When a scientific truth is used as religious dogma, it is the duty of healthy people to rebel. And this is due to the fact that religious dogma is ALWAYS harmful, even when it seems to support or be supported to a scientific measure.
In the case of the problem of climate change it is necessary, in this case, to divide science from religion, dividing the work of scientists who study atmospheric terrestrial heating and the work of IPCC scoundrels trying to propose solutions.
Because the problem of climate change has two aspects:
- Examination of the causes and patterns that link anthropogenic activity to the increase in temperature of the atmosphere.
- The production of countermeasures, solutions or methods to mitigate the impact of anthropic activity.
On the first point I believe that by now there are no doubts, or almost: the models used to establish the relationship between anthropic activity and temperature increase are quite consistent. I say "enough" because very little is known about solar behavior and underground activity, including complex interactions between the earth's magnetic field and solar radiation.
However, since these are factors that have evolutions in very long times (geological eras due to changes in the inner layers of the planet, and billions of years due to changes in solar behavior), the models that attribute anthropogenic activity to the Greenhouse effects are quite credible. Also because the environmental problem is not only due to CO2, there are many other human activities that impact, from the pollution of the oceans to deforestation, the destruction of savannahs and African grasslands due to the intensive breeding of goats, and so on.
So far, let's say "all pretty well", within the limits of scientific investigation, honest work has been done.
Then the politicians arrive, the IPCC comes into play and there is talk of solutions. And here the bullshit rains. I give an example among many to better understand:
This graph shows how, using a mix of politics and mathematics, we can create highly misleading charts that have a specific purpose.
The trick with which IPCC produces a graph that indicates some as guilty and "absolves" others is to calculate the "per capita" CO2 production.
In terms of the physics of the atmosphere it is a boiata. The increase in temperature depends on the ABSOLUTE amount of CO2, and not on that per capita: that to produce that CO2 is a person (Nino d'Angelo, for simplicity ') or a billion people do not change anything.
Furthermore, this graph introduces another non-physical element into the problem, which is the "country". From the point of view of atmospheric physics, there is nothing like "country", because the fact that C02 is produced by a dude (Nino d'Angelo, for simplicity) rather than by caio (Semper Nino d'Angelo, for simplicity ') nothing changes.
And do not think that this observation is a quibble: a wrong calculation method ALWAYS corresponds to an error in the application. It means that if you deal badly, you will end up producing "bogus solutions".
I give you an example of "bogus solutions" that can derive from that graph:
- Apparently from the graph, a population increase in Russia, America and Europe would solve the problem . By calculating the CO2 per capita , if in only 12 years every American, European and Russian brought 6 children into the world, the production of CO2 per capita would collapse. This catastrophic error is induced by the LOGICAL error of introducing into the scientific discourse an irrelevant entity in the physics of the planet, the " per capita ".
- Also according to the graph, a series of invasions with the annexation of the territories could solve the problem as well. It would be enough for China, Russia, America and Europe to invade "the rest of the world", annexing the territory and expanding its borders, and the graph would improve greatly. This is the result of mixing a "non-physical" concept, ie "country", into physics.
- According to the same graph, even a series of migrations could go. If we move 1 billion people in the USA, as many in Europe and in Russia (which has empty territory to strafottere), taking them from "rest of the world", the chart would improve a lot and the solution would seem much closer. This is the result of the mistake of mixing the concept of "citizenship" with physics, which then derives from "country".
- According to the graph, we could improve the problem by breaking countries. If we divided the countries, say by disconnecting the American West Coast from the country, and thrust the Greater California into the "rest of the world", the situation in the USA would improve greatly, while "the rest of the world" would have little impact, given that it contains billions of people, on which we would spread the few tens of millions of very polluting GranCalifornians.
NONE OF THE THREE "BASE SOLUTIONS" WOULD CHANGE THE TOTAL CO2 BALANCE. THEREFORE, THAT GRAPHIC IS MISSING AND CANNOT REPRESENT A BASE FOR A RATIONAL REFLECTION.
Could one make graphics even more difficult to sgam? Sure. It would be enough to calculate the waste, that is the C02 that could be saved if it were optimized. The solution would be to calculate the quantity of C02 in relation to the quantity of energy produced, that is to go from "Co2 per capita" to "CO2 per kilowatt hour". This would clearly show which countries have more room for improvement, because they would show those who produce CO2 because they did not want to improve energy production.
But even this would not be honest: once again, it is the absolute volume of Co2 that causes the problem, whether it is produced to produce energy or to sing shitty songs (Nino d'Angelo, for simplicity), nothing changes. The physical effect is always the same.
And the error would be evident in practice: if we calculate CO2 per kilowatt hour, we could improve the graph simply by combining the CO2 sources of clean sources, increasing the amount of kilowatt-hours: once again, a wrong graph produces a fake solution.
I think you understand where I want to go:
the problem is not "if we understand the problem". The problem is "if the solutions we are proposing solve it".
The trouble is that while we understand the problem we rely on science, and we had an "acceptably precise" answer (I repeat: we know very little about what happens under the earth's crust, and we understand very little about the Sun), to imagine the solution we are relying on pure charlatans, that is, a body that depends on the UN (do you remember the ones who gave Saudi Arabia the chair of the human rights committee? Those.), that is an institution that has an agenda policy.
And then, to religious dogma we need to start making fleas. Of course, everyone wants us to focus on the problem, and then everyone talks about climate change skeptics against scientists.
But no one is wondering how scientifically based the political methods for SOLUTION are
The only "honest" person seems to be Greta Thunberg, who says "hey, we know there is the problem because science tells us (and says it), now it is up to you" adults "to find a solution". This works, at least for another two years, after which 'Greta will be of age and will touch her too, and she will have a way to pass by our side and show us how she does it. Courage, Greta, it doesn't miss much and you can shine with heroic deeds !!!
Now we need to say things as they are: the decision to calculate the per capita Co2 is a "clever mathematics" that serves to produce a nice POLITICAL graphic. That graph points the finger at the current powers (it 's amazing how it got into Russia: that has 150 million inhabitants in a territory one sixth of the land area. If every nation had the same population density, we wouldn't have the problem even if we used the heating of the SUV to heat the house ), and it is absolutely clear that the graph does not indicate CO2 production at all: apparently, it merely describes the military influence of each country.
And it is absolutely clear that the choice to make the division between CO2 and population has no scientific value, for the reasons I explained above: that chart has a POLITICAL purpose, and it is to give responsibility to the countries that have the most influence military. Moreover, the chart blames the members of the Security Council fairly well, leaving the others in the "rest of the world".
And this is the biggest obstacle to change: if we analyzed the physics of the atmosphere well enough when we talked about analyzing the problem, in describing the solutions the hand goes to the politicians, who use mathematical tricks that are not too complex to carry on the usual third-world agenda of the UN.
Not for nothing, we spent the summer accusing Brazil of letting the Amazon forest burn: the graph, however, suggests that Brazil is just a very innocent "rest of the world" nation.
I'm sorry to say, but we'll have to wait another two years, when Greta will be an adult, and then an adult, and she can solve the problem with her own hands. As today, he is clamoring for "adults" to solve the problem, we are sure that as an adult he will know how to do it.
Just wait two years, and then Greta will be an adult, and she can do what she asks adults to do today. Unless you're just throwing the ball into someone else's field, you mean.