Climate Change

[timsk]

I watched the film and believe it's normal for people to hold different ideas. Some subscribe to a global conspiracy theory, others deny the existence of global warming or even believe the world is flat—there are many theories out there.

Hi Matt,
We can agree on your first point: nothing wrong in holding differing views. Thereafter, there's little common ground, I'm afraid!

I maintain that man made climate change is the 'global conspiracy theory'! As for denying the existence of global warming, I've not come across a single person who says that, I've not read anything by anyone who asserts that or watched any YouTube videos/films by anyone who believes that. Clearly, temperatures change all the time and, being at the tail-end of the Cenozoic ice age as we are - global temperatures are starting to get very slightly warmer. The sole issue is who or what is causing it - not that it's taking place.

Perhaps you'd care to address some of the key points raised in the film? Top of the list is how can Co2 cause climate change when ice core data since the dawn of time shows quite clearly that temperature change (up or down) comes first and that change in Co2 comes second, i.e. like a moving average, the latter lags behind the former by circa 100 years? This fact alone should cause everyone to question the central orthodoxy that Co2 is the cause of increasing temperatures.

Here are NASA's data on temperature:
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/?intent=121

And about ice: NASA Ice Sheets

Ice Sheets | NASA Global Climate Change

Vital Signs of the Planet: Global Climate Change and Global Warming. Current news and data streams about global warming and climate change from NASA.

climate.nasa.gov

I suggest you treat NASA with the same scepticism that you treat my posts. In all seriousness, the reason the world is in such a mess is because people rely on so called 'experts' and big name organisations like NASA and the BBC to tell them the truth and then they accept what they say without question. Whilst understandable, it's a serious mistake, IMO . . .
NASA Climate Model Fails at Basic Physics, Report Finds
The Climate Alarmist Attack Dog Who Was Wrong About Everything

Everyone has their viewpoint on global warming. However, I think if it weren't an issue, it likely wouldn't be discussed so extensively.

It isn't being discussed at all - let alone extensively! There is no discussion beyond the odd forum like this one. It's presented as 'settled science' (even though there's no such thing) and anyone who tries to question the mainstream narrative is ostracised, marginalized and/or labelled a crackpot tin hat conspiracy theorist etc. Did you not take on board what the scientists said in the film?

By way of example, the BBC literally won't allow anyone on radio or television who questions the narrative. They only invite disciples of the cult of fear, doom 'n gloom. My question to you is why? If people like me are idiots and it's easy to prove us wrong, why not have us on programmes and make fools out of us? IMO, there's only one reason they won't do that - and that's because they know we'd make fools out of them!

Consider this simple logic: reducing resource consumption implies cutting down production, which could lead to fewer jobs, shrinking economies, and reduced corporate profits. It's hard to see who would benefit from this.

I'm not a scientist, but I strive to think critically

Sorry, I don't understand what your point is or how it relates to the myth of man made climate change?
Tim.

 

[timsk]

So, looking at the ice core data, it's clear that there have been times when CO2 levels went up after the temperatures did.

Incorrect: temperatures lead and Co2 lags behind by circa 100 years. Check out the film, this was explained clearly and in detail.

But that doesn't change what we know about CO2 and climate change today. The big issue now is the fast warming over the last hundred years, mostly because of the extra greenhouse gases, like CO2.

Co2 comprises just 0.042% of the atmosphere, i.e. 420 parts per million. Of that, man made Co2 is just 3%. 3% of 0.042% is 0.00126%. i.e. 12.6 parts per million. You and fellow climate alarmists are expecting me to believe that these homeopathic quantities of Co2 are responsible for the increase in temperature without providing any empirical evidence to support the theory? Moreover, you have no way of distinguishing between the 3% man made Co2 and the 97% natural Co2 - so it's impossible to state categorically that it's the former that's causing the rise rather than the latter. Termites produce more Co2 than humans do: so how about we scrap net zero and just get rid of the world's termites - problem solved!

The impact of carbon dioxide (CO2) on temperature increase was theoretically identified in the 19th century. Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius published a paper in 1896 where he first hypothesized that increasing concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere could lead to higher global temperatures, thereby explaining the mechanism of warming. Arrhenius is considered one of the pioneers in the study of the greenhouse effect and its impact on Earth's climate.

Svante Arrhenius

Svante Arrhenius - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Theories are all well and good - I have no issues with them whatsoever. When they are put forward as fact supported by GIGO computer models without any empirical evidence and major policy is then implemented on the back of them which will result in the immiseration and death of millions of people - that's when I have a problem. So called scientists who are funded to push the false climate change narrative don't practice real science, aka the 'Scientific Method' - therein lies the problem . . .
THE CRUELTY OF THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD

It's really important to tell the difference between the natural warming and cooling cycles the Earth goes through and what's happening now, which is heating up way faster than usual.

The IPCC reports, along with research from NOAA and NASA, are helpful. They've got a ton of studies that look at CO2 levels and temperatures over time, showing how they're connected and backing up what we're seeing with the current climate change trends.

As I've already made clear, the debate isn't about whether or not the temperature changes - it changes all of the time. The debate is simply about the cause. Here's a question for you Matt: why are you so insistent that it's the 12.6 parts per million of Co2 that's the cause and seem unwilling to consider other possibilities for the change in temperature? Dare I mention that big hot yellow ball in the sky? No, ridiculous idea to even suggest that the sun could have anything to do with it, it's all down to the 12.6 parts of Co2 - aka the gas of life, without which we all die! Do you not see just how flimsy and ridiculous the whole climate change narrative is?
Tim.

 

[timsk]

If we can't trust organizations like NASA, then who can we trust?

Good question, and the answer is, sadly, no one.

I arrived at this conclusion during the pandemic when I realised that no one - and no organisation - is beyond the tentacles of those with the power and money to drive forward their agenda - which is usually to accumulate more power and lots more money. Back then, I believed that the Joint Committee on Vaccination & Immunisation (JCVI) wouldn't recommend jabbing children, as the evidence was crystal clear that there was zero benefit for them and potentially huge harm, including death. (I wrote to them at the time with my evidence.) Yet, the JCVI went ahead anyway, because they're corrupt. How they sleep at night I simply don't know. Anyway, I realised that if a committee like that can be bought so easily - then we can't trust anyone. It's very depressing.

 

[timsk]

. . . So, the question remains: if global warming is indeed a hoax or a global conspiracy, then who stands to gain from it?

This was fairly comprehensively addressed in the film, Matt.
Climate change and net zero are now a massive global industry worth $billions. And the people who benefit from it are the same as those who benefit from any scam. Just as the pharmaceutical industrial complex benefited from flogging an experimental gene therapy masquerading as a vaccine that turned out to be neither safe nor effective, and the global military industrial complex are benefiting from wars in Ukraine and Israel that could be stopped within days if there was the political will to end them, the green industrial complex benefit from pushing the false climate change agenda. It's the same ol' story: the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. What's different this time is that the dividing line between the two is going to move up massively towards the rich and the lower poor group is going to get hugely bigger. You're quite right about the ensuing damage to the economy and people losing their jobs and businesses going belly up etc. That will happen, just as it did during the pandemic. But the big corporations, unelected NGO's and global liberal elites behind the scam don't give a monkey's to$$, as it's not them who'll be adversely affected. On the contrary, they stand to get richer by orders of magnitude - all at the expense of ordinary people in the west and the poor in third world countries - as was highlighted in the film.
Tim.

 

[Rufus_Leakey]

Termites produce more Co2 than humans do: so how about we scrap net zero and just get rid of the world's termites - problem solved!

No, humans produce more -- at least if you believe scientists instead of conspiracy theorists.

It’s the other way around -- termites produce approximately one-tenth of the carbon dioxide emissions created by humans

A meme shared hundreds of times in multiple posts on Facebook and Twitter claims that termites produce 10 times more carbon dioxide than humans in a single year. The claim is false; scientists estimate termites’ carbon emissions are approximately one-tenth of those created by humans.

factcheck.afp.com

 

[counter_violent]

As Tim's link isn't working, try this one, I believe this is the movie?

An excellent film all round.

We can see clearly the forces at work. "whoever pays the piper calls the tune".

There is however a very good reason to become as self sufficient as possible, ie installing solar panels at home and consuming all that power, as this will keep you at arms length from the greedy power companies. Energy prices will only go up and it's the mass consumers who will pay the price. So people can harp on about climate change and the consequences, but the smart people are investing in self sufficiency not because they are buying into the whole climate change story, but because they are insuring against future price rises of energy cost.

 

[timsk]

No, humans produce more -- at least if you believe scientists instead of conspiracy theorists.

Not a conspiracy theory R_L - that's the domain of those pushing the climate change agenda.

That said, I concede that I should have said 'smokestacks' rather than humans - not that it's a distinction with any real difference. Apologies nonetheless . . .

TERMITE GAS EXCEEDS SMOKESTACK POLLUTION
"Now researchers report that termites, digesting vegetable matter on a global basis, produce more than twice as much carbon dioxide as all the world's smokestacks."

 

[IlIlIlIlI]

A small history of recent climate related to instilling fear:

1970th ice age forecast:

What were climate scientists predicting in the 1970s?

<p>1970s ice age predictions were predominantly media based. The majority of peer reviewed research at the time predicted warming due to increasing CO2.</p>

skepticalscience.com

1980th ozone hole forecast:

Ozone depletion - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

since 1990th the so called "climate change", but "the markets are where the money is, politicians followed":

Climate Change Became Politicized in the 1990s. It Didn't Have To Be That Way.

To understand why the world didn't act faster on climate change, we have to understand what changed in the 1990s

time.com

"climate protection" is a much more funny combination of words as it also does not explain what climate is aand what is to protect.

Maybe it will turn out as a myth as the ice age assumptions of the 70th:

Climate myths: They predicted global cooling in the 1970s

In reality, a handful of scientific papers discussed the possibility of an ice age at some point in the future, prompting some pretty sensational media coverage

www.newscientist.com

"In October 1982, David told a global warming conference financed by Exxon: “Few people doubt that the world has entered an energy transition, away from dependence upon fossil fuels and toward some mix of renewable resources that will not pose problems of CO2 accumulation"

Sixty years of climate change warnings: the signs that were missed (and ignored)

The long read: The effects of ‘weird weather’ were already being felt in the 1960s, but scientists linking fossil fuels with climate change were dismissed as prophets of doom

www.theguardian.com

(and they didn't reduce their own emissions AFAIK since then)

IMO man made global warming is just a theory without fundamental evidence - as there are a lot of other factors ignored:
- photosynthesis
- solar winds
- deforestation

Deforestation and Forest Loss

Explore long-term changes in deforestation, and deforestation rates across the world today.

ourworldindata.org

See also page 104 here for a better view of climate relations

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/ar4-wg1-chapter1.pdf

As oxygen concentration drops while C02 concentration raises, this looks more like an effect of continuing deforestation reducing photosynthesis activities.

Historical Global Atmospheric Oxygen Levels Graph

See how global oxygen levels are dropping with this fully interactive graph. A project by the 2 Degrees Institute.

www.oxygenlevels.org

I'm still waiting for any effect on the C02 concentration of all the measures taken to reduce C02 emissions.
Maybe there is none -and it ends like the regeneration of the ozone hole by self-healing processes of the system which were not included in the original fear generating forecasts.

 

[timsk]

This btl comment from 'Zebra66' neatly encapsulates the lies we're being sold. . .

"I have come to realize that, when an emergency is real, you don't need to persuade anyone. When people [governments, big business and MSM] go to extraordinary measures to promote a supposed 'emergency'... censoring opposing opinions... destroying people's reputations... calling you names like "denier"... it's because they are lying."

 

[timsk]

If we can't trust organizations like NASA, then who can we trust?

Massive Retrospective Adjustments Made to Temperature Databases Used to Promote Net Zero​

"Massive retrospective alterations have been made to surface air temperatures by GISS, one of the main global databases run by the U.S. space agency NASA. Professor Ole Humlum has discovered that in the period January 1915 to January 2000, GISS changed past warming from 0.45°C to 0.67°C. This was a massive increase of 49%, which meant that almost half of the apparent warming in most of the 20th century was due to administrative changes made years after the initial measurements. On such evidence is the need for a global Net Zero collectivisation being promoted."

 

[Iconoclast1978]

While I think we should treat the planet and nature with the utmost care and respect; climate change, IMO, is a large pile of horse s***.

And no we should not trust NASA. I trust NASA about as much as I trust TicTok which aint a lot.

 

[timsk]

. . . I trust NASA about as much as I trust TicTok which aint a lot.

That much - wow!

 

[timsk]

The Astrophysicist Warning About the Coming Little Ice Age: “It’s Already Started
“CO2 is not a bad gas,” says Valentina Zharkova, a Professor at the Northumbria University in Newcastle, U.K. On the contrary, she points out, every garden centre uses it in its greenhouses to make plants lush and green. “We actually have a CO2 deficit in the world, and it’s three to four times less than the plants would like,” she notes, adding that the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere has been at much higher levels throughout our planet’s history than it is now. . .

 

[timsk]

Climate Change is Class Warfare​

by Martin Durkin, maker of 'Climate: The Movie'

". . . The climate alarm is not supported by scientific evidence. It is supported by bullyng, intimidation and the censorship of anyone who dares to question it. Climate catastrophism is politics, shamelessly dressed up as science. . .It would be nice to think that politely pointing to the actual scientific data might put an end to all the climate chaos nonsense. Sadly it won’t. Because this ain’t about science."

A couple of very insightful btl comments. . .
'Stewart' writes:
"And most people are so abused and gaslit by this point that they cannot conceive a world taxes and regulation. The moment you even suggest it, they get defensive and nervous, a bit like a battered woman when you ask her about her husband.
“Well, he can get angry sometimes. Often it’s my fault though. He means well really, he just struggles to control his temper…”
“Yes, taxes are a bit too high, and government can be very wasteful. But you need some form of regulation, you need someone to be in charge, otherwise you’d just have chaos. And I think most people in the public sector are trying to do good.”

'RTSC' writes:
It’s about control, the reduction of “the peasants'” living standards in the west and transferring whatever money they have left to the 2nd/3rd world and Big Business.
Me: Small c conservative; Brexit voter; anti-Covid tyranny and un-jabbed; climate change realist. Never watch the BBC.
My older sister: LibDem; Remain voter; supports the Covid tyranny and jabbed to the max; loud-mouth climate change proselytiser. Gets all her “news” from the BBC.
We don’t get on. 🙂

 

[timsk]

How Many Billions of People Would Die Under Net Zero?​

Whatever the number, the graphic below shows how the lives of those who survive will be greatly immiserated under net zero . . .

 

[timsk]

New Scientific Evidence That CO2 Emissions Can’t Warm Atmosphere Because it is “Saturated” Published in Peer-Reviewed Journal​

Further scientific evidence has emerged to suggest that the Earth’s atmosphere is ‘saturated’ with carbon dioxide, meaning that at higher levels the ‘greenhouse’ gas will not cause temperatures to rise. A group of Polish scientists led by Dr. Jan Kubicki have published three papers recently, and according to the science site No Tricks Zone they summarise their evidence by noting that as a result of saturation, “emitted CO2 does not directly cause an increase in global temperature”. Current levels of CO2 in the atmosphere are around 418 parts per million (ppm) but the scientists state that past 400 ppm, “the CO2 concentration can no longer cause any increase in temperature”.

 

[timsk]

BBC Uses Corrupted Airport Data to Circulate Scares About “Extreme Heat” and Climate Change​

“London seeing more days above 30°C, experts say”, ran a BBC headline, with a reported suggestion that London must adapt to the “new reality”. But it turns out that the ‘experts’ have used “airport data for consistency across worldwide cities, including City Airport in London”. It is difficult to think of a more unsuitable dataset to promote notions of “extreme heat”, other than perhaps to take measurements next to the door of a blast furnace.

 

[timsk]

Climate Fear Plummets Among Americans​

Oh dear oh dear, it appears the young are starting to see through the narrative of the globalist liberal elites; whether it's 'the vaccines are safe and effective', 'Putin is a psychopath intent on conquering Europe' or, as in this case, 'climate change is going to kill us all'. If they keep lying to people repeatedly and then the truth comes out (which it always does in the end), then it's no surprise when people stop believing in anything they say. What's extraordinary, IMO, is the sheer hubris and arrogance of these people, combined with the utter contempt they must hold for us plebs - such that that they believe they can keep on lying to us and that we'll keep on believing them. Simply unbelievable!

 

[timsk]

Climate Change is Driven by Changes in Orientation of Earth to Sun, Not Carbon Emissions, New Analysis of Berkeley Earth Data Shows​

Good btl comment by 'varmint':
"Very extensive and well researched article. I have realised for a very long time though that trying to argue with people about “science” as regards the climate issue is going to end right up a cul-de-sac. Mainly because this issue isn’t really about science. We can have a Punch and Judy Show and activists can say black and I can say white and in the end nothing is achieved, because while we are bickering about what we think is “science”, the Politicians and Bureaucrats are busy getting on with what it is really about ——POLITICS. ——-The Politics of Sustainable Development. That Political Agenda which is about a world run by technocrats controlling the world’s wealth and resources, requires that there be a “climate emergency”, and with most of the mainstream media dancing to that tune the general public are mostly convinced there is one. Even when you point out to them there is no increase in the frequency or intensity of any type of weather event, they still remain convinced that this is only temporary and that the climate apocalypse is only around the corner, and that scientists know what they are talking about. ——-Yes they do, but it is also true that Who Pays the Piper calls the tune, and almost all so called science regarding climate change is funded by —–GOVERNMENT. The very same government that want to impose the Political Agenda called Sustainable Development on the world. ——-So when we are arguing about science we are arguing about the wrong thing. This is not about science. It is the hijacking of science in support of POLITICS."

 

[timsk]

Climate alarmists are fond of referencing 'The Science' which almost always means GIGO computer models to promote the illusion of imminent climate catastrophe. Meanwhile, the actual science - as in empirical real world data - shows there is no climate catastrophe . . .

NOAA’s Latest Temperature Climate Data Establishes There is NO CLIMATE EMERGENCY​

The National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration's temperature data as addressed in detail in this essay do not support and clearly refute climate alarmist hype that we are experiencing a ‘climate emergency’, says Larry Hamlin in Watts Up With That?