How to tell that the climate alarmists aren't serious
It's the math!
I ask you: if someone proposes a (ridiculous) solution to an "existential problem" that has no chance of success, should we be forced to take the problem seriously?
If the climate alarmists truly believe there is a climate emergency, then they should be able to answer the first basic question about "the plan." Will the plan even remotely make any difference in man-made emissions? Remember that based on their screeching, we have less than twelve years (or maybe 8, 5, 3) before we all die from "man-made climate change." And the plan should include sacrifice from everyone to save the planet.
If man-made climate change is an existential problem, the problem of a generation, then you would expect all major contributors to the climate problem to contribute to the solution. But, alas, no. China seems to be exempt from actually reducing emissions. Now, is that significant?
Let's look at a chart:
Country CO2 Emissions Total
United States: 5,285
Korea, Rep.: 611
Saudi Arabia: 582
Total Top 10: 23,950
CO2 reported in Million MtCO2e.
Today, China accounts for 42% of the emissions from the top 10 CO2 emissions–producers. If man-made climate change is the existential problem of our time, you would assume that China would be a mandatory participant in the climate accords to cut emissions, but you would be wrong. China is not. As a matter of fact, China plans to increase its CO2 emissions, and by one account, it would average 13,800 over the next five years (the estimate for China's CO2 emissions are 12,900 to 14,700 Million MtCO2e).
If you truly believe there is a man-made climate problem, then it is ridiculous to think it can be solved by allowing the #1 producer in the world, responsible for 42% of the top 10 emitters, to increase production 10–24% over the next 5–10 years. Look at the next table to see that if the top 10 decrease CO2 emissions by 15% and China just achieves the average increase estimated above, the overall top 10 emissions will increase by 4%.
Environmental Data 15% Reduction
United States: 4,228
Korea, Rep.: 489
Saudi Arabia: 466
China will become 50+% of the top 10 within 5 years, and overall emission will increase 4% from the top 10, and that assumes that India and Russia follow through on their commitments.
What do these data really tell us? China's projected increase in emissions will overwhelm the projected decrease in emissions if the other top 9 achieve their 15% goals. What? But how can that be? This is the existential problem of our time. How can any nation be allowed to significantly increase emissions, especially the country that is currently by far the worlds #1 emitter?
For those who say the globalists have a plan, I can assure you based on this high-level math that they do not have a serious plan to address "man-made climate change." Therefore, why are they pushing this agenda and this ridiculous solution? What kind of plan do they really have?
Without the magic wand referenced repeatedly by globalists, allowing China to increase emissions at a time that you are asking other countries to sacrifice with proposed reductions is a totally ridiculous and unserious solution to the man-made climate change problem. The real question then becomes, why are Western nations being asked to sacrifice in this way? I think we have to "follow the money" to find out. China increases manufacturing capability to produce the green products needed by the West. It increases this capacity while significantly increasing emissions of the very gases the rest of the world are trying to cut. Cutting Western energy consumption will hurt Western economies, and allowing China to increase energy consumption will allow its economy to expand. This solution to man-made climate change is nonsensical, unless this solution is really a financial reordering. China seems to be the only country truly benefiting from the current green plans.
Personally, I will continue the work on the math problems and real science to dispel the myth of "man-made climate change." I recommend we not listen to people who are unwilling or unable to complete basic math problems when solving for this so-called crisis. Pushing a solution that benefits the number-one polluter in the world is unserious. The proposed unserious solutions will do nothing to help the supposed problem.
Science is nothing without proper math. The proposed cuts will have no impact, because the plan is not based on proper math. To get the right answer, please remember — it's math!
Maker S. Mark (a pseudonym) is a patriot who can understand and explain advanced math and science and is worried about the state of the nation and how to solve the problems we face. United we stand, divided we fall.
Image via Public Domain Pictures.