There’s no global warming spiralling out of control, and our climate is predominantly driven by the Sun.
I didn’t really want to write any of this, to be honest. The whole subject of carbon dioxide (CO2) is cult-like (characteristics 1, 2, 3, 9 and 10 especially) and goes against everything that science is meant to be. It is heresy to question the official narrative and have an open and informed debate because, apparently, there is only one approved set of data which can never be challenged, and you’re just wrong wrong wrong, you just are, ok?
The short clip below is the perfect example of the mindset. Here, an individual (who happens to be a professor in climatology, but who could be anyone, really) speaking with the calm of someone with the confidence of facts on his side. To be loudly and rudely interrupted by another individual with the shrieking out-of-control voice that only someone with nothing to refute said facts with can muster — and this was an interviewer!
Professor Michaels was a believer in anthropogenic global warming (AGW), but did not believe that it could ever happen at a level to ever cause concern. RIP Prof..
For the record, I do not believe in AGW. [I do believe that the Sun drives our climate more than a trace atmospheric gas could, and will provide evidence for this in following post(s).]
But to mention CO2 in any positive sense whatsoever evokes such emotions that I deliberately understated my thoughts in my recent carbon-dioxide-related posts here, here, and possibly here. I left it to the reader to pursue — or not — the links to videos mentioned in passing, which backed these thoughts, and to decide for themselves.
That really was where I wanted to leave it — lead the horse to water but don’t pour it down his throat if he isn’t thirsty! — but then a long-time reader emailed in all politeness to say that global warming is a concern. I said I obviously had not made it clear as to why it really wasn’t, and would write another post outlining my reasons. This is that post.
Or rather, series of posts. It became very clear very quickly that this was never going to be covered thoroughly in just one post!
If you wish to know why I say this, and are genuinely prepared to be receptive to my reasoning, then please do follow along over the next few weeks, where I shall be providing plenty of evidence. By ‘evidence’ I mean charts and graphs that have not been fabricated with false inputs at worst, or cherrypicked and truncated at convenient places at best. (You’ll see what I mean.)
Politicisation and Vested Interests
Honestly, if you don’t realise just how political and vested-interest this entire topic is, you soon will, if you sincerely wish to discover this for yourself.
In fact, let’s start right here, where we see Larry, Curly, Moe and Moe-ette completely humiliate themselves in not knowing the very simple answer to a very simple question. And not just not know, but not know by orders of magnitude!
The answer is revealed within two minutes of this video, as well as the amount of CO2 at which plants will start to die. Which number frightens you more?
Bear in mind that these joking, laughing, completely clueless and obviously unaccountable fools are making ill-informed and ignorant knee-jerk decisions for sheer political gain, which will affect countless ordinary people never asked for their input, and with who-knows how much taxpayer money at their disposal:
What an absolute disgrace.
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools
- Romans 1:22-32, King James Version
It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it.
- Upton Sinclair
1934 December 11, Oakland Tribune, I, Candidate for Governor and How I Got Licked by Upton Sinclair, Quote Page 19, Column 3, Oakland, California. (Newspapers_com)
The ‘Consensus’ Over Time
With a nod to Professor Michael above and his ‘baby-on-stomach baby-on-back’ analogy, in going through 50 years of failed predictions here, it seems that the ‘consensus’ of the 1970s was of an imminent ice-age due by now, but by the 1980s the ‘consensus’ was switching to one of rising temperatures instead, also by about now.
Readers older than me may remember Paul Ehrlich — not the 1908 Nobel Prize-winning German scientist who discovered a cure for syphilis and did some amazing microscopy work— the other one famous for his 1968 book The Population Bomb.
“Everyone will disappear in a cloud of blue steam by 1989.”
- Paul Ehrlich, 1969
Yes, he really did say this.
Now, apparently, global warming is leading to a rise in home-runs in baseball.
1. Who genuinely believes this nonsense?
2. Do they say and write this garbage with a straight face?
Fun fact: Soylent Green was set in 2022!
Today the ‘consensus’ is that temperatures are going to rise uncontrollably if we don’t stop emitting CO2. As lectured to us non-stop by paid teenagers (!), actors (!) and politicians (!) who routinely get around in private jets, limos and yachts, and who, as far as I can tell, still exhale.
Sorry, I can’t resist sharing this one — how dare we indeed…
Either, if not both, of the photos top-right and centre-right of African kids look a lot like those in pictures and videos of ‘artisan mining’ in the Democratic Republic of Congo. This is how a significant amount of the cobalt for electric vehicle batteries is obtained by the way. This lady and her investigative team told the world a year ago:
Back to skimming those 50 failed predictions. I noticed with much interest the claim “But the number of hot days in the DC area peaked in 1911, and have been declining ever since.” (Search the page for that sentence to see the graph immediately below, or view it and others here instead.)
Why did it leap out at me? Because Australia too was much hotter and peaking at around the same time. The short video below shows screenshot after screenshot of temperature data as reported at the time, in some cases going back to 1877. By all means pause to absorb the tables and graphs at your own pace:
People with doubts about the claims that the Australian Government Bureau of Meteorology has been hiding data can peruse these pages if interested:
The heat is on. Bureau of Meteorology ‘altering climate figures’ — The Australian
The Australian Bureau of Met hides 50 years of very hot days
Scandal: Australian Bureau of Meteorology caught erasing cold temperatures
The Bureau of Meteorology finds Australia is still getting colder a century later
Just while here, one metric I use routinely to ascertain the quality of a page or site is to scrutinise the comments (if any) — an informative and quality site is going to be frequented by knowledgeable types confirming, questioning, or contradicting the content via civil discourse. And it’s often a great way to get somewhat up to speed on an unfamiliar field too!
The comment below leapt out at me because I had heard the exact same claim elsewhere, but in the USA. (I’ve even seen a map of thermometer stations aligned with airports and military bases, but unfortunately can’t find it to link here.) I couldn’t believe my luck to see this Australian example, so let’s let this comment speak for itself:
January 22, 2022 at 2:11 pm
The original thermometer for Brisbane was housed at the old Wickham tce windmill site, then in the 80’s, due to ‘urban heat island’ effects, it was moved to Brisbane Airport, I wonder what effect this had on average readings, because what do you find at airports, hectares of concrete and asphalt and jet exhausts.
Why is there this culture of vested interests and of hiding/manipulating data — for a trace gas of 0.04% (400 ppm) atmospheric concentration? (I will be showing plenty of examples in future posts.)
The amounts of research money available to ‘prove’ global warming are insane. (More on this later.) The amounts to ‘disprove’ global warming, not so much. Science is a vey competitive field, and there’s a saying ‘publish or perish’. Of course fresh-faced graduates are going to follow the money if they have any hope of advancing their careers. And once in, they may well fall into the classic trap whereby
“It’s hard to find a cure for [X] when your whole career depends on you NOT finding a cure for [X].”
But that really isn’t a satisfying answer, is it? That is a cause of the funding, not the reason for it. Why are there bucket loads of funds to pursue this agenda in the first place? Who, or what, is benefitting?
It makes no sense whatsoever, does it?
Until you realise one very simple concept: that where a public decision makes no sense, perhaps it’s driven by evil.
And this is a very hard concept to grasp, that there really are people out there who are pure evil, and who deliberately set out to hurt others for their own advancement. But once you see — better yet, experience — it for yourself, you can never unsee it.
Here is one example: “This is how rice is hurting the planet.” How evil is this? Attempting to guilt-trip half the world, which grows a staple which feeds half the world, into believing that they are contributing to planet destruction. Rice has been sustainably farmed, in many cases, in the same paddies going back millennia, and puts many Western agricultural practices to shame. Apparently it is so very bad to use so much water to grow rice, yet perfectly okay to use so much more water to mine lithium, despite diverting water supplies from local communities and turning their regions into deserts.
And more frightening still: the infamous 15 minute smart cities. This is underway in Oxfordshire, England, and residents, who were never consulted, will be fined £70 per car should there be more than 100 trips outside their ‘designated’ zone per year. You have a household with three cars, all needed for work? Those 100 trips are per household, not per car.
The residents aren’t too happy about this. Some take things into their own hands:
This is the real reason as to why there is so much money available to research global warming, and why we are relentlessly bombarded with hysterical gloom and doom stories everywhere. Control. The more ‘they’ can convince ordinary people that we are all going to die from our carbon emissions, the easier it is to tax, regulate, and restrict activities, and push totalitarian control mechanisms on us.
The outcome from all of these is the worst evil of all: children and teenagers becoming depressed, anxious and even suicidal over what they are lead to believe is no hope for their future at all — ’[…]a rising number of kids and young adults are being treated with psychiatric drugs in order to reduce the emotional stress and exhaustion caused by “eco-anxiety,” or, a fervent fear that humans will go extinct as a result of their own pollution and damage to the environment‘.
Some may be motivated to enter universities, thinking they’ll do their part to save the world. They will simply become part of the problem:
Global warming skeptics are never believed, because there is no obvious reason why world governments and organisations would be so evil. And yet they are - I just gave some examples. (Still more involve electric cars, solar panels, windmills and smart meters, but those would be a whole post itself.) Once you see the push for a literal neo-feudalistic world, you can never unsee it.
Any time you hear yet more fear pοrn concerning ‘global warming’ or ‘carbon emissions’ or ‘rising temperatures’, just ask yourself cui bono? (who benefits?). Odds are the ’solution’ being proposed won’t benefit you in any way, but will benefit governments via taxpayer money, regulations, new laws, and gross inconveniences and changes to ordinary people’s daily lives.
Preach it, MEP Cristian Terheș!
Please help me buy a plant if you found this article interesting or useful!
Comment from: Member
There are always two (and sometimes more) sides to a discussion and time usually resolves the issue one way or the other.
On this particular matter it seems that 97% or so are on one side and a small minority of 3% or so are on the other (obviously these levels of percentages quoted can also be argued over as to their accuracy).
I personally disagree with the general thrust presented here but give credit to the author for a well written and well researched presentation on a difficult to understand and quite divisive matter which has been gaining worldwide accelerating momentum for some years now. I particularly agree that the aggressive/abusive ways some people approach this topic as depicted above do little for their cause and in some respects turn otherwise sympathetic observers towards the opposite argument.
Regarding who is right or who is wrong is problematic. Irrespective if you are of the 97% or the 3% there are always well-argued articles available on both sides as support to each side’s perspective.
Carbon Dioxide is the culprit here. As mentioned it comprises some 0.04% of Earth’s atmosphere. I am very very far from being a scientist but my readings and research over many years tell me that even though it’s such a tiny percentage, the volume of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere is the most critical factor which controls the earth’s temperature. The argument here is not that 0.04% is such a small amount - it’s the up or down percentage movements in this percentage which can and do (as in the past) have such a dramatic effect on earth’s surface temperatures. One article (and there are many others) which illustrates this succintly: https://www.worldatlas.com/environment/how-much-carbon-dioxide-is-in-the-atmosphere.html
Ultimately, only time will prove this dilemma but it would be foolish in the interim to ignore potential dangers and not take action on the positive side.