutional rights. Are constitutional rights not applicable to those who Biden and the media label as racist? The judge is called a Trumpist as well because his ring tone is a pro American song. Horror of horrors.
The jackals scream, why was he there in the first place especially with a gun? Guilty! Rittenhouse is not on trial for being in Kenosha. Have any of them asked why the rioters were there? Why did the police and local government allow the rioters to loot and burn the city leaving it to the citizens to defend their property? Why did the media, BLM and their masters incite violence with false information about the Jacob Blake case? Why did President Biden and the jackals immediately brand Rittenhouse a white supremacist before the facts were available? So many questions yet so few questions asked. But there is one question that is asked a lot – did Rittenhouse fake his breakdown. Is that deflection or a failure to comprehend the big picture?
Let’s personalize this. Suppose an out of control mob arrived in your town intent on massive destruction. As happened in some cities, assume local government and police stood down with little effort to curb the violence and protect private property. No question this would be an Annie get your gun moment. People have the absolute constitutional right to protect themselves, their families, livelihoods, and community.
Whoever is calling the shots for BLM and Antifa certainly know that many Americans will take a stand when threatened. I suspect these leaders count on that reaction because the possibility of confrontations and deadly violence increases. As we have witnessed in the aftermath of Kenosha and other clashes, the violence creates the opportunity to fuel division, chaos and instability, clearly goals of the combatants in our current culture war. As expected, Kenosha violence was also used to advance the anti-gun narrative.
There appears to be a more insidious goal however. The relentless false narrative seems designed to undermine our ability to defend ourselves both legally and in the court of public opinion. Please think long and hard about this statement. Watch the trial, consider the jackal narrative, examine the big picture. Do you see it? Then ask yourself why.
The ability of Americans to defend themselves provides tremendous stability to our country. It holds bad actors in check. It is not racism. It is not white supremacy. An armed society tends to stay a free society. To undermine our right of self-defense would thoroughly destabilize this country. We cannot let it happen.
Shaky Ground Summary
As a reminder we will only examine what is happening and leave why unasked for now. Below is a summary of destabilizing factors addressed in this and previous articles in the America on Shaky Ground series.
Part 1 – Division and distrust caused by the prohibition of gathering.
Part 2 – Division and distrust caused by categorizing women and men into victims and oppressors.
Part 3– Division and distrust caused by racial segregation via victim/oppressor ideology.
Part 4 – Destabilize the populace by undermining the constitutional right of self-defense.
The above words represent the ideal upon which this country was founded. Will the BLM organization support our centuries long effort to make these words a reality? It is unlikely. This opinion is based on the notable discrepancies between BLM’s stated goals and the actual results of their actions. For example, while decrying racism BLM antiwhite rhetoric embodies the very essence of racism. We learn from BLM that only white folks are capable of racism. Think this statement through please. Equally divisive is the belief that all whites are racists whether they know it or not. Is the reality that some people of every color are racist and many are not?
Another BLM mandate that has the opposite result of the stated intention is the desire to defund the police. BLM wants to “take funds away from systems that don’t work and provide money to systems that do work”. According to BLM, the systems that don’t work are the police and criminal justice system and the ones that do are community based programs. What are the actual consequences as acolytes and colormongers respond to the clarion call to defund or otherwise hamstring police? More black people are dying. When confronted with this reality, how does BLM respond. They don’t, instead cops and those who support them are being discriminated against in incidents all over the country. BLM acolytes, are you OK with that?
What about funding community programs? Isn’t that an admirable goal? Yes, however a casual examination of history reveals that money alone is ineffective if all factors contributing to the failures in these communities remain unaddressed. Police brutality and systemic racism are not the only impediments to advancement in poor black communities. Are they even the primary influences at this point in history? I don’t know but am 100% certain others of equal importance exist. Ignoring these factors will ensure continued suffering in these communities regardless of how much money is spent on community programs.
The hypocrisy does not stop there. A colormonger on the city council in Seattle actually suggested that only white cops be fired as Seattle moves forward to defund the police. Black people risked their lives to fight for civil rights. Colormongers believe it is OK to disregard the Civil Rights Act of 1964? BLM acolytes are demanding more “black only spaces” in colleges. While not a new trend, neo-segregation in our colleges is a disturbingly divisive one. I would love to ask Rosa Parks how she feels about this. BLM and any good human is against cruelty to black people yet the BLM riots resulted in tremendous cruelty when businesses and lives were destroyed in black communities. And what about the murders that occurred during the riots? The cruelty continues with the rampant cancel culture. People’s lives are callously destroyed if anyone of any color challenges the BLM narrative. BLM, acolytes and colormongers are in a frenzied race to label historical figures, living people, statues, phrases, etc. racist. In this absurd contest, even phrases as innocuous as “low hanging fruit” are deemed racist. Does this make sense to you?
BLM says they oppose state-sanctioned violence and anti-Black racism. The result of their actions has been an increase in racism, death, violence, segregation, identity politics, victimhood and cruelty. Any red flags popping up yet? Are they ultimately helping black people, hurting them or using them? Are they encouraging self-reliance or only anger, division and chaos? A truism comes to mind: “Where there is confusion, there is opportunity”.
What opportunity might the BLM organization be after? The BLM website clearly indicates that they are a political organization dedicated to driving acolytes and colormongers to vote in the 2020 presidential election and we all know political operatives love chaos and a good crisis to advance their positions. What is their platform? While defunding the police is a primary mandate, they have other goals worth understanding. A few have been listed in the details section below. I agree with some, a couple require more explanation and I strongly disagree with others, one of which is the desire to “disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure”. Many folks of great intellect believe the disruption of the nuclear family in poor black communities is directly linked to difficulties inherent in these communities. BLM wants to disrupt the family further? Why?
Before plastering one’s yard with BLM signs, it might be a good idea to determine BLM’s actual ideology. Acolytes, have you done the research? If not, please note that two of the co-founders make no secret of the fact that they are Marxists. Some may think this is a “right wing talking point”. Watch the video to disabuse yourself of that notion. Patrisse Cullor said during an interview, “We do actually have an ideological frame. Myself and Alicia are trained organizers. We are trained Marxists. We are super versed in ideological theories.” Inquiring minds want to know, where were you trained, who trained you and who paid for it? If you don’t want to wait for a future article on this subject, I would recommend research into which regimes they support. Are you OK marching alongside and donating your hard-earned money to Marxists? Is it possible that BLM is using your compassion as a hook to advance their Marxist agenda?
If the BLM induced cancel culture did not viciously discourage discourse at every opportunity, this movement would be an excellent opportunity to move the cause forward. But alas, comprehensive dialogue is necessary for actual progress and this is no longer allowed on the national stage, only insipid pandering. I believe it is our duty as individuals to attempt to understand the suffering of fellow humans. The old adage “before you judge a man, walk a mile in his shoes” is relevant. It is difficult for any modern day American, black, white or magenta, to truly grasp the betrayal of being sold into slavery by your own countrymen or the horror of being born and living in slavery. After US slavery was abolished, figurative slavery continued in the form of Jim Crow laws, segregation, redlining and other policies borne of an ugly racism. Approximate 20% of black folks are currently enslaved by poverty, violence and a culture of dependence. While racism has diminished significantly over the last 50 years, it has been a long hard road and it is still alive and well in some quarters. Good humans reject racism in any form, uplift fellow humans with compassion and understanding and always offer a hand to those who start short of the starting line. It is always the right thing to do. If indeed BLM’s goals include uplifting anyone but themselves, we do agree on this point.
DETAILS
For additional perspective please watch the Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams series Black Wisdom Matters. Here is part 1.
Thanks to Anna for her help editing and supplying the wonderful phrase that reminds us of the “importance of lending a helping hand to anyone starting short of the start line”.
Please note that the BLM website has changed significantly in the last few weeks. Originally “Defund the Police” had a very high profile on the site, now it is soft pedaled. Below is a sampling of BLM goals as indicated on the website as of July 23,2020:
We are unapologetically Black in our positioning. In affirming that Black Lives Matter, we need not qualify our position. To love and desire freedom and justice for ourselves is a prerequisite for wanting the same for others.
We are guided by the fact that all Black lives matter, regardless of actual or perceived sexual identity, gender identity, gender expression, economic status, ability, disability, religious beliefs or disbeliefs, immigration status, or location.
We make space for transgender brothers and sisters to participate and lead.
We are self-reflexive and do the work required to dismantle cisgender privilege and uplift Black trans folk, especially Black trans women who continue to be disproportionately impacted by trans-antagonistic violence.
We build a space that affirms Black women and is free from sexism, misogyny, and environments in which men are centered. We make our spaces family-friendly and enable parents to fully participate with their children. We dismantle the patriarchal practice that requires mothers to work “double shifts” so that they can mother in private even as they participate in public justice work.
We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable.
We foster a queer‐affirming network. When we gather, we do so with the intention of freeing ourselves from the tight grip of heteronormative thinking
We cultivate an intergenerational and communal network free from ageism. We believe that all people, regardless of age, show up with the capacity to lead and learn.
We need to see what you see. Black Lives Matter is a central target of disinformation and you are a key line of defense. Report suspicious sites, stories, ads, social accounts, and posts about BLM.
“I respect your opinion, but really not interested in having an older White woman teach me about racism.” Whoaaaa. Moi? Older? One thing us “older” folks know is that everything is bullshit before the but. We also have perspective gained from years of personal experience and observation. Is that no longer relevant to BLM acolytes? Isn’t that age discrimination?
White? It’s questionable what color I am. Generally I am a bit tan with brown spots and other times my face is decidedly red almost purple. Am I dappled? Red? Purple? How about magenta? YES. I am Magenta. In the future, I will check “other” for race and fill in “Magenta” when asked. But the more interesting facet of her color labeling is the message that my thoughts and questions are invalid because of my skin color. Isn’t it ironic that someone who is fighting against racism would judge someone strictly on the color of their skin? Isn’t that the very definition of racism? Of course she had no idea I am Magenta.
Teach? I asked this presumably young person a number of questions after she posted an overly simplistic video describing systemic racism and the oppression of Black folks. The goal was debate. With debate, the opportunity exists for both parties to learn, a win/win. As demonstrated in this attempt at an old White lady verbal smack down, debate is no longer desirable for many. Blind obedience is now the “in” thing. And if someone dares step out of line via a probing question, the new rules require insulting them into submission. Never been good at blind obedience and I am downright horrible at cowering. This incident and others propelled me to the key board.
Let’s start with my own perspective. My first experience with blatant racism occurred when I was 14 in 1972, soon after starting a catholic high school located in a multiracial city. The majority of students were White but the student body included a notable number of other colors due to its location. My mother dropped me off at a friend’s house and her head promptly exploded when she realized my friend was Black. I was appalled that she was appalled. The colors of people in our group were not a factor in our friendships. Every color person who attended this school was privileged to do so (other than run ins with the prejudices of some of the nuns, racial and otherwise.) We received a rigorous, quality education that paved the way for the future.
I shared a bus stop with kids from a nearby public school comprised of predominantly Black kids from a lower socioeconomic neighborhood with a less than demanding education. I still remember with striking clarity the first time I saw girls literally rolling on the ground in a knockdown, drag out fist fight. I was punched a couple times by black boys. I ran after them to punch back but sadly Magenta girls can’t run (that’s not systemic racism against Magenta people, it’s just true). The contrast between my classmates and the kids at the bus stop coupled with my mother’s reaction taught me important lessons at a young age. Skin color is not a predictor of character or friendship, social circumstances and upbringing can have a huge impact on behavior and opportunity and racism in both directions was alive and well.
This country has come a long way regarding racial bias since 1972. Are we there yet? For some, apparently not. There are disparities between ethnic groups that deserve our national attention. I suggest turning off the relentless talking heads and review the raw data. Here are a few statistics.
When reviewing population breakdowns keep in mind that the concept of race is separate from the concept of Hispanic origin. 2019 census estimates of racial breakdown of population is 76.3% White, 13.4% black, 5.9% Asian, 4.4% other. White non Hispanic is 60.1% and Hispanic is 18.5%. This data is based on self identification.
In 2018, the US poverty rate was 11.8%. This rate has been fairly static over the past 30 years with an average of 13.4%. The poverty rate for non Hispanic Whites was 8.1%, Asians 10.1%, Hispanics of any race 17.6% and Blacks 20.8%.
Overall 9.0% of American families are in poverty. Families headed by a single mother have a whopping poverty rate of 24.9% compared to 4.7% for families headed by a married couple.
66% of Black families are headed by single parents followed by 41% Hispanic, 33% White and 20% Asian.
Median income in 2016 according to Pew, was highest among Asians, followed by Whites, Blacks and Hispanics.
Home ownership rates by race is highest among non Hispanic Whites followed by other non Hispanics races, Hispanics and Blacks. For all groups home ownership declined in 2007 and began climbing again in 2016. Rate of growth since 2016 has been lowest for Blacks. No group has achieved pre 2007 levels.
Black and Hispanic males are the only race or ethnic group that include homicide as one of the top ten leading causes of death, 2017 CDC.
In 2019 370 White, 235 Black, 158 Hispanics, 39 other races and 202 people of unidentified race were shot to death by police.
While it is clear Americans of any color or creed are able to succeed in America, the statistics above confirm racial inequalities still exist. And it is not just Black folks who suffer, every color is represented in the poverty cycle. Over the last several decades, countless billions have been spent in an attempt to level the playing field. Innumerable public and private programs are geared to help minorities succeed. Every politician has talking points and campaign promises geared to minorities. Investment and mortgage opportunities are directly targeted to and available in many disadvantaged areas.
Like others who base their relationships on character rather than skin color and are disgusted by the current literal and figurative violence, I have an endless list of basic questions. With decades of committed effort to eliminate inequality, why do we still have it? Will the bizarre hyper focus on skin color help or hurt? Has a successful solution ever been achieved by addressing only the tiniest sliver of the problem while simultaneously declaring a blanket cause? How much racial bias exists now compared to 1972 and where racial bias is still prevalent, what are the specific ways bias prohibits advancement? What concrete steps, other than gratuitous violence and pandering, can citizens take to help? Is it possible the unintended consequences of decades of bad public policy have impacted minorities negatively? Is the opioid and drug epidemic a force of oppression and impediment to advancement? What impact does the drug culture have on Black folks killing each other? Is the shift towards a victim mentality helpful to anyone of any color? Is the Black community getting used and abused once again to advance someone else’s political agenda? Is it possible to achieve actual progress when the difficult but necessary introspection is forbidden? If no, then why is the cancel culture rampant? What damage does that do to our multicolor nation? Hmmm….
Strong coffee and a nap first may be required to get through this one…
Have you ever had to convince anyone of anything? If so, you have discovered that presentation is key to success. Should you just lay out the facts or should certain things be emphasized, glossed over or omitted all together?
Another rule in presentation is to keep it simple. Pretty hard to do with climate prediction, a subject that is complex, scientific and poorly understood. And simplicity becomes even more necessary with a nation that feeds on sound bites. What does this have to do with the climate wars you ask.
Greenhouse Gases, created by Jay Lehr, Ph.D., Senior Policy Analyst for International Climate Science Coalition
Let’s demonstrate with water vapor. A quick review – of the greenhouse gases 95% is water vapor, 3.6% is carbon dioxide and the remaining 1.4% includes nitrous oxide, methane and other trace gases. Of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, only a small portion is from manmade sources. I believe everyone agrees to these scientific facts. Regardless, how the various factions present the quantity and properties of the greenhouse gases is vastly different, so much so that one might conclude one side or the other is being economical with the truth.
Do a google search for pie charts of greenhouse gases. Here is a screen shot of my search. Of 420 pie charts guess how many included water vapor? Two charts. That’s it. Most are geared towards emissions, not the big picture of what natural and manmade gases exist in the atmosphere. My initial thought was, that’s weird, how is it treated in a couple of my reference books:
The Thinking Person’s Guide to Climate Change by Robert Henson – Mr. Henson falls into the Prepper category. He does mention water vapor as a greenhouse gas but leaves out the fact that water vapor is 95% of the total. Mr. Henson states “water vapor isn’t a very strong greenhouse gas but it makes up for this weakness in sheer abundance” and water vapor only acts as a feedback not a driver of climate. The positive feedback loop theory suggests the atmosphere can accommodate more water vapor when the air is warmer. Therefore when temperatures increase as a result of increased levels of CO2, water vapor will also increase. More water vapor means more warming thereby amplifying the effects of CO2.
The Mythology of Global Warming by Bruce Bunker – Dr. Bunker falls into the Debater category. The percentage of each greenhouse gas is outlined as is the methodology used to calculate the ability of each gas molecule to absorb infrared radiation. In other words, how much does each greenhouse gas contribute to the greenhouse effect. Dr. Bunker states that “a single water molecule absorbs over twice the heat of molecules of either carbon dioxide or methane which are nearly identical in their ability to absorb infrared radiation”. Hmmm, that’s the opposite of what Mr. Henson said. Since there are so many more water vapor molecules than carbon dioxide or methane molecules, the impact of water vapor on global warming far outweighs the impact of carbon dioxide or methane. “On a percentage basis atmospheric carbon dioxide absorbs less than 0.74% of the heat absorbed by atmospheric water, while methane absorbs less than 0.004%.” Dr. Bunker does not mention the potential feedback loop of water vapor.
If Dr. Bunker has outlined the properties of water vapor correctly, one would think it belongs in any conversation of global warming. In case the Prepper book above was an anomaly, I hit google. Articles are organized from Debater through various levels of Prepper.
https://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html “Water Rules the Greenhouse System”. This article presents the relative impacts of greenhouse gases with and without including water vapor in the calculation and begins with this sentence. “Just how much of the “Greenhouse Effect” is caused by human activity? It is about 0.28%, if water vapor is taken into account– about 5.53%, if not. This point is so crucial to the debate over global warming that how water vapor is or isn’t factored into an analysis of Earth’s greenhouse gases makes the difference between describing a significant human contribution to the greenhouse effect, or a negligible one.” The rest of the article explains how the author came to this conclusion and the chart below depicts the author’s claim graphically. Even though it was written in 2003, I chose this article since it is clearly written.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/greenhouse-gases.php#intro “Greenhouse Gases”. The intro explains that greenhouse gases exist in the atmosphere naturally but due to our interference in the carbon cycle via fossil fuel emissions, forest burning and mining we artificially move carbon from its solid state to a gaseous state thereby increasing the CO2 in the atmosphere. This article describes each greenhouse gas and states that water vapor is the most plentiful greenhouse gas. The positive feedback loop is discussed but the article also states that “huge scientific uncertainty exists in defining the extent and importance of this feedback loop”. This is one of the few articles I read that also mentions the possibility of a negative feedback loop or the potential cooling associated with additional water vapor in the atmosphere. The theory suggests higher temperatures result in higher water vapor which leads to increased cloud formation. Clouds reflect solar radiation, therefore less radiation actually reaches the earth’s surface and the temperature actually cools rather than warms. The article states that we do not have the ability to accurately measure the quantity of water vapor in the atmosphere. This is huge if true. It seems to me that if scientists can’t measure water vapor accurately, there is no way to prove the feedback loop theories, positive or negative. If this were the only article you read, you would have no idea that water vapor represents 95% of greenhouse gases with twice the infrared radiation absorbance potential on a molecule by molecule basis compared to carbon dioxide (assuming the absorbance information is true of course, sigh…).
https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html – This NASA article recognizes water vapor as an important greenhouse gas but only because it creates a positive feedback loop related to CO2 increases. “The heat-amplifying effect of water vapor is potent enough to double the climate warming caused by increased levels of carbon dioxide.” This treats the positive feedback loop as fact and does not mention any scientific uncertainty regarding feedback loops as in the NOAA article above. Nor does it address the concentration of water vapor in relation to carbon dioxide and their relative ability to absorb infrared radiation.
https://www.eartheclipse.com/climate-change/effects-of-greenhouse-gases-on-climate-change.html “Effects of Greenhouse Gases on Climate” This article describes the greenhouse gases. The first sentence of the section on water vapor states “water vapor doesn’t actually have any effect on temperature so it is not rated with a Global Warming Potential”. Two sentences later the article describes the feedback loop: CO2 increase = temperature rise = water vapor increases = water vapor amplifies temperature increase. Confusing at best.
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases “Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Overview of Greenhouse Gases”. There is not one mention of water vapor. I clicked on the Global Warming Potential link and also no mention of water vapor.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/04/water-vapour-feedback-or-forcing/langswitch_lang/in/ and https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2008/02/common-climate-misconceptions-the-water-vapor-feedback-2/ Since it makes no logical sense to me that water vapor can only raise temps after CO2 raises them first, I tried to find articles to explain this theory. Good luck getting through the first article unless you are a climate scientist. They attempt to explain why water vapor should not be included as a greenhouse gas. One of the theories suggests that water vapor is not in the atmosphere long enough to drive climate. This is my question. Water vapor increases and decreases naturally due to normal weather events. Even though the individual molecules come and go, does water vapor’s overall concentration remain reasonably consistent? I will keep digging into this question.
The goal of this exercise was to determine if presentation tricks were occurring. Yes they most certainly are and not just with water vapor. Hopefully as this process continues we will understand why. Let’s sum up the water vapor issue. The Debaters are the only warriors who clearly outline the quantities of each greenhouse gas and water vapor’s ability to absorb infrared radiation. Presenting in this manner shows that the impacts of manmade carbon dioxide are miniscule compared to the warming properties of water vapor and natural carbon dioxide. The Preppers gloss over the quantity and properties of water vapor and believe water vapor’s primary role involves a positive feedback loop initiated by increases in manmade carbon dioxide. The Debaters believe the feedback loop is bad science, NOAA says the feedback loop is unsettled science and the Preppers says it is fact. Confused yet?
The Preppers rarely include water vapor in a chart depicting the atmospheric composition of greenhouse gases. Is this because a chart without water vapor is far more impactful? Or are they trying to keep it simple? Do the Preppers gloss over water vapor because they believe that even in very small quantities carbon dioxide has a huge impact on warming and including water vapor is a distraction? Or are they neglecting one of the many important factors in climate? Same question in reverse. Many Debaters include water vapor which graphically minimizes carbon dioxide. Do they do this to discount the impact of carbon dioxide? And of course the big question is, whose theories are accurate???
Are these presentation tricks utilized for altruistic or nefarious reasons? I don’t know the answers yet. My guess is this. The Grubbers have ulterior motives so convincing the public is critical to avoid, shall we say, an existential threat to their power and cash, ie nefarious. I reckon the rest of the climate warriors truly want everyone to believe what they believe and are doing whatever is necessary to put the best foot forward.
We all learned the composition of the atmosphere in grade school but with recent news I thought carbon dioxide and methane had increased so dramatically the earth was going to burn up. So perhaps a refresher is in order:
“The atmosphere is composed of a mix of several different gases in differing amounts. The permanent gases whose percentages do not change from day to day are nitrogen, oxygen and argon. Nitrogen accounts for 78% of the atmosphere, oxygen 21% and argon 0.9%. Gases like carbon dioxide, nitrous oxides, methane, and ozone are trace gases that account for about a tenth of one percent (0.1%) of the atmosphere. Water vapor is unique in that its concentration varies from 0-4% of the atmosphere depending on where you are and what time of the day it is. In the cold, dry artic regions water vapor usually accounts for less than 1% of the atmosphere, while in humid, tropical regions water vapor can account for almost 4% of the atmosphere. Water vapor content is very important in predicting weather.”[1]
What is a greenhouse gas? When energy leaves earth on the way to outer space, it is in the form of infrared radiation (IR radiation). Some atmospheric gases can absorb IR radiation and some cannot. The ones that do are called greenhouse gases. When a greenhouse gas molecule absorbs IR radiation, the molecules vibrate faster and become “hotter”. They cool off when they reemit the IR radiation. There is a process of absorption and reemission until the gas reaches the upper atmosphere and escapes into space. Repeated absorption and reemission of IR radiation slows down the passage of IR radiation through the atmosphere and it is warmer than it would be otherwise.[2]This is commonly called the greenhouse effect. Global warming theory suggests that increased concentrations of greenhouse gases increase the greenhouse effect and therefore warming.
Keep in mind the greenhouse effect is what makes our planet habitable. Without greenhouse gases temporarily trapping warmth, earth would be one big ball of ice.
The primary greenhouse gases are water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and ozone. The most plentiful greenhouse gas in the atmosphere is water vapor at 27,000 ppmv (parts per million by volume), followed by carbon dioxide which is approximately 415 ppmv and methane at 2ppmv. The figure below graphically displays the composition of the atmosphere. Note there is debate on how much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is man-made. We will dig into that in a future blog.
What I either did not know or forgot is:
Carbon dioxide and methane are a miniscule part of the total atmosphere at .04% and .0002% respectively.
Water vapor is the primary greenhouse gas by a long shot and has an average concentration over the earth of 2.7%.
There are 70 times more water molecules in near-surface air than carbon dioxide molecules and 14,000 more than methane.[3]
Learning that carbon dioxide and methane concentrations are miniscule compared to water vapor was rather eye opening. Then I discovered that everyone seems to agree that fluctuations in carbon dioxide do have an impact. The climate wars rage over the nature and magnitude of the impact. We are now at the end of consensus. It’s a free for all after this…
Composition of Atmosphere, created by Jay Lehr, Ph.D., Senior Policy Analyst for International Climate Science Coalition
The following excerpt dragged me hook, line and sinker into climate research. Is the author a Worrier, Prepper or Grubber? Hard to know. “Saturday’s carbon dioxide measurement of 415 parts per million at Hawaii’s Mauna Loa Observatory is the highest in at least 800,000 years and probably over 3 million years. Carbon dioxide levels have risen by nearly 50 percent since the Industrial Revolution.”[1]
Whoa. Pull the handbrake. The highest in 800,000 years? Inquiring minds want to know, what jacked up the CO2 800,000 years ago? Clearly it was not fossil fuel emissions being belched into the atmosphere. And what brought it down? Certainly not the Green New Deal. What were the temps then vs now?
What does all of this mean? Well the first thing it means is I know nothing about climate science and have no intention of going back to school. So how do we the people make sense of it? Let’s start with some oversimplified basics followed by the claims being bandied about by the competing factions. Will it be obvious which claims are real, which are guesses and which are designed to influence? Maybe. One thing I can guarantee, the upcoming blogs will create a desire to drink heavily.
Before we get started, let’s talk about me. I am sad that I have been yanked out of Sandhead status. But because the claims of the Preppers are so dire, there is no choice but to give global warming serious consideration. Now that I am engaged, my natural personality puts me squarely in the Debater category. I am skeptical of Preppers with claims of earthly doom in 12 years and have only disdain for Grubbers. Everyone else I am good with. This will shine through but unlike the news media, my primary goal is to inform, not influence. Therefore, the positions of all sides will be presented fairly, and I will be clear when offering opinions or jokes or sarcasm or satire.
The earth’s climate is driven primarily by solar energy. It reminds me of a basic dieting principle – calories in, calories out. It is a similar concept with the earth – energy in, energy out and as with our bodies, balance or the lack thereof plays a role. The earth’s energy cycle begins with solar energy entering our atmosphere which is absorbed or reflected. The energy that is absorbed gets busy doing all sorts of things that drive climate and weather. Then the energy radiates back to outer space in the form of infrared radiation (IR). If incoming and outgoing energy are in balance, the earth’s temperature remains constant.[2]
The photo below is from “The Mythology of Global Warming” by Dr. Bruce Bunker and is a simplified version of the earth’s energy cycle which the author adapted from Primer on Solar Energy, Solar Energy Systems, Argonne National Laboratory. Note the title clearly indicates the book was written by a Debater, but because the energy cycle is not a controversial topic and the author did an excellent job of simplifying the energy cycle, I chose to use only this figure and not present another from a Prepper. Mr. Bunker’s far more detailed (and accurate) explanation of the energy cycle is worth the read.
Why is the energy cycle important to understand? Because it leads to the understanding of the basic premise of global warming…
The Energy Cycle from the Mythology of Global Warming by Dr. Bruce Bunker
I decided to dive into climate change data to determine if an unscientific lay person can tease out the relevant facts from the rhetoric. It’s time for regular people to figure this out rather than blindly listening to the head spinning chatter. The proposed climate change solutions are certain to produce massive unintended consequences. Ditto for ignoring pollution.
Another reason to research is that nagging question of motive. I am always suspicious when issues become highly politicized, especially ones that are scientific, complex and impossible to prove. With extreme polarization, chances are excellent that the movers and shakers on each side have an agenda that has zero to do with the topic. The subject is simply the means of manipulation. Is that happening now? We the people must know the answer to this question.
Since our society incessantly attempts to segregate us into groups, let’s follow suit:
Climate Ignorers– These folks have their heads in the sand which is really just fine. They are probably the happiest people among us since they pay no attention whatsoever to the incessant rhetoric and do not stay up nights wondering how everything got so bizarre. How about Sandheads for this group?
Climate Deniers– Self explanatory. One thing that I do know with certainty is that climate is changing, has always changed and always will. Many put the President in this category. Let’s call these folks the Dummies.
Climate Realists– This group of scientists and possibly fossil fuel executives say the temperature and sea level are rising but debate how much, if any, of this rise is caused by human activities. They do not believe the science is settled and question how much impact the increase in CO2 and methane have on warming. They disagree with the projections of the IPCC (International Panel on Climate Change) and believe the solutions put forth by the Green New Deal would do very little to lower temperatures but would succeed in devastating the economy. Interestingly some believe a small rise in temperature will have a positive impact on the planet. They would say the opposite if the planet were cooling. Let’s go with the Debaters for this group.
Climate Disciples– These folks listen to the news, accept everything and are scared. It’s striking how so many things are a result of climate change and conversely how everything we do causes climate change. Some are anxiously wringing their hands wondering when to sell their homes before the rising sea scares off potential buyers. This is easy, they are the Worriers.
Climate Alarmists– The alarmists are the scientists, politicians, celebrities and reporters who say if drastic action is not taken, our planet is doomed. Interestingly most democratic presidential candidates fall in this category. Who knows if they really believe it, but like many politicians they realize that fear is a wonderful marketing tool. They are the doomsday criers, the only ones who can save us, in control of the only “real” science and they feed on the Worriers without mercy. The Green New Deal is the ultimate in doomsday preparation. So let’s call these folks the Preppers.
Climate Opportunists– There is much overlap between the climate opportunists and the Preppers and it is hard to determine who is who. We humans are an incentive driven species and the climate industry has opened many doors for those seeking financial gain. Who on the climate stage is a money grubber? In search of fame? Clamoring for power? These people have a date with karma in their future. They are the Grubbers.
So we have the Sandheads, Dummies, Debaters, Worriers, Preppers and Grubbers. Let’s jump in, learn and have some fun.
Back in the day I enjoyed a short stint as a girl scout. My time was cut short because I asked why the girl scouts were responsible for cleaning up after the boy scouts. Why can’t the boys clean up after themselves so we can do something fun? Rather than a healthy debate, I got a swift kick out the door. No questions allowed. You’re out.
So many years later and not much has changed. Those attempting to control the narrative stifle critical thought via any means possible. Unbelievably one of the more effective methods is still name calling. Nothing shuts the debate down faster than calling someone an “ist”. The tried and true “ist” weapon has been so overused that it has now lost its power and, sadly, its meaning. New “ist” tags have been rolled out with much fanfare but they too will fizzle from relentless misuse.
Agree or not, the article below is thought provoking. It conjures images of snowflakes scrambling for safe spaces, progressives dropping atomic “ist” bombs and conservatives diving for cover. In other words, exactly my kind of article. How about “we the people” start talking.
