Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 1:19:21 — 90.8MB)
Within the mainstream set of assumptions, there are many myths relentlessly trumpeted as facts. One of the biggest is the scaremongering over impending climatic disaster due to CO2 induced climate change. Like all the other myths, the story of disastrous climate change can easily be dismantled. The truth can be seen when we bear in mind what we know about Propaganda and take a look at both sides of the argument.
Lets begin a brief exploration of the issues with a few definitions so we know precisely the nature of the concepts in question.
Defining terms
Weather refers to the current state of the atmosphere in terms of temperature and precipitation activity. It is driven by differences in air pressure, temperature and moisture content between one place and another. These differences occur due to the suns rays striking the earth at different angles or the different nature of surfaces being warmed.
Climate is simply long-term weather. Climate is always changing by definition. It is a dynamic system in continuous flux. From the discovery of isotope testing with ice core samples we can deduce the temperature and CO2 record over millennia.
The term ‘climate change’, as used in the mainstream media, is a meaningless slogan. Our climate has been cycling between ice ages and warmer periods for hundreds of millions of years. The debate is NOT about whether climate change is real or if it is happening, this is a misrepresentation of the argument.
Some say that the term ‘climate change’ refers to the difference in the climate that is attributable to human activities.
Global warming is an increase in the average global temperature.
The term Anthropogenic climate change refers to climate change for which human activity is considered responsible due to CO2 release. Some confusion is caused by some people using the terms ‘climate change’ and ‘global warming’ to refer to the specific changes in either temperature or climate attributable to human activity as well.
The mainstream view of climate change
The official story is this: Because of human economic and industrial activity releasing CO2 into the atmosphere the planet is facing a doomsday scenario of global destruction. The greenhouse effect of the additional CO2 will cause a runaway overheating scenario and consequently, civilisation is threatened. The computer model predictions show that we will destroy the planet. As a result of all this people must reduce energy consumption, which means reduce economic activity and third world countries must not be allowed to industrialise.
This argument ties in with curtailing our materialism and being less decadent for the sake of saving the planet. It also ties in nicely with the anti-capitalists calling for more and more state intervention. It should also be noted that it is anti-trade and anti-capitalist and is against further development and industrialisation. Given that industrialisation brought us all the benefits we enjoy today and changed our lives from the squalor of pre-industrial times to the comforts of modern living, we must give the whole subject a thorough rational scrutinising. It must be understood how high the stakes are.
Key questions are, will an increase in CO2 have the predicted result? Are temperatures really likely to rise as much as claimed by the computer model feedback predictions for each doubling of CO2? In fact, is CO2 the bogeyman, the culprit or the devil it is claimed to be?
What do we all agree upon?
1. We all agree that climate change happens. There is no disagreement about the fact that the climate changes – at least not in the serious debate. When we hear terms like climate deniers and the like we know we are not dealing with rational debate. Unfortunately, the waters of the debate are so often muddied by these unhelpful accusations, that the issues get lost in the obfuscation. Only one party in a debate has any interest in obscuring the issues – the one with no rational argument.
2. We all agree that global warming happens. There is no point of disagreement about the issue of whether or not the globe warms. Those who ask awkward and searching questions about the full nature of any climate ‘threat’ real or imagined, do not dispute the fact that warming occurs and the average global temperature does yoyo up and down. It increases when we come out of an ice-age and it decreases when the planet enters one.
3. We all agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and causes some warming. There is no dispute about CO2 being a greenhouse gas or not. It is unanimously agreed that CO2 does cause some warming of the atmosphere.
4. We all agree that humans have the capacity to increase CO2 and thus cause some small effect on global temperature.
What are the main points of disagreement?
Now let us turn to what we disagree about. What are the points of debate? This is very unclear in the minds of most people. The phrase ‘climate denier’ suggests that some people don’t believe in the climate. It just gets silly and it must be noted which side of the debate repeatedly comes out with these absurdities that hamper rational debate.
- That there is a CLIMATIC CATASTROPHE afoot, that runaway warming is possible or likely, and that the end of human civilisation as we know it is approaching. This is the main point of debate. There is no convincing argument that this claim is true. It is more accurate to say that it contradicts the facts and all the empirical evidence. The truth is that there really isn’t anything to worry about, and contrary to the scaremongering increased levels of atmospheric CO2 will be beneficial for plant life and consequently all human life on the planet.
- That increasing levels of CO2 are a problem. It has been observed that planet Earth has been greening over the past 30 – 40 years. Current levels of CO2 are approaching 400 parts per million (ppm) and they have been much higher than this in the past. Vegetable growers know plants love more CO2 and they have been regularly putting extra into polytunnels and growing environments for several decades. An increase in atmospheric concentrations of CO2 would mean a greener and more plant life abundant planet. This does not mean that it is denied that CO2 causes some increase in temperature.
- That increased average global temperatures will be a problem – The planet survived the medieval warm period and the Holocene maximum. It is known to have been much warmer in the past. When we take into account the error in the computer model predictions of likely temperature increase we can see that on the contrary, the evidence suggests that any resulting warming due to human industrialisation will be small and gradual.
The climate change debate in a nutshell
The debate is over whether or not human activity related Co2 increases are significant in driving climate changes, and if they are, whether increased CO2 levels and any associated increase in average global temperatures will be harmful to the planet.
Some important facts to bear in mind
1. CO2 is not a poison or a pollutant, it is plant food.
2. Over the past 30 years, planet Earth has experienced a 14% greening from increased vegetation or biomass. Data from NASA satellites was compiled and presented in an article by Matt Ridley in Spectator magazine.
3. Atmospheric CO2 concentration lags Temperature by approximately 800 years. The evidence for this is not generally disputed and is contained in the Vostok ice core samples.
4. Historic levels of both atmospheric CO2 and temperature have been higher than they are today without runaway warming that destroyed the planet. We are still here and the polar bears are still here. Greenland is called Greenland because it was once much greener.
5. Modern high-tech coal-fired power stations have very low emissions so that only CO2 is emitted and an almost negligible amount of pollution. This is good news since coal-fired power station electricity is the cheapest that can be produced.
6. Mathematical errors have been found by Lord Christopher Monckton in the mathematical computer modelling techniques used to predict the future temperatures of the planet. He has proved that the estimates of temperature increase per doubling of CO2 are much higher than they should be.
The political context of the catastrophic climate change story
Once again context is everything and it always determines appropriate action. It must be remembered that we live in an age of ubiquitous propaganda and that various methods are used to influence our thinking and our choices. It must also be taken into account that each time we explode a myth and find the evidence pointing to truth in contradiction to the official story, that this adjusts the context for the next issue to be considered. There are many issues explored on this site in which the official authoritative or government view is proven wrong by the empirical evidence.
For example, the health implications of eating saturated fats. On this topic, almost every official body contradicts the available information uncovered by scientific research – that saturated animal fats are essential for health and proper brain function in particular. If we look at all of the available information on a given topic, not just the bits that support one particular conclusion, the truth usually speaks for its self.
Notably, the conclusions drawn by the official story of climate change justify increasing legislation, with ever-increasing regulations and controls. In a word, more state power. And at the same time, it gives justification to deny people development and appropriate energy use. The agenda behind he scenes is collectivism as opposed to individualism and freedom. Capitalism is the social manifestation of respect for individual rights and private property. As we all know it has been under attack for decades. The bogus climate change threat is another means to undermine it.
And perhaps most perversely, the false conclusions of this debate justify the program of geo-engineering taking place in which harmful substances are sprayed into the atmosphere for cloud seeding and other means. This is like mass medication. No consent is sought from the people of the world. Governments of the world are imposing a toxic macro solution to what the evidence shows to be a non-problem.
The hidden agenda is political. It is for increased government controls and movement towards totalitarian global government, The debate is used as another excuse to tax, to restrict development, and to turn human activity itself into the problem. It is industrialisation that brought us all the modern benefits of technology and comfort that we now enjoy. Any argument against it or for its reduction on dubious grounds and in contravention to the facts must be viewed with suspicion.
The role of the sun
The protagonists of the mainstream side of the debate ignore the most significant factor in driving climate – the sun.
Correlation of temperature with sunspot correlates so closely that in the late 80’s solar Physicist Piers Corbyn began forecasting the weather more accurately than the UK MET office by using sunspot activity as the predictor. Astrologists around the world have been counting sunspot activity for several centuries. British Astronomer Edward Maunder noticed that during the mini ice age of the late 1600’s that there were hardly any visible sunspots. This became known as the ‘Maunder minimum’.
In 1991 senior scientists at the Danish meteorological society compared sunspot activity in the 20th century to the temperature record. They found a very close correlation. Just like temperatures, sunspot activity rose until 1940 then declined for 4 decades and then climbed again. Professor Eigil Friis-Christensen and his team were intrigued by the results. In response to suggestions that this narrow result may be a coincidence, they broadened the time frame to 400 years and found that the correlation extended very closely from 1550 to 2000.
Clouds have a significant cooling effect on climate and the sun is also known to affect cloud formation. The emission of sunspots creates a kind of ‘solar wind’ rushing past the Earth. During periods of high sunspot activity, this reduces the number of cosmic rays coming into the atmosphere from outer space. The cosmic rays act as condensation nuclei. As they descend through the atmosphere they meet with water vapour rising off the sea to make clouds. But when there is increased solar activity, the increased solar wind means less cosmic rays get through and fewer clouds are formed. As a result, it gets warmer. The record of Cosmic rays has been compared to the temperature record and they are inversely proportional. When there are more cosmic rays the temperature goes down and vice versa. The Sun affects the cosmic rays which in turn affect cloud formation which, in turn, affects temperature.
You decide
The issue of climate change is a very significant political issue and the truth must be known and understood if we are to make a decision that correlates with reality. If we are to avoid making wrong decisions we must know the truth, and we can know the truth. I recommend looking into this issue yourself and finding the truth of it by examining all the evidence and thinking rationally.
You may find my series on Youtube called “thinking skills to find truth” helpful.
Listen to the Podcast and enjoy the vast knowledge that Lord Monckton has accumulated and shares with us on so many facets of this debate.
Resources on the myth of climate change
The worlds most viewed site on global warming and climate change https://wattsupwiththat.com
Reality Zone is a great website for documentaries on many important issues. Pick up a copy of “Global warming – an inconvenient lie”
I hope you enjoyed this post and/or the podcast. I welcome debate and encourage you to comment below.
Live the life you love
Nigel Howitt, Treehouse Farm
March 2018
Your logic is highly flawed. You really need to read the scientific literature and not rely on hearsay. If you did you would see that everything you are arguing is false. Go do a better job of researching the issues.
Many thanks for your comment. I would be interested to know which particular facts you take issue with. Then we could both check them and any associated reasoning that may be incorrect.
Thank you for your excellent and rational article.
Cheers Andy. LR
“It is industrialization that brought us all the modern benefits of technology and comfort that we now enjoy.”
Industrialization has brought benefits as well as detriments. Has industrialization benefited the American food supply? Sure food is cheaper, but does it contain vital nutrients?
Your argument seems to disregard any possible downside to industrialization. Can it not be both beneficial and harmful at the same time? I’ll go back to food. Sugar provides energy for the human body but consuming too much sugar leads to obesity, diabetes, heart disease, etc.
Also having a hard time swallowing this one: “CO2 is not a poison or a pollutant, it is plant food.” Yes, plants need CO2 for photosynthesis. It is also a poison. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19486434/
How about the sun? We need it for light and warmth and vitamin D but too much sun exposure causes burns, blisters, rash, and worse. Again it’s both beneficial and harmful at the same time. Is this not a contradiction that does indeed exist in reality?
Excellent Questions ASwerve, many thanks for this comment.
Industrialisation has indeed brought us all the benefits we enjoy, but it is not the fault of industrialisation that some men remain irrational.
Fire brought mankind many benefits yet it has burned many people, is fire to blame? The wheel brought us many benefits, yet people have been run over by men using wheels. Are wheels to blame? Knives and blades are extremely useful, yet are used as weapons. Is the blade really the problem? During the industrial revolution in Europe, the population grew by 300%. People who usually starved were now able to live. But there is still plenty wrong with the food “industry”.
It is not the concept of international trade on a large scale (industrialisation) that is a problem, it is the irrational behaviour of people. Whether they struggle to use fire, wheels, knives or international trade effectively without it hurting themselves and/or others is an issue separate from the concept they are employing. It is up to men to make choices and act appropriately. Men must take responsibility for their choices and actions, and the outcomes that result. It is not the responsibility of an abstract concept such as industrialisation to do man’s thinking for him and solve his problems.
CO2 is not a pollutant. Bear in mind that if you drink too much water it can kill you. If you get too much oxygen you pass out. The example you cite of a man dying by confinement in a small box due to dry Ice ‘poisoning’ is hardly representative of the poisonous potential of CO2. Remember that dry ice is a manmade product. Again it comes down to the rational behaviour of men. Can they be sensible enough to use raw materials and conceptual ideas for benefit? Or must they practice irrational behaviour that harms themselves and others with whatever tools they employ?
The sun is the source of life on our planet. If man can be sufficiently rational to observe that it must be treated with respect and that exposure in certain circumstances must be limited, then the sun remains a source of life and immense benefit. If man is stupid enough to refuse to learn and use his faculty of reason, he will continue to be an incompetent being unable to avoid harm in any of his endeavours – including his exposure to the lifegiving sun.
There are no contradictions in reality. There is only cause and effect. Some of the ill-considered actions of men result in suffering and harm. Different, more considered and appropriate actions will have different effects that are beneficial. It is up to man to use his faculty of reason to discover which actions will be successful and support his values and his life.
I hope this addresses the issues you have raised.