Global warming at a glance

Are we in a climate crisis?

No.

 

I've tried to keep this is as short as possible - so that those who don't understand global warming (and why it's bollocks) can grasp it as easily as I can possibly explain it.  For the much longer version (showing that there is no warming) please see the other webpage here.  What I'm going to state below is NOT a one-sided version of the debate.  I won't be stating anything which is contrary to the supposed science.  If you check, you'll find all the points to be factual.

 

"The science is settled."  That's a phrase that you will never hear a real scientist say.  If anyone with a science degree says that, then they should hand back their degree.  It is the antithesis of science.  Religion is settled, science NEVER is.  Science takes an idea and experiments with results and conclusions to see if the idea is correct or not.  EVEN IF the idea turns out to be correct, it is still not settled.  Other scientists may come along later and totally disprove it.  This is because science is merely the best explanation we have of something at any one moment.  What's true today in science may not be tomorrow.  And you should know that 10 out of 10 scientists tend to agree with whoever is funding them.

 

Now, you may have heard that there is a 'climate crisis'.  This plays fast and loose with the definition of the word 'crisis'.  A crisis is an unstable or crucial time or state of affairs in which a decisive change is impending, often involving extreme danger or difficulty.  Carbon dioxide is at an all time LOW. A few hundred million years ago it was at 7000ppm.  It's 425ppm, now.  At 150ppm all plant life dies...and so do we.  The way CO2 works in the atmosphere is logarithmic - meaning that even if we doubled the current level from 425ppm to 850ppm, it would only raise the global temperature by 0.7 degrees C...more on that at the end.

 

Let's start at the very beginning.  When we burn a 'fossil fuel' such as coal, gas or oil, it emits carbon dioxide (CO2) into the air.  It's already in the atmosphere, of course, along with many other gases.  The atmosphere consists of:

Nitrogen at 78%

Oxygen 21%

...you can see that we're already up to 99% of the atmosphere, but there are tiny amounts of other gases which make up the remaining 1%.  These are argon (0.9%) and carbon dioxide (0.04%).  So a really tiny part of the atmosphere is CO2.  CO2 is part of a group of gases called 'Greenhouse gases' (GHGs).  These are THOUGHT to be responsible for keeping our planet warmer than we suppose it would otherwise be.  These gases are between 1-2% of the atmosphere.  Of those GHGs, around 94% is water vapour...and 4% is CO2.  So most (almost all) of the GHGs is simply water.

Copyright: Climateataglance.com

 

But CO2 is THOUGHT to punch well above its weight at warming the atmosphere.  Because of the way the molecule of CO2 is, it absorbs warmth, then re-emits it in all directions, rather than letting the warming drift up through the atmosphere and escaping into space.  It is therefore (wrongly) said that it 'traps' the warming.  So, the idea goes that 'natural' CO2 in the atmosphere of, say 280 parts per million (ppm) is fine.  Overall, the level (280ppm) keeps the Earth's temperature at a certain level - let us say 14 degrees C average across the globe.  The argument is that if we increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by burning coal, gas, and oil, then (it is said) we have increased the percentage to 425ppm.  This, scientists say, will mean that the world will warm up.

 

However, it isn't that simple.  The way CO2 is THOUGHT to warm the atmosphere is logarithmic.   A logarithm is the power to which a number must be raised in order to get some other number.  In CO2 terms, it means that as you add CO2, it does less warming than it did before.  Think of putting a blind up at your window to keep the sun out.  Let's say that the first blind you put up reduces the sunlight by 50%.  You CANNOT therefore keep ALL the sun out by simply fitting another blind up on top of the first one.  The second blind will also keep out 50% of the light...but it means it will inhibit 50% of the REMAINING light.  So you have cut out 75% of the sunlight in total, not 100%.

 

CO2 is THOUGHT to warm the atmosphere in the following manor.

So imagine building a planet's atmosphere 'brick by brick'.  We've constructed a new planet and we need to add in an atmosphere.  When you add 100ppm of CO2 you get a warming addition to the atmosphere of almost 1.2 degrees C.  So far, so good.  But when you add another 100ppm (so we're up to 200ppm) you get an additional 0.5 degrees C of warming (not another 1.2 degrees).  If you add another 100ppm (so we're up to 300ppm) you only get an extra 0.3 degrees C.  Now add another 100ppm (so we're now up to 400ppm) at which we get just an additional 0.2 degrees C.  Let's see it in order, as if we started out with a planet we will call Earth 2.0.

We are going to start our new planet at 12 degrees C on average (absorbing sunlight) - which is roughly the distance from the Sun that our Earth 1.0 is at:

Add the first 100ppm (giving us and increase of almost 1.2 degrees C) and our planet is up to 13.2 degrees C.

If we add another 100ppm, we don't get another 1.2 degrees - meaning our new planet would be up to 14.4 degrees C.

We add the second 100ppm (giving us and increase of almost 0.5 degrees C) and our planet is up to 13.7 degrees C.

Add another 100ppm (giving us and increase of almost 0.3 degrees C) and our planet is up to 14.0 degrees C.

Add another 100ppm (giving us and increase of almost 0.2 degrees C) and our planet is up to 14.2 degrees C.

So you can see that the largest amount of warming came from that initial 100ppm, and that despite adding 100ppm three times more, we can only get our new planet up to 14.2 degrees C.  Even if we doubled the current 425ppm that the Earth's atmosphere has, you can see from the graph that the warming hardly rises at all - it would raise our planet's temperature to 14.3 degrees C.  We've worked hard to double the CO2 in the atmosphere, but all we get is a measly increase from 14.2 to 14.3 degrees C!  Some scientists say that we would get more than that due to the way CO2 is THOUGHT to work when it is expanded.  We might not, as all of this depends on the water vapour in the atmosphere acting as a 'feedback'.  But water vapour may not do that.  Perhaps the best CO2 physicist we know of, Prof. William Happer, says that we will get to 14.3 degrees C.  But there are some physicists who say that we won't even get that - we'll get no increase at all.

 

So you may be asking why we are so worried about more CO2 in our atmosphere.  Well, you're not alone.  This is the primary argument between believers of man-made warming and sceptics (of which I am very much one).  But the arguments go MUCH deeper than that.

 

The above text includes the word 'thought' a few times.  This is because we don't actually understand how the atmosphere (the climate) works!  As astounding as that is, that is so.  New theories are emerging which say the greenhouse effect is no such thing, and that a planet's surface temperature is dependent on how dense the atmosphere is.  This is good food for thought.  Our atmosphere is just 0.04% CO2.  Mars and Venus both have atmospheres of 96% CO2!!!  Venus is closer to the Sun, and Mars is further away, but...Venus has an incredibly dense atmosphere and the planet is extremely hot (enough to melt lead).  Mars has a wispy atmosphere and is cold.

 

So, the 'warming' idea is that as we add more CO2, Earth's temperature rises.  But as we have said, it is far from certain - we don't even know if the atmosphere works that way.  And it gets 'worse'.  Some scientists are saying that CO2 doesn't work that way, anyway, and that something called 'thermalisation' knocks out any heat that the CO2 molecule has - so it cannot warm the surface.  If this is true, it means that CO2 doesn't even warm the atmosphere in the way I have shown above.  It would mean that we could emit as much CO2 as we want and the Earth wouldn't get any warmer at all.  Even if this was wrong...it is at least partially true!  There exist positive feedbacks (which warm the planet) and negative feedbacks (which cool the planet, or rather return it to its previous steady state).  We know that negative feedbacks must be controlling the planet's temperature through the climate system as the Earth (in its history) hasn't runaway to either a boiling hot one or a freezing cold one.  Something keeps it reasonably stable, responding to perturbations to right itself.  Overall, all the positive feedbacks don't outweigh the negative feedbacks - otherwise none of us would be here.  The atmosphere would have boiled away millions of years ago, or this would be an snowball Earth.

 

In fact, the Earth's temperature is remarkably stable.  It has been hot, but never anything that humans couldn't endure, and we know that we have gone through many 'Ice Ages'.  However, modern humans have lived through two ice ages, and our primitive species lived through many.  Here is the temperature of the Earth over the past 500 million years.

 

 

It's a bit of a see-saw, but considering that Earth is subject to asteroid impact, volcanoes, and ice ages, it is amazingly consistent.  It shows us that the Earth's climate system cannot be too upset - that it rights itself.  For much of the time since the dinosaurs were snuffed out, Earth has only been around 10 degrees C warmer than it is today.  You experience a range of temperature about 30 degrees between summer and winter, by comparison.

 

And there's a really important point that we should know about CO2 before we leave it...it is at an incredibly low level in history...and that's worrying.  You'll hear bollocks from the BBC and others that we must reduce the Earth's CO2 level, but we risk extinction.  Plant life (and therefore us) depend on CO2.  Without it, we're dead.  At 150ppm (remember it's 425ppm now) all plant life dies...and we die very shortly after.  Here (the black line) is CO2 over the past 550 million years...we're low!  530 million years ago it was at 7,000ppm - and life bloomed in what is called the Cambrian Explosion (of life).  Look at the worrying black line...

 

CO2 is essential to life.  The more we have in our atmosphere, the better trees, plants, and crops grow.  We have a global population of 9 billion - the very last thing we want to do is to reduce crop yields!  In order to get plants to grow, growers pump CO2 into their greenhouses.  By the way, the CO2 level in your home will be around 1,000ppm, possibly higher.  It's one reason why plants grow better indoors.

 

So what if it isn't true - that CO2 will continue to warm the planet?  If it's not true, then we're about to spend trillions absolutely pointlessly - wasted money that could be spent on very many other things.  CO2 taxes have been with us a long time.  You cannot go one day without paying a CO2 charge on something - especially your energy bill.  And as everything you do or purchase requires energy (at the factory) then you are paying a lot of CO2 taxes.  We're now at the stage where our government cannot do without them.  If scientists were to suddenly admit they were wrong, and that CO2 does nothing, our government would have to significantly raise all other taxes to make up the shortfall that it could no longer charge.  And while were busy paying for 'green' energy with low CO2 emissions, China and India are pumping out massive amounts of it.  So anything we do means it is pointless, anyway.  Take Australia as an example.  It isn't using its coal reserves to generate its electricity; it sells the coal to China...which uses it to generate electricity to manufacture solar panels and wind turbines...which it sells to Australia!!!  It is absurd nonsense.  So even when Australia sets up these solar panels and wind turbines, the overall CO2 balance is zero - it may as well have used the coal to generate electricity rather than the green stuff.

 

But we have our own patch of utter stupidity, right here in the UK.  The Drax power station in North Yorkshire stopped burning coal and, instead, burns wood pellets shipped all the way across the Atlantic from South Carolina in the US.  It takes a larger cost to do that than it saves.  And ready for the punchline...Drax sits right on top of 300 years worth of coal deposits.  You really couldn't make this shit up.

 

But what if it is true, and that our planet is warming due to us?  Ok, what should we do?  Should we raise CO2 taxes to be able to future-generate electricity which doesn't emit CO2, and leave the coal, gas, and oil in the ground?  Or should we just carry on as we are - emitting CO2 by burning coal, gas, and oil, and use the money we would have spent on mitigation - to cope with the weather that the scientists say is coming our way?  Isn't that a 'better' way?  I say this because Britain alone is about to spend almost £4 trillion on changing our power generation over to non-CO2 emitting ways to raise power.  This is what Net Zero is - nuclear, wind, solar, and anything else yet to be invented - rather than coal, gas, and oil.  We won't be emitting any more CO2.  That's the plan.  But £4 trillion would give us a lot of mitigation.  It would pay for sea walls, for 'climate-damage' insurance, and lots of other stuff.  Instead, British governments have opted to spend £4 trillion to stop emitting CO2...even though China and India just laugh at us.  They can manufacture their goods cheaply using coal.  We manufacture our goods in the most-expensive way possible.  That's why they're laughing.  Despite all the agreements to lower CO2 emissions, it just keeps going up - because China and India have zero intention of following us (good for them!).

So what we're doing - spending £4 trillion - is absolutely pointless.  However, it's even worse than that.  In Britain we have a prestigious scientific establishment called the Royal Society.  They are strong advocates for the cessation of CO2 into the atmosphere.  In fact, they go to great lengths to convince us and the world that we must stop emitting CO2.  So what do they say?  They produced a document on CO2 and climate change, a Q&A.

"If emissions of greenhouse gases were stopped, would the climate return to the conditions of 200 years ago?

No. Even if emissions of greenhouse gases were to suddenly stop, Earth’s surface temperature would require thousands of years to cool and return to the level in the pre-industrial era.  If emissions of CO2 stopped altogether, it would take many thousands of years for atmospheric CO2 to return to “pre-industrial” levels due to its very slow transfer to the deep ocean and ultimate burial in ocean sediments. Surface temperatures would stay elevated for at least a thousand years, implying a long-term commitment to a warmer planet due to past and current emissions.  Sea level would likely continue to rise for many centuries even after temperature stopped increasing.  Significant cooling would be required to reverse melting of glaciers and the Greenland ice sheet, which formed during past cold climates.  The current CO2-induced warming of Earth is therefore essentially irreversible on human timescales.  The amount and rate of further warming will depend almost entirely on how much more CO2 humankind emits.”

​

So what is the point, then…of spending trillions of dollars?  And this is if the emissions were stopped altogether.  They have unwittingly and brilliantly summed up the utter futility of doing anything at all.  What would be the point of adhering to any CO2 mandate?  The Royal Society scientists just packaged it up succinctly; it would be futile.  So if ALL the nations of the world stopped emissions tomorrow afternoon, it would do NOTHING (by their own admission).  So then what is the point of one nation doing anything at all?  While we in the UK have been busy closing our coal-fired power stations, China has built 1,200 of them.

 

So we're spending £4 trillion for nothing in two differing ways: one because China and India are not doing what we're doing, and two, because what we will do (even if China and India did it, too) won't return atmospheric CO2 to a previous level, and global temperatures will stay elevated for at least a thousand years (their words, not mine).  The whole thing is futile.  It is literally a total waste of money.  I'm not even clever enough to make the tea at the Royal Society, but that doesn't stop me thinking that they are talking complete shit.  I happen to believe that our temperature is regulated by clouds - by sunlight.  I also happen to believe that solar cycles play a truly major part in that, and that we are heading for very cool times in just 15 years from now (solar cycle 26).  But that's just me.  One of us (either the Royal Society or me) is talking complete shit.  We'll see.  I have nothing to lose because no one cares what I think.  They have everything to lose as, if they're wrong, they will cease to be credible as a scientific organisation, and will be a laughing stock.  No one will remember what I said!  But I cannot leave this without showing you why I believe it is clouds...if there really is any warming at all.

The uppermost graph is UK sunshine duration (annual).  The bottom graph is UK annual temperature.  These are on the Met Office's own website.  The German equivalent of the Met Office did their own analysis and found very similar results, there.  So, wouldn't you say that the (extra) warming is very simply due to the (extra) sunshine?  When increased sunshine duration began around 1980, the temperature rose.  What a coincidence?  Surface temperatures WOULD go up if there's more sunshine!  If you would like it in a mathematical fashion, sunshine duration has risen around 12%.  Want to know how much the temperature has risen?...around 12%.  The Met Office (despite their own graphs) say that sunshine has nothing to do with global warming!  Oh, wait, I hear you say, what about CO2, how much has that risen?  That would be 25%.  So CO2 has risen significantly, and yet UK temperature has risen by the same amount as sunshine has.  Which is it that causes warming, again?

 

As we draw this to a close, I want remind you of the focus point of all my webpages here; that of lying.  The whole CO2 debate is filled with lies (if you were to ask me!).  I will remind you that earlier on, we talked about CO2 and the so-called 'greenhouse effect'.  This is the idea of how scientists believe the Earth's atmosphere works.  It does this, according to the theory, by the properties of the gases in the atmosphere - the Greenhouse Gases (GHGs).  Here is the US government's EIA - the US Energy Information Administration, describing the composition of the greenhouses gases:

 

If you read elsewhere on my blog, you'll see how I talk about lies and obfuscation.  This is a trick used to fool you - quite deliberately.  The BBC uses it when they want to force you to believe that black people were always in Britain.  What they do is talk about 'African' people - hoping that what you won't realise that they are talking about NORTH Africans - the olive-skinned people of Tunisia and Libya, for example, and NOT actually sub-Saharan black people.  It's a linguistic trick.  Anyway, I digress!  The above webpage purports to show you the 'types of greenhouse gases'.  But (as they admit) they have completely left out water vapour...ready?...even though water vapour accounts for 97% of the greenhouse effect.  They have completely ignored it.  The reason is that we don't emit water vapour - so we (humans) aren't responsible for its effect within the atmosphere.  So instead they list carbon dioxide (CO2) as the primary GHG driver...which it most definitely is not, it is water vapour as you'll see further down.

 

The US Environmental Protection Agency does exactly the same:

 

If you cast just a glance over it, you'll see that they PURPORT to tell you an overview of greenhouse gases (that's their title).  But then they write of 'greenhouse gas emissions' not the actual composition of the greenhouse gases and the list.  Water vapour, despite making up 97% of GHGs, is absent.  This is because they moved on from the title to talk about 'effect from emissions' - they even openly list that under 'On this page:'.  The big blue circle shows no water vapour at all.  Because if it were honest, this is what it would look like:

 

If you simply ask AI the question, it will honestly reply:

"Water vapor is the most abundant and significant contributor to the natural greenhouse effect, accounting for an estimated 41–67% of the total effect. It is the most dominant greenhouse gas by volume and weight, responsible for roughly half of Earth’s greenhouse effect. Water vapor absorbs infrared radiation emitted by the Earth's surface, trapping heat within the atmosphere and playing a crucial role in maintaining the planet's habitable temperature."

 

Oh, dear!  Seems that the hoaxers haven't yet got around to altering AI's responses.  But give them time.  They have been busy altering 'male/female' and 'race & IQ' entries in dictionaries and online information websites.  They WILL get around to manipulating AI to give the 'preferred' response.

 

"Water vapour is by far the most important contributor to the greenhouse effect."  That line doesn't come from me, it comes direct from New Scientist magazine.  For a little experiment, do a search for 'Composition of the greenhouse gases'.  It's weird, it's like there is some sort of organised conspiracy.  Instead of actually getting webpage results showing what the composition is, as I have just shown above, you'll get 'emissions of greenhouse gases' instead, which totally ignore water vapour.  You will seriously struggle to find any results which actually show how greenhouse gases are REALLY made up.

 

Just as with everything else in life, you are being deliberately lied to.  As I say on the other, more in-depth webpage, don't believe me - do your own research.  But if you do, you will be shocked.  Things are not what you are told they are.  I've kept this webpage to the CO2 argument - accept it or deny it - that's up to you.  I haven't blurred it with all the additional stuff which goes with climate change - like whether or not it really is warming.  You can believe what 'they' are telling you about CO2, or you can believe what other scientists are telling you - that there is no issue with it, that it's basically one big hoax.  But the reason that you should pick a side is because it is YOUR MONEY they are spending on it.  If it's all a big fraud, then they are wasting YOUR money, deliberately, knowingly.

 

Why would they do that?  Why would they want you to change the way you live your life, for our 'systems' to change?  Oh, that's another webpage entirely, and I will leave it to you to discover exactly why!  Suffice to say that there are two different types of people who support the idea that our CO2 will warm the planet; those who believe it, and those who don't care - and are just using it as a tool.  It's the latter ones who should worry you.  'Climate change' is (in my opinion) being used brilliantly as a tool against YOU, against your interests, against how you would like to run your life.  It has been seized upon to enable certain people money and power...power over you.  You only have to look at Covid to see that.  It wasn't even a proper pandemic.  They will tell you that 50 million people died.  But as you are probably already aware, very many death certificates showed 'covid' as the primary cause of death erroneously even here in the UK.  Imagine world statistics being manipulated.  They insisted that you wear a mask...even though they (published in the peer-reviewed Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews) had to later admit that they "probably make little or no difference" at preventing transmission of the virus.  Then they brought forth a 'vaccine' which turned out not to inhibit the virus, and actually killed many people.  Covid 'measures' were all about controlling YOU, not the virus.  Climate change is all about control (power) and money.  As we have already said, without the climate change taxes, governments (like the UK's) would be in serious economic difficulties.

 

But this webpage isn't all about 'them' - the faceless controllers which would make me sound like some conspiracy theorist (there's not a single conspiracy theory I believe apart from this one, by the way - no UFOs, no 9/11, no CIA/JFK!).  And I will leave it to you to do your own reading and watching:

https://watchgorillascience.com/video/who-runs-the-world-new-class/

 

There exists the claim that the CO2 figure hasn't been this high for three million years - is wrong.  The idea that CO2 has risen since the Industrial Revolution is accepted by most...but that doesn't mean it is true.  In 1853, Encyclopedia Britannica stated that the level of CO2 was 415ppm...in 1853!  This was repeated by the 4th International CO2 Conference as recently as 1993 (just 32 years ago)...and it gets worse.  In 2011, the Monitoring Atmospheric Composition and Climate (MACC) reported a mean of 386ppm for the globe and a high as 544ppm in South America, Europe, mid Africa, and east China.  If it is a lie that the CO2 has risen, it would be a purposeful one, because if they admit that current levels of CO2 are the same that they were in 1830 (as measured by the chemist, Nicolas Theodore de Saussure) then what is the cause of their warming...if it isn't a RISE in CO2?  It's important to realise that this isn't a claim that the figure is false, but that it hasn't RISEN from 280ppm before the Industrial Revolution - that it's been around 425ppm for a very long time.

 

What is climate change costing us in damage?  The current annual cost of climate change damage globally is estimated at $143 billion, averaging to approximately $16 million per hour, based on the economic impact of extreme weather events from 2000 to 2019.  This figure represents the cost of damage to infrastructure, property, agriculture, and human health, with climate change linked to about 53% of the total damages from 185 studied extreme weather events.  In the US, extreme climate events cost an estimated $150 billion annually, a figure that does not include losses from life, healthcare, or ecosystem services.  Projections indicate that the global cost could rise significantly, with estimates suggesting climate change could cost the global economy $38 trillion per year by 2049 if no substantial action is taken...except that all this is wrong.  Hurricanes, for example, are DOWN, not up.  But let's run with this, anyway, let's assume that the above silly figure of $38 trillion a year in damage is accurate - for the sake of this argument.

 

It is believed that to go net zero across the globe would cost, collectively, $600 trillion.  That works out to an average of $3 trillion per nation.  That may or may not be conservative.  We wouldn't know until we start doing it.  And it should be remembered that it is an ongoing cost - it doesn't stop at $600 trillion.  $600 trillion to save $38 trillion a year in climate change damage.

 

By how much can we reduce global temperature if the WHOLE WORLD goes Net Zero?  So we collectively spend $600 TRILLION and go crazy - no net zero emissions.  Of course, that will simply never happen, as some countries won't agree to it in the same way they aren't agreeing to it now - quite the reverse, China and India are emitting enormous quantities of CO2.  But let's play with it.  Let's assume that for some reason, even China and India agree to go net zero, and the whole world joins in, in some 'save the world' programme.  William Happer, a US physicist who has specialised in the study of atomic physics, optics and spectroscopy, and is the Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics, emeritus, at Princeton University, has crunched the numbers.  What does he say?  He says that based on the supposed effect of CO2 warming, we would reduce the global temperature by...

0.07 degrees C.  So not in any way whatsoever noticeable - it would have zero effect.  But he went further and supposed that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are right in their beliefs on CO2 and climate change.  So, using their own figures, by how much would the temperature drop across the globe...

0.28 degrees C.  So a little over one quarter of a degree C.  Remember that we are supposed to believe that CO2 has raised global temperature by about 1.5 degrees C, so going net zero, stark raving insane, we would drop it by a little over ONE SIXTH of what it has gone up by...if the whole world went over to solar panel, wind turbines, nuclear, etc.  I say again, $600 trillion to achieve that.  But don't think that the spending stops at $600 trillion, of course!  And you should note that my figure of $600 trillion is considered conservative by some.  Going net zero is mind-blowingly expensive.  And if it achieves virtually nothing, then it's just a total waste of money.

 

We spend $600 trillion on a problem costing $38 trillion a year.  Does that make any sense to you whatsoever - even if you believe that CO2 does cause warming?

 

We're now at the 'EVEN IFs'...

Even if the theory of how the greenhouse theory works is correct, it doesn't mean that CO2 has risen and warmed the planet.

- History shows that warming always comes first, then CO2 rises

Even if CO2 has risen, it doesn't mean that it will warm the planet.

- We are far from certain how the climate system works

Even if it has and will, it doesn't mean a disaster for the planet.

- A high CO2 level is a good thing for crop growing - and tornadoes, hurricanes, and natural disasters are all DOWN, not up

Even if we spend trillions, it doesn't mean that we will arrest the 'damage'.

- The Royal Society says that we can't drop the CO2 level or the temperature for a thousand years

Even if we did, it doesn't mean that a natural event couldn't cool the planet.

- One big volcano going off can reduce global temperatures significantly, and so can solar cycles.  A cooler Earth would be a disaster for humans.  We are about to enter solar cycle 26 around 2030-35.  This has been predicted by many experts to bring much cooler temperatures, with at least one saying that we could return to the 'Little Ice Age'.  Cold kills 10 times more people than heat does, and worldwide crops would fail, meaning starvation for millions

 

So, we've learned about CO2, how it is supposed to work in the atmosphere, and how mathematics shows that CO2 can NOT cause hardly any more warming - if at all.  You, the reader, must have started to wonder that IF what I'm saying is true, why on earth do you hear about global warming every day?  Why do you see and hear scientists saying that it's true?  You will especially hear BBC correspondents even say 'climate crisis'.  Really?  There's a crisis?  I will try and make this next bit simple, but it's a bit difficult to simplify, so I'm sorry about that:

The hypothesis states that extra CO2 emissions (in addition to the natural cycles) from burning fossil fuels inhibits longwave radiation back into space.  Ok, so we state that the greenhouse gases (which warm the planet by 33°C more than it would otherwise be) are pretty stable, and that increasing CO2 means the atmosphere falls into instability.  We also know that it is water vapour which dominates the greenhouse effect, not CO2.  With clouds included, CO2's influence is less than 10%.  So, does doubling CO2's concentration alter the energy imbalance?  We need to calculate climate sensitivity - the radiative forcing per doubling of CO2 from 400ppm to 800ppm, say.  With CO2 at 400ppm the heat back reflected back to space is 277 w/m2.  However, at 800ppm it is 274 w/m2.  So we inhibit the heat emission to space by a mere 3 w/m2.  This means that a 100% increase in CO2 emissions changes the flux by just 1%.  At best, we might expect a 0.7°C addition to the global average temperature.  Ok, so given that CO2 is rising at 2.4ppm a year, how long would it take to get to 800ppm?

177 years.  It would take 177 years to raise the global average temperature by 0.7°C.  If a BBC correspondent says that there is a 'climate emergency' or a 'climate crisis', where is it?  It's playing fast and loose with the definition of the word 'crisis'.  But more importantly, there isn't ONE atmospheric physicist who states that there is a climate emergency...because they understand the definition of the word, 'crisis'.

 

If you struggle with levelling the 'climate crisis' with emissions of CO2, just re-read the above paragraph.  THERE IS NO CLIMATE CRISIS - not by any definition.

 

But this doesn't answer why you hear 'global warming' every day, and why politicians and journalists bang on about the world ending.  Why do they do this?  So far, I have kept to facts about science.  Now, I will stray, right at the end of this, into my opinion.  Politics is all about power and money.  The only way that politicians can engineer this is by fear.  They want you to be perpetually afraid.  If you're afraid, they are there to lead you to salvation.  They will then have power over you.  The money comes in at taxation.  ALL the money the government has is your money, raised by taxation - taxes.  The whole climate change debacle is not about environmentalism, or 'saving the Earth', it's about money and power.  Climate change taxes enable governments to raise money from its citizens in the completely fictitious idea that the money will mitigate future disasters.  Simply ask yourself what the government is doing with the billions it is raising from CO2.  Do you think it's going on rebuilding coastal defences for rising sea levels, or new farming methods for when it's too hot to grow anything?  No!  Of course it isn't.  The money raised goes to provide education, defence, health...  Without CO2 taxes, the government would have to massively hike income tax.  They have become completely reliant on CO2-tax money.  Without it, they are stuffed.  They perpetuate the lie that CO2 is and will cause warming because they have to!  That alone, quite apart from all the science I have presented above, should tell you everything you need to know about the biggest scam in human history.  It began as a 'carbon credit' scheme in cahoots with private companies (in the US) simply to raise money from people.  It was picked up immediately by governments as a brilliant way to raise capital.  You cannot escape CO2 taxes - you will pay them every day of your life in some form.  It is a vile and despicable way to con the people - to lie to them in order to take money from them, from you.

 

And scientists?  Why do they go along with it?

Money.  10 out of 10 scientists tend to agree with whoever is funding them.  Like you, they have mortgages, and families to pay for.  If they want to study something, how do they get the funding?  Who pays their wages for carrying out months and months of research?  If the money for research about perfume being possibly cancer-causing comes from a perfume company, would you trust the result from the scientist?  He is being paid by the perfume company - what do you think he is going to say?  It's no different when the money is coming from the government.  They will (and do) fund research into how CO2 causes global warming.  Do you think the scientist is going to say it doesn't?  If you want money to fund research into how warming is actually caused by the Sun, do you really think the government will fund that?  They need it to be known that CO2 causes warming...so that they can raise huge amounts of money from it in taxation.  And the pressure on those who don't conform is enormous.  Recently, an editor of a science journal, Dr Marty Rowland, was fired merely for publishing a paper that argued carbon dioxide and current climate conditions are not problematic.  He didn't write it!  He was fired JUST for allowing someone to write an article questioning the whole idea.  So, if you're an editor of a science journal, would you allow any sceptic article on global warming?  Of course you wouldn't.  You'd be out of your job in a month.  You will go along with the hoax.  Sad, isn't it?

 

Finally, what is the consensus fallacy?  The consensus fallacy is a logical fallacy which asserts a proposition is true simply because a majority of people believe it.  This fallacy incorrectly assumes that widespread agreement equates to truth, ignoring the need for evidence or sound reasoning.  For example, claiming man-made global warming is true solely because most scientists agree with it is fallacious, as consensus is not the source of truth but rather a result of accumulated evidence.  You will hear that there is a consensus among scientists as to the cause of global warming.  So what?  Even if EVERY scientist in the entire world believed it to be 100% true, it wouldn't make it one trillionth more true.  The theory is either true or false - the number of people for or against it has no bearing on the truth.  Any scientific hypothesis or theory relies on it being provably true...to the best of our knowledge at any one moment in time.

 

At this time, despite all the beliefs on man-made global warming, it has NOT been proved to be true.  That isn't just my opinion, it is scientific fact.  If it had been proved true, I would not be able to present all of the above; there would be no point, as I would be arguing against a proved hypothesis.  The things which were supposed to have happened, like amplified polar warming of the Earth, simply haven't happened.

There has been no increase in hurricanes.

There has been no increase in number or intensity of tornadoes.

There has been no increase in the temperature of the Antarctic in 70 years.

There has been no increase in sea level acceleration (thermal expansion).

There has been no increase in cooling of the stratosphere (since 1995).

There has been no hotspot within the lower troposphere 1.2 times that of the surface above the tropics.

All of the above are supposed to have happened if man-made warming was true.  People who believe that man-made global warming is true will still argue that it is, nevertheless.  But ask their motive for saying it.  If they have no motive (like not being paid to say so) then great, it is just their opinion...like my opinion, or yours...it has no weight.  The only thing we should listen to is EVIDENCE.

 

I'm going to leave this to the brilliant Richard Lindzen, atmospheric physicist and former Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at MIT...

​"What historians will definitely wonder about in future centuries is how deeply flawed logic, obscured by shrewd and unrelenting propaganda, actually enabled a coalition of powerful special interests to convince nearly everyone in the world that CO2 from human industry was a dangerous, planet-destroying toxin. It will be remembered as the greatest mass delusion in the history of the world – that CO2, the life of plants, was considered for a time to be a deadly poison.  Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early 21st century’s developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a roll-back of the industrial age."

 

There you have it, "the greatest mass delusion in the history of the world."  Not from me, but from one of the world's foremost experts in climate science. It has a reason - it's not just some random idea plucked from nowhere to take your money.  You MUST wake up to what's going on...and why it's going on.  Why do 'they' want you to believe that CO2 is causing warming?  It is because some very powerful businesses and individuals want to have a world government - with international standards of compliance.  It really is.  But you have to learn that for yourself.

 

When the answer to anything is 'higher taxes' then you know it is complete bollocks.