After over five years of periodic research and great focus for the past six months, I am finally publishing a four-part essay with video versions. SolarNotBombs.org thoroughly discusses my preferred solutions to environmental problems…as well as the serious lack of observational evidence for the theory of catastrophic man-made climate change, and its consensus.
Here are brief summaries of my four related essays (videos’ total running time: 70 minutes)…
Might we have more than 95% certainty that reallocating preexisting taxes directly for gigawatts of solar technologies would provide profound expansions of the still fledgling solar industry? Not just over many decades, but this year?
If there is already a consensus on man-made climate change and the science is settled, then shouldn’t spending far more directly go into existing solutions instead of continuing to study the problem and potential future solutions. What if ALL Federal Climate Change Funding had gone directly into purchasing solar technologies? If we had chosen this strategy in 1993, the total value of U.S. solar installations would have been about $132 billion larger in 2013, about 10 times larger than our current solar capacity. If we had devoted half of the military budget since 1993, the total value of U.S. solar installations would have been closer to $5.8 trillion larger in 2013, about 416 times larger than our current solar capacity (141% of consumption needs).
We are maybe halfway through the first experiment/test of the theory of the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming Models (CAGWM). IF ‘the data is in’, the ‘science is settled’, and the relevant time period of this experiment is only 25 years, then we could more confidently reject the theory than endorse it based on the data observed thus far. I would stop blanket ridiculing all “skeptics” on principle, and definitely stop using the emotionally charged label “deniers.” This kind of attitude has greatly helped fuel some of our domestic renewable enemies between the divided and conquered left and right.
I wanted to take a closer look at the 97% climate change consensus study seen everywhere. What surprised me most?..Scientific Consensus on Climate Change: 0.6% of papers endorse a position which can be proven false, quantifiably. It is far more interesting and informative to look at the subset of peer-reviewed papers which the Cook et al. 2013 meta-analysis claims to have actually provided a quantified position endorsing or rejecting the theory.
Claiming ‘consensus’ and ‘settled science’ decades before observations can firmly endorse or reject the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming Models is hurting the credibility of the scientific method in public discourse. Furthermore, if outgrowing fossil fuels is politically dependent on such a complex climate theory requiring so many more decades to be verified, it is extremely vulnerable to failure. We need – and have – better reasons than this one theory. “Solar Not Bombs” is not a think tank nor any type of organization. It is just a bumper-sticker-level catch phrase for my proposed solutions.
… My Motives, Potential Motives for Scientists, Potential Motives for Oligarchs, Final Personal Thoughts…