My Thoughts On The Climate Debacle

I believe it would be a mistake for us to not make a stand on this, given the massive, unnecessary and destructive changes that are being demanded by a volatile minority of people on the back of that unproven science and hyped media.

The profound increases in obesity and metabolic diseases we see as a result of incorrect nutrition science being forced on people over the past half century will pale in comparison with the damage that will be done if carbon tax goes ahead as alarmists are demanding.

Men, it has been well said, think in herds;

it will be seen that they go mad in herds,

while they only recover their senses slowly,

one by one.

Charles MacKay

Scottish poet, journalist, novelist, songwriter.

Extraordinary Delusions and the Madness of Crowds

There is NO Consensus

The first and foremost order of business needs to be the public acknowledgement that there is indeed no consensus.  The alarmists would have us believe that there is a consensus.  They use this as massive leverage to make us accept that we must acquiesce to their demands.

If there is no consensus then we can have a proper debate and public opinion can become more balanced.  Remember, a democracy is only as good as how well informed the public is.

It’s hard to appreciate that we continue to be lied to, that science is no longer science because one whole side has and is being shut down.  We can however remember the stories of Copernicus and Galileo and the Catholic Church about who got to decide whether the sun moved around the earth or the earth moved around the sun. We laugh at it now. And it’s easy to see how wrong the church was and how right Copernicus and Galileo were. It’s sadly ironic that nearly 500 years later Papa Francesco is not taking this moment to learn from history and instead follow in the path of belief rather than science, goaded along by the deluded “scientists” of the day.

So let’s look at the ‘science’ supposedly behind the 97% consensus. I’ll refer you to one of the main sources that is quoted to supposedly ‘confirm’ the idea of a 97% consensus.

You can read the paper here

This paper is so bad in it’s conclusions that it actually defies belief as to how it came to be one of the main 3 papers supporting the erroneous belief in a 97% consensus. The beginning of the manipulation is obvious in the abstract as quoted here.

We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no opinion at AGW.  AGW – Anthropogenic/Human caused Global Warming.

32.6% endorsed AGW with no agreement on severity.

0.7% rejected AGW.

And 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming.

You can read on in the paper to see how they manipulated this data by eliminating the 66.4% completely. They basically said that, because 66.4% of 11,944 papers ‘expressed no position on AGW’ that they shouldn’t be counted at all! How on earth can that be justifiable? And then they played with the 32.6% to get the 97% and called that consensus. That has to be truly unforgivable and crooked science. It’s like the Nazi’s saying well because those 66.4% are Jews, their opinions don’t count.

I will play out this Nazi-Jewish scenario throughout this article as a combative response to alarmists labelling anyone who disagrees that the science is settled on AGW as a DENIER! I for one resent my fully thought out and heart felt opinions being disregarded. How indeed DARE THEY?

You can read more about the 97% consensus delusion here, here and here.

Or if you’d prefer a short video:

Who Can You Trust? 

Various good friends of mine won’t trust science that has been funded, even a small amount, by the oil, gas, mining or farming industries. The same friends will trust government funded science and seem unable to see the control and bias in that industry and put the same weight of distrust on that.

The amount of money we’ve been throwing at the climate debacle from our taxes is already obscene. And it is only set to increase with the carbon taxes, while at the same time doing nothing for the environment and everything for some peoples pockets and a deeper, very likely sinister, agenda.

It’s pretty obvious when you look into it that the peer review process is broken. Any scientist suggesting anything other than AGW is real, is effectively sidelined. A good case in point is Prof Peter Ridd from Queensland Australia. This is a long interview but I feel it gives a good look into Peter and his request for an accountable peer review process.  Because it is long, you may want to come back to it, knowing it’s here for you to look into, and read on.

The problem here is that the alarmists are pushing for action NOW and they are laser focused. They want to disrupt what they see as the problem. The fact they could be wrong about that doesn’t enter their heads as warranting attention. So we have to be as laser focused in reply. There is NO time to wait with this reply as the measures they want us to take will have devastating effects. But that looks like the plan of those that would like to be in power.  

This I see is our Battle of Britain. The moment has come to stand up and be counted. We can no longer stand in the wings afraid of the response of the brownshirts, those that hit on anyone they consider a ‘denier’, to our speaking out.

We certainly can’t trust a lost and frightened girl.  As every conscious parent knows, emotional manipulation in an inappropriate context needs to be stood up to.

Countering Incorrect Science

If you like books, here are a two top picks for you…

Inconvenient Facts – Gregory Wrightstone

https://inconvenientfacts.xyz

I’ve put this first along with the Chapter headings below, because in one quick swoop you can see all the incorrect science. If these things are all correct then hopefully you can get the magnitude of the deception.  I recommend you read each chapter heading slowly and thoughtfully.

1. CO2 is not the primary greenhouse gas. (Water vapour is)
2. The warming effect of CO2 declines as its concentration increases.
3. First and foremost CO2 is plant food.
4. In the last 4 ice ages the CO2 level was dangerously low.
5. 140 million year trend of dangerously decreasing CO2.
6. Our current geologic period, Quaternary, has the lowest average CO2 levels in the history of the earth.
7. More CO2 means more plant growth.
8. More CO2 helps to feed more people worldwide.
9. More CO2 means moister soil.
10. Recent inconvenient pause of 18 years in warming despite rise in CO2.
11. CO2 rose after the Second Wold War but temperature fell.
12. Modern warming began long before SUV’s or coal fired plants.
13. Melting glaciers and rising seas confirm warming predated increases of CO2.
14. Temperatures have changed for 800,000 years, it wasn’t us.
15. Interglacials usually last 10,000 to 15,000 years.  Ours is 11,000 years old.
16. Each of the 4 previous interglacial warming periods were significantly warmer than our current temperature.
17. The last interglacial, about 120,000 years ago was 8 degrees Celsius, 14.4 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than today.  The polar bears survived.  Greenland didn’t melt.
18. Temperatures changed during the past 10,000 years.  It wasn’t us.
19. Today’s total warming and warming rate are similar to earlier periods.
20. It was warmer than today for 6,100 of the last 10,000 years.
21. Our current trend is neither unusual nor unprecedented.
22. Earth’s orbit and tilt drive glacial interglacial changes.
23. We are living in one of the coldest periods in all of earth’s history.
24. Earth has not had a geologic period this cold in 250 million years.
25. The only thing constant about temperatures over 600 million years is that they have been constantly changing.  This is a recurring inconvenient fact.
26. For most of earth’s history it was about 10 degrees celsius, 18 degrees Fahrenheit, warmer than today.
27. IPCC models overstate future warming up to 3x too much.
28. For human advancement, warmer is better than colder.
29. A return to the temperature at the beginning of the industrial revolution would lead to famine and death.
30. Only about 0.3% of published scientists stated in their papers that recent warming was mostly man made.
31. Science is not consensus and consensus is not science.
32. More CO2 implies fewer droughts.
33. Higher temperatures implies fewer droughts.
34. Forest fires across the northern hemisphere are decreasing.
35. More CO2 leads to more CO2 fertilisation leads to more soil moisture leads to faster tree growth leads to fewer forest fires.
36. More CO2 in the atmosphere means more food for everyone.
37. The earth is becoming greener not turning into desert.
38. Growing seasons are lengthening.
39. More CO2 and warmer weather mean more world food production.
40. EPA heat waves are not becoming more frequent.
41. Extreme heat events are declining.
42. Cold kills far more people every year than heat.
43. Warmer weather means many fewer temperature related deaths.
44. Warmer weather prevents millions of premature deaths each year.
45. More CO2 and warmth means shorter and less intense heatwaves.
46. Number of tornadoes is declining.
47. The number of tornadoes in 2016 was the lowest on record.
48. Deaths from tornadoes are falling.
49. There has been no increase in frequency of hurricanes in recent data.
50. We have seen 250 years of declining hurricane frequency.
51. No significant increase in hurricane intensity due to warming.
52. The population of polar bears is growing.
53. There are more polar bears than we’ve had for 50 years.
54. Polar bears are thriving even where sea ice is diminishing.
55. There is no historic correlation between CO2 and oceanic pH.
56. The oceans did not become acidic even at 15x modern CO2 levels.
57. Sea level increase began more than 15,000 years ago.
58. Recent sea level rise began 150 years before the increase in CO2.
59. Melting the northern polar ice cap would not increase sea level.
60. Most of Antartica is cooling and gaining ice mass.

Global Warming Skepticism For Busy People – Roy Spencer PhD

If you want a quicker read see what this Climatologist and former NASA Scientist has to say.

My YouTube Playlist

If you prefer video here are some of the people I trust.  You can follow their YouTube channels from there to keep yourself up to date.

We Certainly Shouldn’t Trust Liars

When a scientist lies to the world on the level that this one has I don’t believe we can accept anything he continues to say as gospel. Yet the folk from Extinction Rebellion do exactly that.

A major part of Al Gore’s first movie was Michael Mann’s hockey stick effect. The one where it said temperature was rising in response to CO2 and the earth couldn’t handle much more of a rise. The one that all the carbon taxes are based on. The fact that it was fabricated purposefully to minimise the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age should tell you something about his integrity. This was shown in court and there is a book about it where even scientists that believe in some degree of man made warming think that his paper is despicable.

Read about it here:

And a bright cartoonist can show it like it is very quickly:

The trust of the innocent is the liars most useful tool.

 Stephen King

We should be wary of warm mongers.

Warm mongers, is a play on words, combining the idea of those afraid of impending doom from their erroneous belief in catastrophic man made climate warming, with war mongers. Which indeed they are.

They want to wage war and disrupt life as it is, as they cannot conceive of anything but impending doom unless we change and change fast.  The fact that they have made extraordinary amounts of money and own ocean front property should make us wonder if they believe their lies at all?  Especially when their dire predictions, necessitating massive and expensive public action, are often ‘inconveniently’ proven wrong with the passage of time.

Dr John Robson’s last question in the video below, should make us all pause for deep thought on who to trust and pay attention to: 

Did The Little Ice Age exist?  

Because, if so, any theory that says it didn’t is in a heap of trouble. 

Two Graphs To Settle All Questions

For me the fear of human caused global warming should take a good dive into an ice bath with these two graphs.

Source:   http://www.climate4you.com  

I trust you’ll appreciate that all this happened long, long before any gas guzzling SUV’s and CO2 emissions could be mistakenly blamed for the prior warming that led to it being green enough for the Vikings to farm, in the first place.   Which was why Michael Mann tried to eliminate it as if it never happened, as I shared above.

Then it was warmer still in the Roman warm period, 2000 years ago.

And still warmer again in the Minoan Warm Period 3-3,500 years ago.

The earth appears to have survived all that quite well, I would have thought, by the looks to it.  So, forgive me for being sceptical and cynical when I see bought scientists and political weight being set forth to further tax and enslave the masses for a crime they may not be committing.

You can see in the same time frame over the last 11,000 years in the red graph line that while temperatures have been varying, as we’ve been moving through the current inter glacial peak,  that atmospheric CO2 has been moving independently to temperature.

The Problem With Models

A model can be a useful idea but they are only useful to the extent their fundamental suppositions reflect reality, as William Briggs shares in this video on the limitation of pandemic models.  The same applies to those infamous climate models.

If those suppositions don’t reflect reality then we shouldn’t be using them to beat the population into submission to the tyrannical climate gods.  How can a model reflect reality when it doesn’t factor in the full effects of water vapour and clouds?  Especially given that water vapour makes up 95% of all greenhouse gases and CO2 makes up only 3.6%.  And even more especially when you understand that only 0.9% of that 3.6%, or 0.1164% of the total greenhouse gases is produced by us humans compared to that whopping 95% of water vapour.  That’s less than a tenth of the size of the red section in this pie chart below.  How on earth can a little sliver like that really affect the whole?  At least they grudgingly admit that clouds are one of the largest sources of uncertainty in the GCMs.  But do they listen to scientists that aim to clarify that?

When a strong magnetic field comes out of the sun, fewer cosmic rays spray the earth.  That means fewer clouds to keep us cool.  While a lazy sun, with a weak magnetic field, lets in more cosmic rays from the stars.  And in the air they make more clouds.  That’s how the stars and the sun control the earth’s cloudiness.

The more low clouds there are, the cooler the temperature is.  You experience that on a daily basis, don’t you?

As Nir Shaviv, an Israeli astrophysicist, shares in the latter part of this fascinating documentary, this process is further intensified when our solar system moves through the spiral arms of the Milky Way Galaxy.  More cosmic rays as we move through the spiral arms means colder periods during those transits.  Thankfully we have a seriously long time to go before we enter the next one.  But it does add credence to the point that clouds are more affected by what is coming into our atmosphere from space than from what man puts into our atmosphere from the earth.  That 0.1164%.

As well as the cosmic radiation, the solar flares and the passage through the spiral arms of the Milky Way, Valentina Zharkova added a further nuance of the effects of the sun on our earth’s climate and temperature with her work into the elliptical path the earth takes around our sun.

One other problem with the climate models is that they assume the distance between the sun and the earth is a constant, i.e. it doesn’t vary and if it did vary it wouldn’t matter.  But what if it did vary and that variation did matter?

Valentina Zharkova on the sun driving climate change

Not Long To Wait?

Hopefully the last word will be had, very shortly, by the climate itself, before we really do ruin the economy, or even the climate itself, by our mad imaginings.

We entered the next Maunder Minimum in 2020 and thus began a 37 year journey around our sun with minimal sunspot activity.  As Henrik said above: a lazy sun, with a weak magnetic field, lets in more cosmic rays from the stars.  And in the air they make more clouds. More clouds means lower temperatures.

Thankfully this solar minimum is only half the length of the last Maunder Minimum that corresponded with the ‘Little’ Ice Age.  As much as I like skiing I’d rather not extend the season that much because, like many, I prefer my temperature warm.

This cooling period Valentina says is set to peak in the 2030’s and the 2040’s.  We will hopefully nip this CO2 insanity in the bud long before that.  But if we don’t we should be aware that the powers that be may want to claim that it was all those costly measures they forced on us that made the earth cooler.  If that happens we should not let them get away with taking credit for a natural expected process.  More importantly, given that we are tropical animals that do much better in the warm and struggle to survive in the cold, we should be preparing for this cooling period now.

Hopefully we won’t be misdirected by the climate zealots and caught wanting when it comes to this preparation.  But either way, in the very near future, we’ll get to definitively answer the question whether our sun or humankind is the primary driver of our climate. My bet is on our sun and on planet earth’s relationship to the hottest body in the solar system.

Final Thoughts

Sometimes we have to seriously take ourselves in hand, deeply question our ‘precious’ beliefs and face our fears as the rampant monsters they are.

For those of you immersed in fear of impending doom:

Have the courage to do nothing.

For those of you afraid of the climate inquisition:  

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men and women to do nothing.

Edmunde Burke

For Everyone:

Boldly and directly question those taking us down the path to ruin.