Topics below: Anti-fossil fuel crusade is devastating societies like Britain and Germany; “World Climate Declaration” (There is no climate emergency); The benefits of higher CO2 levels; Irrational panic over ice melting and “Arctic greening”; CO2 is not causing a “climate crisis”; Discussing the physics of CO2 with old friends (discussion group posts); and more…
Exaggerated panic-mongering, as with the climate crisis narrative, incites the survival impulse in populations rendering people susceptible to irrational salvation schemes. We are watching this unfold in the widespread embrace of decarbonization to “save the world” from the “end of days”. And like all apocalyptic movements, climate alarmism has become a self-destructive movement that harms the most vulnerable people the most.
The irrational embrace of self-destruction stems in part from the deeply embedded human feeling that we are bad to the bone, we have ruined an original paradise, and we now deserve punishment and must make some sacrifice or payment for our sins (i.e. the abandonment of the good life for a return to a “morally superior” simple lifestyle).
Apocalyptic prophets tell people that if they embrace the full complex of apocalyptic millennial themes and practices, then they may be able to restore the lost paradise or initiate a new millennial paradise. This is pagan mythology at its primitive worst now unfolding in climate alarmism.
We have been given the warnings for years now that Green anti-fossil fuel policies (i.e. decarbonization) will devastate our societies. We have watched countries like Germany and Britain rushing to wean themselves off fossil fuels in a panic over the discredited climate alarmism narrative (i.e. good climate science shows that there is no “climate emergency”). A series of ongoing reports by agencies like the Global Warming Policy Forum have detailed the massive harm this fear-based policy of decarbonization has wrought on these societies. Pay close attention to the unfolding catastrophe in those countries…
This from the Wall Street Journal…
https://www.wsj.com/articles/net-zero-bankrupts-britain-household-energy-bills-climate-11661523856?mc_cid=8d425871c8&mc_eid=bbd9cad85f
Quotes from above link:
“If you think this couldn’t happen in America, think again. The underlying cause of Britain’s energy misery is its fixation with climate goals, especially the ambition to achieve net-zero CO2 emissions by 2050. To meet that goal Britain has grown hostile to domestic energy exploration, banning shale-gas fracking and slapping windfall-profits taxes on North Sea oil and gas producers that will deter investment. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has hurt, but the U.K.’s policies made its citizens vulnerable to such a global shock…
“This isn’t all that different from the energy policies the Biden Administration and Democrats in Congress, California and New York are imposing via the Inflation Reduction Act and myriad regulatory assaults on fossil fuels and favors for renewables. Britain’s inane innovation is a price cap that causes disastrous price increases to happen twice a year rather than continuously.
“To adapt Hemingway, net zero drives you bankrupt gradually, then suddenly. Britain’s sudden energy agony is a five-alarm warning if the climate progressives continue to have their way.”
See also
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/uk-energy-bills-gas-electricity-price-cap-b2153549.html?mc_cid=8d425871c8&mc_eid=bbd9cad85f
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/08/26/how-governments-cult-net-zero-wrecked-energy-market/?mc_cid=8d425871c8&mc_eid=bbd9cad85f
https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-the-energy-transition-will-fail-11661547051?mc_cid=8d425871c8&mc_eid=bbd9cad85f
Aussie Senator Malcolm Roberts Slams False Net Zero Inflation Claims
Update on “The World Climate Declaration”
‘There is No Climate Emergency’ (1,107 Signatories and Counting)
Main points affirmed by over 1,100 signatories:
“There is no climate emergency.
“Natural as well as anthropogenic factors cause warming.
“Warming is far slower than predicted by models.
“Climate policy relies on inadequate models.
“CO2 is plant food, the basis of all life on Earth. Additional CO2 in the air has promoted growth in global plant biomass.
“Global warming has not increased natural disasters.
“Climate policy must respect scientific and economic realities. There is no climate emergency. Therefore, there is no cause for panic or alarm… Go for adaptation instead of mitigation.”
The benefit of higher CO2 levels
CO2, across the 500 million year span of life, has often been in the thousands of parts per million (ppm). Most plant life and animal life emerged and developed under such high CO2 states. Over the past several millions of years, CO2 levels have declined dangerously, once declining to barely above the level at which all plant life, and all life, dies- at 150 ppm. We are still barely above that level, now in the low 400 ppms. Even with this mild recovery of the basic food of plant life (from the 185 ppm of some 30,000 years ago to the 400 plus ppm of today), there has been a 15% increase in green vegetation across the Earth since 1980. Plants are loving more food and that benefits animal and human life immensely (increased crop production).
Much higher levels of CO2 will continue to benefit all life immensely and will not cause “catastrophic global warming”. This is because the warming influence of CO2 decreases “logarithmically” with further rise in the atmosphere. This is basic CO2 physics. See the research and comment by climate physicists Richard Lindzen, William Happer, William Wijngaarden, and others below.
More CO2 in the atmosphere will not cause any “climate emergency”. That is anti-science irrationality. The warming effect of CO2 is already “saturated” in physics terms. It will not contribute much more to climate warming.
Stop terrorizing and traumatizing young people
(Consider a possible correlation between endless environmental alarmism and depression being the number 1 illness on Earth. Note the personal experience of Julian Simon in this regard.)
A report on what climate alarmism does to young people, by Eric Worral. The study he refers to advocates indoctrinating youth with more climate alarm.
WEF: Teach Compulsory Climate Change Studies to Alleviate Youth Anxiety
“A study from a British university reveals that more than half of young people experience climate anxiety on a daily basis…”
“The research, carried out by the University of Bath, was based on surveys of 10,000 young people across 10 countries – 75% of respondents said they believe “the future is frightening”…
“(The) Largest scientific study of its kind finds climate anxiety affects the daily life and functioning of nearly half of children and young people surveyed globally.
“The study found widespread psychological distress among children and young people globally and warns ‘such high levels of distress, functional impact and feelings of betrayal will negatively affect the mental health of children and young people.’
“Not all the kids subjected to this kind of brainwashing respond by becoming climate warriors. Some of them can’t cope with the climate doomsday messaging, and make self destructive personal choices.
And this added comment re Australia and drug use…
“Fifth, efforts to reduce the demand for powerful psychoactive drugs in Australia have had limited benefit and require a new focus. Unless and until young Australians feel optimistic about their future, demand for drugs will remain strong.”
Author Eric Worrall’s conclusion:
“Teaching more climate anxiety might convince many of the victims to embrace “changes in consumer behaviour” in later life, but quite apart from the unconscionable immorality of trying to program kids rather than educate them, there appears to be a lot of collateral damage, those unfortunate young people who don’t make it through the brainwashing intact, whose minds are broken by their climate “education”.
“The greens pushing this brainwashing for kids don’t seem to care about the harm they are causing. The green focus appears to be forcing “changes in consumer behaviour”, regardless of the cost and suffering.”
Irrational Panic over Arctic greening https://www.wired.com/story/these-trees-are-spreading-north-in-alaska-thats-not-good/
During their 2019 summer visit to the Alaskan Arctic, Roman Dial and his friend Brad Meiklejohn encountered something along a trail that they found more “troubling” than encountering a bear… a green tree (spruce). They experienced that as “bad news” in a bitterly cold wasteland of shrubs and grasses. And they found more such trees over subsequent days. The Arctic was greening.
The author of this Wired article, Matt Simon, added that the Arctic is “warming four times faster than other parts of the world”. Again, in his view- “bad news”. “Arctic greening is a blaring warning light on the climate damage dashboard”, he concludes.
Some rational counter points to this endless panic-mongering over warming climate. Yes, the colder areas of the planet are warming faster than other areas as incoming solar heat is distributed naturally by Earth’s convection currents, both ocean and atmospheric (notably, the Hadley tropical convection cell- See Jim Steele reports at Wattsupwiththat.com). Heat energy naturally flows across unequal gradients from hotter to cooler regions. This evens out climate across the planet.
And in paleo-climate perspective, the polar regions would naturally return to the more optimal and natural states of most of their past history- becoming ice-free as they have been for some 90% of the history of life. That warmer status resulted in tropical plants and animals expanding their habitats into both polar regions, increasing the diversity of life in the polar regions, just as the most diverse forms of life today are found in warmer areas of our planet.
To stir panic over ice melting on Earth is irrational in a world where 15 times more people die from cold every year than die from warmth.
An inconvenient truth from medical research: cold is far worse than global warming at killing people
And with Earth warming slightly over the past century (roughly 1 degree C) now fewer people are dying from cold. Overall, there has been a 99% decline in human deaths from climate-related disasters over the past century: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/01/02/inconvenient-truth-climate-related-death-risk-down-99-6-over-100-years/
Additionally,
Physicist Freeman Dyson: “The warming effect of carbon dioxide is strongest where air is cold and dry, mainly in the Arctic rather than in the tropics, mainly in mountainous regions rather than in lowlands, mainly in winter rather than in summer, and mainly at night rather than in daytime. The warming is real, but it is mostly making cold places warmer rather than making hot places hotter.”
All to say- there is no “climate crisis/emergency”. And the ongoing “greening of the Arctic”, far from being a “bad news” story, is a huge benefit to the world as it means expanded habitats for more diverse life forms, both plant and animal, and fewer human deaths from cold. It also means expanded crop lands for humanity.
Declaration saying “There is no climate emergency” trends on Twitter – Greenies have meltdown, Chris Morrison, Daily Sceptic, 23 August 2022
Quotes from above article…
“… the ongoing World Climate Declaration (WCD), now signed by over 1,100 scientists and professionals. Headed by the Norwegian physics Nobel Prize laureate Professor Ivar Giaever, the WCD says there is no climate emergency. Climate science is said to have degenerated into a discussion based on beliefs, not on sound science…
“Another German scientist, the distinguished experimental physics specialist Professor Hermann Harde, recently dismissed the idea that humans control the climate via carbon dioxide emissions as an “absolute delusion”. He warned politicians that it would be an irresponsible energy policy to continue to ignore more serious peer-reviewed scientific publications that show a much smaller human impact on climate than previously thought…
“Before he died, the acclaimed physicist Professor Freeman Dyson – a signatory of the CWD – noted that the “people who are supposed to be the experts and claim to understand the science, are precisely the people who are blind to the evidence”. Professor Richard Lindzen, a WCD lead signatory, evidently agrees, having said that the current climate narrative is “absurd”, even though trillions of dollars currently says it is not. It remains to be seen what will run out first – the money, or the tolerance of citizens to become poor under command-and-control, hard-left Net Zero regimes…
“48 Italian science professors recently wrote to their Government, stating that human responsibility for climate change is “unjustifiably exaggerated and catastrophic predictions are not realistic”…
“Geology also provides an important insight into the paleoclimatic record. Geologists are often sceptical about claims that humans are causing sudden changes in the climate.”
This from Net Zero Watch, the newsletter of the Global Warming Policy Forum…
“Empirical observations show no sign of ‘climate crisis’- Global Warming Policy Foundation, 14 April 2022
“A systematic review of climate trends and observational data by an eminent climate scientist has found no evidence to support the claim of a climate crisis.
“In his annual State of the Climate report, Ole Humlum, emeritus professor at the University of Oslo, examined detailed patterns in temperature changes in the atmosphere and oceans together with trends in climate impacts. Many of these show no significant trends and suggest that poorly understood natural cycles are involved.
“And while the report finds gentle warming, there is no evidence of dramatic changes, with snow cover stable, sea ice levels recovering, and no change in storm activity.
“Professor Humlum said:
“A year ago, I warned that there was great risk in using computer modelling and immature science to make extraordinary claims. The empirical observations I have reviewed show very gentle warming and no evidence of a climate crisis.”
“GWPF director, Dr Benny Peiser said:
“It’s extraordinary that anyone should think there is a climate crisis. Year after year our annual assessment of climate trends document just how little has been changing in the last 30 years.
“The habitual climate alarmism is mainly driven by scientists’ computer modelling rather than observational evidence.”
“Ole Humlum: State of the Climate 2021 (pdf)”
This from Wattsupwiththat.com
Quotes from above link…. See full article at link above…
“Corruption of Climate Science Supported by Flawed Models
“By Gregory Wrightstone Aug. 22, 2022
“Imagine the theory of gravity being determined by a partisan vote. Or a group of politicians ruling on interpretations of the laws of modern physics. Bizarre as those propositions sound, that is what is happening in climate science.
“Scientific research is done predominantly in academia, where truth is supposedly established through years of work that is financially supported by government or private entities. Sometimes, the financiers of research desire particular outcomes for their money.
“Human nature being what it is, ulterior motives creep into researchers’ methods and results when funding sources have a point view that is made known to scientists applying for grants and working in laboratories. A sort of predeterminism arises where the funder’s interests are given priority over time-proven scientific methodologies.
“There are large factions of politicians and scientists committed to a baseless narrative that emissions of carbon dioxide from human activity are leading to an apocalyptic warming of Earth. With the enthusiasm of religious zealots and the ruthlessness of the power-mad, a climate industrial complex is driving energy policy on the basis of a hundred or so badly flawed computer models. More than 95 percent of these digital prognosticators have proven unreliable in predicting climatic trends. Yet, they are used anyhow.
“In simple terms, the models are designed to exaggerate the potency of atmospheric carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas. Consequently, the models overstate future warming. The magnification of forecasted warming is revealed by retrospectively comparing model results to actual, historical temperatures.
“A 2020 scientific analysis revealed that “models overpredict warming in every target observational analog, in most cases significantly so, and the average differences between models and observations are statistically significant.”…
“Why do researchers continue to use models that are known to exaggerate warming? To produce outcomes that support a view politically popular with the climate obsessed?
“It would seem so, given the profit motive and the lucrative nature of the current pernicious cycle: Governments advance their doomsday narrative, scientists and research institutions get grants, the green lobby secures investments and subsidies for uneconomic and ineffective technologies, and political candidates embrace the hysteria in exchange for campaign contributions.
“This is all supported by working people who pay excessive taxes and unnecessarily high energy bills. Some employed in the fossil fuel industry pay with loss of livelihoods. The price for the poorest among us — particularly in the developing world — may be lives lost through further impoverishment and early death….
“Some climate warmists may be ignorant of science’s corruption. However, others cynically take advantage of it for money and power. At some point, this facade will collapse because of the lack of reality behind it. Nonetheless, we are obligated to do what we can to accelerate the falsehood’s dismantlement if only to honor sacrifices made by others in the name of truth.
“Gregory Wrightstone is a geologist; executive director of the CO2 Coalition, Arlington, Va.; and author of “Inconvenient Facts: The science that Al Gore doesn’t want you to know.
“This commentary was first published at PJ Media August 20, 2022”
These good comments are from my friend Bob Brinsmead of “Tropicalfruitworld” Australia. Bob is one of the most informed people I have ever read on the difference between the Historical Jesus and the Jesus Christ myth of Christianity. He is also well informed on the climate debate and core issues related to that. These posts are pulled from an online discussion with others hence the lack of context for some remarks… Note especially Bob’s comments on myth being more convincing for many people than fact, particularly in relation to the current great public myth of a “climate change emergency”.
“People believe myth much more firmly, even fanatically, than they believe real facts.”
“That is a good overview of myths. It has been said that the Christ who emerged in Christianity looks like he has just stepped right out of a Greek myth- and remember that the New Testament was written in Greek and was written in the context of that Greek culture. There were aspects of the Christ myth that could never have developed in a first century Jewish language and culture. Years ago, Rosemary Reuther said that the Christian religion could only have taken root in the Greco-Roman civilization and could not have taken root in a Semitic culture. That is why Gentile Christianity went West and Jewish Christianity went East (in places outside the Roman Empire).
“For instance, to start with the Jewish people who spoke Aramaic would not have used the Septuagint version of the Old Testament which as you will know was a Greek translation of the OT. It has been proved that the Gentile Christianity which developed (including Paul) used only the Septuagint version of the Bible. For instance, it is not difficult to show that Adventism in its formative years could not have developed its peculiar doctrine except for the King James Version of the Bible, and like that, Gentile Christians depended on the peculiarities of the Septuagint Bible- “a virgin shall conceive” (a misleading translation of Isaiah 7:14 ) is one obvious example of that.
“Almost the whole world at the moment has been swept up into the myth of the climate change emergency. Like every great myth, it is based on a story– a narrative of what is wrong with the world. To suit the culture, it invokes “the science” as its argumentum ad vericundium. It’s a myth that lives in the imagination of our culture, and generally speaking, not even the clearest and most simple of facts can shake it, even among the well-educated. Convincing people it is a delusion is as hard as convincing the Jehovah’s Witness that a blood transfusion is beneficial or a Muslim there is nothing wrong with a ham sandwich. The Tasmanian aboriginals believed that all sea food was evil, so they died in times of famine rather than eat what surrounded them in abundance.
“As Mark Twain said, it is easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. Or the author of “The Madness of Crowds” (Doug Murray): people go mad in crowds but can only regain their sanity one by one.
“Further to my comments about myths is the outstanding, amazing statement made by Robert Funk of the Jesus Seminar, a man whom ____ knew personally and had spent some time talking to him. ____, do you remember the following brilliant statement from Funk:
“In the words of Robert W. Funk: “The kingdom of God was the world as Jesus imagined it…The gospel of Jesus is not mythological. The major mythic themes of the kerygma [message of the early church] and creed are missing from his pronouncements… The language of Jesus is exhaustively focused on the mundane, the ordinary, the non-mythological… [Jesus] does not appear to resort to anything outside the domain of his secular lifeworld: his message does not traffic in mythology at any level.” (The Incredible Creed, May-August 1997)
“Just put that observation in your brain and think about that for a while.
“People believe myth much more firmly, even fanatically, than they believe real facts.
“Who is the guy who said, “There is nothing more firmly believed than that which is not known.”? This statement is so bloody true, it makes me laugh- at myself for believing some ridiculous myths so firmly that I would have been willing to risk life itself on the belief. Nothing is so firmly believed and clung to than a myth– including the myth of a climate emergency. People who don’t believe this myth are cancelled, called crazy deniers, and treated as non-persons etc.”
The Insanity of Endless Apocalyptic Alarmism, Wendell Krossa
Alarmist prophets, notably environmental prophets, have persistently battered public consciousness with end-of-world threats of doom- from global cooling in the 1970s, to exhausted resources and mass starvation, to humanity choking to death as the “lungs of the planet” (i.e. world forests) were purportedly being denuded, and now to climate catastrophe that would “fry the planet”. These among numerous other “existential crises” along the way.
And after the doom prophets had incited hysteria and the survival impulse of populations, good rational scientists would do thorough research on the true state of life and tell us that actually things were not as bad as the apocalyptic prophets had prophesied. Life overall was actually improving over the long-term (see, for example, Humanprogress.org or Julian Simon’s brilliant “Ultimate Resource”, published in 1986 but still vitally current in relation to its basic arguments).
But few are listening to the follow-up corrections of alarmist exaggeration and distortion. Few hear the good news on the actual state of the planet as crisis-oriented media (and politicians, entertainers, scientists), after terrorizing and traumatizing people, then immediately pivot and move on to the next looming and always “imminent” catastrophe.
And there is never any apology from the hysterical prophets of doom. No recognition or admission of their exaggeration and distortion of the true state of the planet. Much like socialists refusing to admit the numerous repeated historical failures of their collectivist approach to organizing society. We just need to try again and again to finally get it right as there can be nothing wrong with collectivism itself (see Kristian Niemietz’ “Socialism: The failed idea that never dies”).
Grade One children in the distant future will look back upon this era of apocalyptic madness and shake their heads that so many “adults” abandoned rationality to embrace the lunacy of apocalyptic hysteria and embrace an irrational salvation scheme (decarbonization) that would bring societies to the brink of ruin.
A religious-like crusade based on unscientific/mythical assumptions, Wendell Krossa
The worldwide decarbonization crusade continues based on wrong assumptions that CO2 is a “pollutant”, that it is primarily responsible for climate change, and that climate change will become “catastrophic… an existential crisis” if it passes another 1.5 degrees C. Hence, climate alarmists claim, we must rapidly decarbonize our societies and move to alternative renewables in order to “save the world” from a looming climate apocalypse (the end of days keeps getting pushed forward as it never arrives).
But good climate science and respected climate physicists (i.e. Richard Lindzen, William Happer, William Wijngaarden, among others) have exposed the above assumptions, that are based largely on discredited climate models, as exaggerations and distortions of climate facts.
CO2, while playing a small role in climate warming (“bit player”), is not mainly responsible for climate change. Other natural factors show stronger correlations to the climate change that we have seen over past decades, centuries, and millennia. And CO2 has already reached “saturation” (in climate physics terms) in regard to its ability to absorb and re-emit infrared radiation from the Earth’s surface that is returning to space- the so-called “blanketing effect” of greenhouse gases. The “re-emitting” is more a recycling of the infrared energy leaving the Earth’s surface and returning to space. That energy is re-cycled back towards the Earth, some of which is again lost to space. See Jim Steele’s good explanation of this process at…
The Big 5 Natural Causes of Global Warming part 5: How Clouds Moderate Global Warming
In fact, CO2’s ability to contribute to further warming has been declining “logarithmically” with increasing levels in the atmosphere. Rising CO2 poses no threat to life. And to the contrary, as the basic food of all life that has been in diminished supply for millions of years, increasing CO2 levels offer huge benefits to life.
The warming that we have actually experienced (about 1.0 degree C over past century) has been mostly net beneficial (i.e. extended crop growing seasons, extended animal habitats). Further, there is no sound evidence that heat waves, droughts, storms, or floods are becoming more frequent or severe. Even the IPCC admits this.
The rising levels of atmospheric CO2 have been largely beneficial to all life with a 15% increase in green vegetation across the Earth over the past half century (more food for animals, increased crop production for humanity).
Including such evidence in our growing body of climate knowledge leads to the rational conclusion that there is no need to tax carbon or decarbonize our societies.
We need to responsibly end the insanity of ruining our societies and harming the poorest people with this irrational decarbonization crusade that is, actually, a profoundly religious movement- dominated by the primitive and history-distorting myth of apocalypse (decline toward collapse/ending).
Fairness is critical to a stable society
The abandonment of fairness can be seriously disrupting in a society. Many have noted this in regard to how mainstream progressive media favor one side over the other, exaggerating the faults of one side while ignoring the faults on their side, praising the good on their side while ignoring or dismissing the good on the other side. Is this perhaps one reason why news media now have such low approval ratings in the view of the general population? See links further below to Trey Gowdy’s videos on fairness. (According to a recent survey, mainstream TV news media have only an 11% approval/trust rating- i.e. “some confidence”- with the public. Their stunning ratings declines affirm this extremely low level of trust. https://news.gallup.com/poll/394817/media-confidence-ratings-record-lows.aspx)
Attacks on freedom of speech
Political parties, or anyone else, should not use the power of the state to limit the speech of those they disagree with. Classic Liberalism argued that government should be limited to basic services such as protecting citizens from actual physical assault “from enemies both foreign and domestic”. Today, partisan groups are moving far beyond the limited government of Classic Liberalism and trying to use state powers to protect people’s feelings from being hurt, to protect some people from feeling offended, and doing this by limiting what they view as the offensive words of others, even by using excessively broad “hate speech” categories, too often meaning- views and speech that they disagree with. The endeavor to prohibit the free speech of others includes comment that some people claim makes them “feel threatened”- “subject to violence”- even if the speech is comedy that so obviously incites no one to violence.
“What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist… Nobody has the right to not be offended. That right doesn’t exist in any declaration I have ever read. If you are offended it is your problem, and frankly lots of things offend lots of people.” — Salman Rushdie
And a few from “NP Platformed” Aug. 16, 2022
Adam Zivo: “In the West, some circles increasingly believe that words are violence and ought to be policed — that curtailing free expression is justifiable to protect from offence.”
“The answer to climate change is adaptation, not apocalyptical prophecies”, Derek H. Burney.
The amazing complexity of the climate system (and our current abnormally cold world)
From https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/08/16/the-sun-climate-effect-the-winter-gatekeeper-hypothesis-iii-meridional-transport/
Quotes from link… Note that today’s average surface temperature of 14.5 degrees C is considered a “severely” cold world similar to “icehouse conditions”. For over 90% of the history of life, Earth has been far warmer with average surface temperatures up to 20 degrees C, more than 5 degrees C warmer than today, and no “climate crisis” occurred during such times. During past much warmer eras, tropical average temperatures did not change much (warm areas of Earth did not overheat, contrary to climate alarm narratives) as increasing heat energy was transported to the poles that were then ice-free for most of past history, permitting life to flourish in the polar regions.
Read the full report to get some sense of how complex the climate system is, what are the major factors influencing climate, and how poorly the models, that alarmist narratives draw upon, can replicate climate accurately.
“Earth’s average surface temperature (today) is c. 14.5 °C (severe icehouse conditions)…
“During the last glacial maximum (LGM), 20,000 years ago, the energy received from the sun was the same as now. Not only that, but the precession and obliquity values were the same as now, and the orbital eccentricity was very similar. The distribution of solar energy over the Earth and the latitudinal insolation gradient were nearly identical to now, yet the climate was very different. Energy input to the climate system must have been lower, because albedo was higher and the greenhouse effect lower. A lower energy input and a larger LTG (latitudinal temperature gradient) ought to have drained the tropics of heat via a much stronger MT (meridional transport), but that was not the case. There is still controversy about tropical temperatures during the LGM (last glacial maximum), but it appears that they were only 1–2 °C colder than present (Annan & Hargreaves 2015). This is consistent with evidence presented by Scotese et al. (2021) that tropical temperatures have not changed much over the course of the past 540 million years despite huge changes in the average temperature of the planet (9–30 °C).
“If the LGM creates a problem for how MT operates during a glacial period, the equable climate of the early Eocene results in a paradox that modern climatology cannot solve. Currently the Earth is in a severe icehouse climate with a very steep LTG. Temperature falls by 0.6–1 °C/°latitude from the equator to the winter pole. Such cold or colder conditions as of today have been relatively rare during the past 540 Myr (less than 10 % of the time). The early Eocene Earth had an average temperature estimated at 23.8 °C, that Scotese describes as hothouse conditions. The early Eocene LTG was very shallow, at 0.25–0.45 °C/°latitude, with temperatures at the North Pole above freezing all year round, as attested by the presence of frost-intolerant biota. These hothouse conditions have been even rarer. Over 80 % of the Phanerozoic Eon the Earth had an average temperature of 17–20 °C (Scotese et al. 2021)”…
“In this part we have reviewed how the LTG constitutes the most fundamental climate variable, and the mechanisms by which it drives the MT of energy towards the poles.”
Data on the human contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere
See full report at
Quotes from report…
“This time constant – that the IPCC calls “turnover time” and we call “e-time” – describes how fast CO2 flows out of the atmosphere…
“IPCC’s data show the inflow of human CO2 into the atmosphere is about 5% of the total CO2 inflow and natural CO2 is about 95%.
“Since human and natural CO2 molecules are identical, their e-times are identical. Therefore, to the first approximation, the composition of today’s atmospheric CO2 is about 5% human and 95% natural…
“IPCC (2013, pp. 470-471) assumes the natural CO2 level remained at 280 ppm after 1750 and, therefore, human CO2 caused all the CO2 increase since 1750. This would make human CO2 about 32% of 415 ppm as of 2020…
“How can a 5% inflow cause 32% of the CO2 level?
“It can’t. Even the IPCC realizes this problem. So, to support its claim that human CO2 causes dangerous climate change, the IPCC incorrectly claims human CO2 stays in the atmosphere longer than natural CO2.
“This IPCC claim violates IPCC’s own data-based e-time and ignores that human and natural CO2 molecules are identical, and therefore their e-times are identical….
“This compatible human carbon cycle shows human CO2 has added only 33 ppm (8%) while nature has added 100 ppm (92%) to IPCC’s 280 ppm level in 1750, as of 2020.
“… the physics model has proved IPCC’s claim – that human CO2 caused all the CO2 increase above 280 ppm – is false.
“Human carbon has added only one percent to the total carbon in the natural carbon cycle.
“Data alone prove natural CO2 increased the CO2 level above 280 ppm…
“The simple physics model – using IPCC’s outflow proportional to level and e-times –proves natural CO2 controls atmospheric CO2. As of 2020, natural CO2 has added about 100 ppm, and human CO2 only 33 ppm, to IPCC’s CO2 level of 280 ppm in 1750.”
Conclusion: It is wrong to claim that the rise of CO2 in the atmosphere over the past two centuries is mainly from human industrialization/emissions.
Yes, the climate alarm movement is a “profoundly religious movement”. “Mother Earth gets angry from time to time, and this legislation will help us address all of that”, Nancy Pelosi commenting on the Biden-Manchin climate bill (Aug.15, 2022).
And this on the endless failure of eco-doom prophesies (endless failed predictions of the end-of-days) while life on Earth continues to improve on many important indicators…
Affirming that the long-term trajectory of life is improving overall is not to deny the horrific tragedy, misery, and suffering that remain on Earth. Affirming the evidence of overall improvement is to counter despair over life and to re-enforce hope with the larger background evidence that things are continuing to get better. Evidence-based hope is critical to inspire human motivation to work to improve life, knowing that such effort will succeed.
CO2 is not causing a “climate emergency”
The physics of CO2 as detailed by respected climate physicists like Richard Lindzen, William Happer, William Wijngaarden, and others, does not support the narrative of a “climate crisis/emergency”. To the contrary, the solid physical evidence they present affirms the rapidly declining influence of CO2 on climate change (i.e. the warming influence of CO2 declines “logarithmically” with rising atmospheric levels), leaving other natural factors mainly responsible for the change that we are observing. The conclusion from this evidence? There is no good scientific reason to tax carbon or decarbonize our societies. Human emissions of CO2 are not contributing to some purported climate crisis.
But good luck getting people to consider such critical evidence after decades of being terrorized by the alarmist narrative that the world will soon end due to the rising presence of the “pollutant/poison” that is CO2. Once you have incited the survival impulse in some people, they become tunnel-visioned and hell bent on “saving the world” from imminent apocalypse. The climate alarm movement, and its decarbonization salvation scheme, has become a religious crusade, a righteous battle against the evil of modern capitalist society.
Note: Atmospheric levels of CO2 have been at “starvation levels” over the past millions of years and are now returning to the healthier levels of previous paleo-climate history. CO2 is a minute trace gas that is essential for the survival of plant life. It is the most basic of plant food. For much of the past history of life, CO2 levels have been in the multiple thousands of ppm (parts per million), not just the few hundred ppms of today’s world (400 plus ppm today). Plants prefer CO2 levels around 1000-1500 ppm and over past history when CO2 was at such levels it did not result in any runaway global warming or climate crisis. See the interesting material on this by Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace, i.e. his video presentation “Celebrating CO2” available at
And…
The climate alarmism narrative (i.e. “climate crisis/emergency”) continues to dominate the world’s political classes (both left and right) and is the daily obsession of the highly partisan Progressive news media. The climate alarm movement continues to deny the good climate science that shows there is no climate crisis from human use of fossil fuels. And bent on implementing their salvation plan of full decarbonization of our societies (a religious-like crusade), the climate alarmists are ignoring the growing evidence of the destructive outcomes from decarbonization, notably, the severely increasing energy costs that are harming the poorest people the most. Keep an eye on places like the UK, Germany, and other areas that are going Green full throttle.
I affirm the concern of many to move toward reducing their carbon emissions by changing to use of electric vehicles, as well as taking other measures. But I would not affirm that such actions are necessary because of some imagined “climate crisis”. Good climate science does not support the narrative of climate crisis. Do it for whatever reason, but not based on fear of purported looming “climate disaster”. And do it on private dime, not by means of public-imposed subsidies and other policies that impose the costs on the general public, along with state coercion to make radical lifestyle changes suited to the Green climate narrative. That undermines the freedom of others.
Insert note:
I state and argue repeatedly on this site that the mild global warming we have experienced over the past century has been “net beneficial” to all life. Let me explain my use of this term a bit more…
“Net beneficial” in the sense that natural climate change, whether warming or cooling, always brings diverse impacts to life, some negative, others positive, impacts that humanity has to adapt to as mitigation efforts are mainly futile. We cannot turn some CO2 knob and thereby control the massive and complex climate system. Other natural factors, far beyond human control, will continue to dominantly shape climate change because CO2 is only a “bit player” in the complex system that is climate.
And “net beneficial” in that more warming and more atmospheric CO2 (the basic food of plant life) has brought massive benefits to all life, benefits that are largely ignored by many scientists, politicians, and public media. Benefits like the massive greening of our planet over just the past 40 years (i.e. some 15% more green vegetation across the Earth). And the significant decline in deaths from cold, a decline that far outweighs any further deaths from increased warmth (see research of Bjorn Lomborg on this evidence).
The general public needs to hear this evidence.
Added note on another frequent term used here: “mild global warming”? Yes, the roughly 1 degree C warming over the past century has been beneficial to all life, and credible climate physicists like Richard Lindzen, William Happer, and others, affirm that further increases in CO2 will contribute to further warming that will also continue to be mild, only a degree or so more. The bigger long-term concern is that we may be approaching the tail-end of an interglacial and our current warming period is the coolest of the main warming periods of this Holocene interglacial. We are still on a long-term cooling trend since the end of the Holocene Optimum some 6000 years ago. That Optimum (perhaps up to 3 degrees C warmer than today) allowed agriculture to be developed and the great early civilizations to emerge and flourish. We could still benefit from more degrees of warming in our sub-optimal and excessively cold world (excessively cold compared to much of the paleo-climate history of life).
Alarmism and human mental states
You wonder why a majority of people across the world believe the world is “becoming worse” (YouGov survey in “Ten Global Trends” by Tupy and Bailey) and you wonder why depression is the number one illness in the world (note particularly Julian Simon’s struggle with clinical depression in relation to environmental alarmism). This today from Wattsupwiththat.com… contributing factors… Consider that the pathology of apocalyptic alarmism has been beaten into human consciousness for multiple millennia, from early mythologies, to world religious traditions, to contemporary “secular/ideological/scientific” apocalyptic movements and notable public narrative-shaping forums like the movie industry and its obsession with apocalpse-themed stories. Humanity deserves a break from this endless hysterically exaggerated alarmism.
Claim: Some People are Suffering Debilitating Eco-Anxiety – But their Fears are Justified
A reposting of previous material…
The “climate crisis” movement is a “profoundly religious” crusade, impervious to contrary scientific fact on climate. And that is the true “denialism” in this climate issue.
The critical core issue in the climate debate?- The physics of CO2 and its warming influence (i.e. CO2 has a logarithmically declining influence on climate warming with rising levels in the atmosphere). Add here the evidence that CO2 is just a “bit player” among a complex of other natural factors that more dominantly influence the natural climate change that we have experienced over past decades and centuries. See especially the research of climate physicists Richard Lindzen and William Happer, among others below.
Too many politicians, while questioning elements of the rush to decarbonization of societies, still give the affirming nod to the basic assumptions of the alarmist narrative that we are facing a “climate crisis/emergency”, and that CO2 emissions must be radically reduced. They have not done basic research on the physics of CO2 and its relation to climate change. More CO2 in the atmosphere has been net beneficial to all life with a 15% increase in green vegetation across the world over just the past 4 decades (more food for animal life, more crop production for humanity). And the slight warming of the past century (roughly 1 degree C) is benefitting all life with extended habitats, and more warmth is especially benefitting humanity with a decrease in deaths from cold (deaths from cold are far more of a threat every year than deaths from heat by a factor of 15 to 1- Lancet report). Why are we not hearing more of these benefits from global warming and more plant food in the atmosphere? These benefits far outweigh negative impacts.
This worth a repeat, from…
https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/there-is-no-climate-emergency-say-500-experts-in-letter-to-the-united-nations/
“There Is No Climate Emergency, Say 500 Experts in Letter to the United Nations.
“A global network of more than 500 knowledgeable and experienced scientists and professionals in climate and related fields have the honor to address Your Excellencies and attached European Climate Declaration, for which the signatories to this letter are the national ambassadors. The general-circulation models of climate on which international policy is at present founded are unfit for their purpose.
“Therefore, it is cruel as well as imprudent to advocate the squandering of trillions of dollars on the basis of results from such immature models. Current climate policies pointlessly and grievously undermine the economic system, putting lives at risk in countries denied access to affordable, reliable electrical energy. We urge you to follow a climate policy based on sound science, realistic economics, and genuine concern for those harmed by costly but unnecessary attempts at mitigation.”
Points made by the climate experts:
“1. Natural as well as anthropogenic factors cause warming.
“2. Warming is far slower than predicted.
“3. Climate policy relies on inadequate models.
“4. CO2 is not a pollutant. It is a plant food that is essential to all life on Earth. Photosynthesis is a blessing. More CO2 is beneficial for nature, greening the Earth: additional CO2 in the atmosphere has promoted growth in global plant biomass. It is also good for agriculture, increasing the yields of crops worldwide.
“5. Global warming has not increased natural disasters.
“6. Climate policy must respect scientific and economic realities.
“7. There is no climate emergency. Therefore, there is no cause for panic.”
Another previous post…
The key issue in the climate debate is the role of CO2. The framing question of the global warming debate- Is CO2 the main influence on climate change and is climate change becoming “an existential threat… a crisis… a catastrophe”?
No. Evidence shows that the warming over the past decades, and century, has been mild and beneficial to all life.
Further, counter evidence shows that other natural factors overwhelm the CO2 influence, rendering CO2 a “bit player” in climate change. And further, the CO2 warming influence decreases logarithmically with rising levels and will not contribute to much more warming. Again, the increase in CO2 has been hugely beneficial in greening the planet (a 15 % increase in green vegetation across the Earth since 1980).
The apocalyptic scenarios of the climate alarm crusade are based on climate models that have been discredited for falsely predicting excessive warming that has not occurred.
Conclusion? Once again, there is no sound scientific reason to tax carbon or decarbonize our societies.
The defining themes of “profoundly religious” alarmism crusades: Wendell Krossa
(1) The loss of an imagined original paradise (e.g. Eden, Dilmun) caused by sinful, fallen humanity.
Consequently, life is now degenerating toward something worse over the long-term, from a “better past”. Note in this mythology the “self-loathing” of humanity as essentially evil and at fault for the degradation of the world and life.
(2) Prophesies of looming apocalypse (the decline of life toward a worsening world, toward some great collapse and ending of life). Apocalyptic panic-mongering incites the survival impulse in populations and abandonment of rationality, and pushes people to embrace irresponsible salvation schemes.
(3) Required salvation scheme to offer hope (a contemporary version- decarbonization to “save the world”).
(4) A necessary violent purging of “evil”, a great cleansing of the world, a purifying of life. Today- we have the crusade to purge the purported “evil” of the “pollutant” CO2, and overall industrial civilization.
(5) The panic-driven rush for “instantaneous transformation” of life as the apocalypse is always “imminent”. Apocalyptic climate prophets, like all apocalyptic prophets across history, set and reset dates for the end of days just a few years or decades in the future- reset because the end never arrives in an ever-improving world.
(6) The felt need for the heroic engagement of a “righteous battle against evil”, to join the side of good against evil.
(7) The felt need to make a sacrifice/atonement, to make a payment for one’s sins, to suffer some form of punishment for being imperfectly human (i.e. give up the good life in modern civilization and return to a “morally superior” simple lifestyle, return to primitivism).
(8) The stark tribal division of humanity- i.e. identifying one’s side as good, against some other side as evil.
(9) After purging the evil from the world (e.g. the “evil” of over-population, too many over-consuming people), there is the promise/hope of a restored paradise or new millennial utopia.
(10) Never admitting that your apocalyptic vision is essentially mythical (even though given contemporary “secular/ideological/scientific” expression) and that it distorts entirely the true state of life (i.e. again, endlessly resetting the dates for the end of life, as the end never arrives because life is on an endlessly improving long-term trajectory).
Why do so many people today continue to hold these primitive religious/mythical themes in their personal worldviews? One explanation: Again, as noted above, apocalyptic movements like climate alarmism incite the survival impulse in populations. Alarmed people tend to become irrational, susceptible to confirmation bias affirmation of their belief systems (i.e. embracing only the evidence that confirms their beliefs, and denying contrary evidence). Frightened people (desperate to survive) also become susceptible to irrational salvation schemes like decarbonization even if such schemes cause self-harm (harm to their own group/society). And, in a cognitive disconnect, the people embracing irrational and mythically-based salvation schemes are often people who self-identify as scientifically “rational, secularist/materialist… even atheist”.
Aroused fear pushes us to retreat to deeply embedded “archetypes”- mythical themes long beaten into human consciousness/subconscious, themes that incite and validate our worst animal impulses to tribalism (small band versus small band), to domination (alpha male/female), and to punitive, destructive response to others outside our band, our “enemies” (i.e. hatred of the differing other that “threatens” us and our existence). Incited fear pushes us to abandon our more rational and humane impulses for a retreat to the deeply embedded subhuman/inhuman, to the more primitive inheritance of archetypes that shape our subconscious and thereby our entire lives.
Note: The above-listed “profoundly religious” beliefs differ little in content from similar themes that were(are) common all through ancient Sumerian/Akkadian, Babylonian, Zoroastrian, Hindu, Jewish, Christian, and Islamic traditions.
And a reposting of “Posts to old friends from many a year ago” (revised, updated)… I am recuperating from a prostate operation and waiting for the biopsy results to see if cancerous or not. Hence, more time to sit around, think, and share some thoughts with others.
These are recent posts to old friends. We worked together with the upland Manobo tribal groups of Mindanao (Bukidnon and Davao del Norte provinces) many decades ago, engaging healthcare, agricultural, educational, and other livelihood programs/projects. Wendell Krossa
We noted climate issues… my reponses to these friends…
“We touched on weather/climate the other day. That brings this to mind as climate alarmism has become a dominant public narrative today across the world. It is a version of the ideology of Declinism (Arthur Herman’s “The Idea of Decline in Western History”). Herman stated that Declinism has become the most dominant and influential theme in modern life. Declinism states the belief life is getting worse and heading toward disastrous collapse and ending. He traces the historical formulation of this belief.
“My point- decades ago a friend, Bob Brinsmead, got me to read Julian Simon’s “Ultimate Resource”, perhaps the single best book I have ever read and undeniably life-changing because it pushes us to rethink the narratives that inform and guide our lives.
“Julian Simon was a professor of economics, and a population specialist. He had previously believed the environmental alarmist message that the world was going to hell in a handbasket and that alarmism made him a clinically depressed man, according to his autobiography. He believed apocalyptic prophets like Paul Erhlich who, back in the 60s and 70s, was telling us that it was all over due to global cooling and mass starvation. Erhlich has continued to prophesy environmental apocalypse into the present.
“So Simon decided to research the best sources of data and find out for himself what the true state of the world was. And he surprised himself in finding that while there are problems everywhere, humanity was doing a good job solving problems and taking care of life on Earth and that overall life was improving over the long term. All the evidence pointed to this long-term trend of improvement.
“Media ignore such positive news and constantly prowl to find “anecdotal” events and things that make their case for life worsening (see David Altheide’s “Creating fear: News and the construction of crisis” for a good analysis of how news media operate).
“Simon looked at all the main indicators of the state of life- i.e. forests, ocean fisheries, land species, soils, and more. Life was not perfect but it was overall improving on many important fronts.
“Simon taught us to get to the true state of something by looking at all the evidence, not succumbing to “confirmation bias” by only looking at evidence that affirmed our beliefs but also looking at evidence contrary to our beliefs and, against defensive emotions to the contrary, honestly accepting such evidence.
“And Simon said that we understand the true state of things by looking at the longest-term trends associated with whatever we look at.
“When we do this with climate then a very different picture emerges, contrary to the climate alarmism of today.
“Here are some points with climate/weather- Our Holocene interglacial is now about 11,000 years long, since the end of the previous glaciation in North America, the Wisconsin.
“The warmest period in our interglacial was the Holocene Optimum of about 10,000 to 6,000 years ago when it was about 3 degrees C warmer than today. That was the warmest period of our interglacial and the time when agriculture was developed and the great ancient civilizations emerged.
“Since the end of that Holocene Optimum the climate of our interglacial has been on a long-term cooling trend. The Roman Warm Period of about 250 BC to 400 AD was about a degree warmer than today and the Medieval Warm Period of about 950 to 1250 AD was also about a degree warmer than today.
“Our modern warm period is still the coolest warm period of our interglacial. Meaning this interglacial will end in the future and the next glaciation will begin just as this pattern has been true for previous millions of years (100,000 year cycles of glaciations punctuated with inter-glacial periods, tracked in such evidence as the Vostok Ice core samples).
“Rather than fear warming, we ought to fear cooling as that Lancet study showed approximately 15 times more people die of cold every year across the world than die of warmth. The Lancet being the most respected medical journal on the planet.
“This “skeptical” evidence convinces me to challenge climate alarmism as a great distortion and more a political movement than a scientific one. Add into the mix the anti-industrial civilization element of climate alarmism.” Wendell Krossa
Another post
“I am putting this material below on my site today as it is from two of the best scientists that challenge the global warming alarmism narrative- physicist William Happer of Princeton and physicist Richard Lindzen formerly of MIT. I used to watch Larry King interview Lindzen.
“Both are specialists in the physics of CO2 and show solid evidence that the warming influence of CO2 is large at small ppms (parts per million in the atmosphere) but that influence declines “logarithmically” with increasing levels and has already reached “saturation” in physics terms- meaning its ability to contribute to further warming has been greatly diminished. (Lindzen says it may contribute another degree or so to further warming, many other climate physicists estimate perhaps 0.5 to 1.0 degree C and that would be net beneficial in our still too cold world where far more people die from cold every year than die from warmth).
“This evidence undermines entirely the alarmist claim that human emissions are causing catastrophic warming and the looming end of the world (Congresswoman AOC’s claim re 2030).
“Anyway, this from Anthony Watts good site Wattsupwiththat.com, going up on my site today…
Another post to old friends
“The point made by climate physicists like Lindzen and Happer has to do with things like the Stefan-Boltzman law of physics and how this relates to climate, about net energy balance being restored. All the solar radiation coming in to Earth has to be radiated back out again to space (similar to elements of the Second Law of Thermodynamics). So without greenhouse gases the Earth would be a frozen wasteland because all that incoming heat from the sun radiates back out to space.
“The heat radiating back out changes wavelength to become infrared. And CO2 among other greenhouse gases acts to “block” that returning-to-space infrared radiation. Jim Steele points out that “block… or blanketing” are incorrect in terms of the physics of CO2. Recycling the radiation, and instantaneously, is a better description of how CO2 acts in the atmosphere.
“CO2 molecules absorb the returning heat radiation and then instantly re-emit it, scattering it in varied directions, some back down toward the surface of Earth (about 50% of what they absorb). But with more CO2 molecules in the atmosphere that ability to absorb and re-emit declines logarithmically. CO2’s recycling/warming influence declines radically with higher levels (ppms) in the atmosphere.
“Let me repeat this critical, core fact in climate science- The warming influence of CO2 declines with increases in the atmosphere. Hence, human emissions are not a threat to climate and not mainly responsible for climate change. And further, there is no evidence that climate change is becoming “catastrophic… an existential threat… a crisis”.
“The logical conclusion from this evidence? There is no good scientific evidence that we need to tax carbon or decarbonize our societies. Decarbonization is more a political movement as traced by researchers like Michael Hart in “Hubris: The Troubling Science, Economics, and Politics of Climate Change”.
“One can add here the masses of evidence that human emissions are a tiny part of the carbon cycles on Earth (about 3% of all carbon emissions) and even that tiny amount is subject to question. Human emissions of CO2 are not “the main cause” of rising CO2, as claimed by alarmists. Again, the overall conclusion is that we are not responsible for climate change when many other natural factors show stronger correlations to the climate change that we are observing.
“Natural factors are another whole area to note but I won’t tire you with that stuff. Just note the impact of multi-decadal ocean current shifts from warming to cooling phases (i.e. the PDO- Pacific Decadal Oscillation), and the influence of cosmic rays on cloud cover (clouds being responsible for 95% of the warming influence). Henrik Svensmark, a Danish scientist, details the influence of cosmic rays in his “The Chilling Stars” (that all has to do with where our solar system is in one of the spiral arms of the Milky Way that has a lot of supernovae activity). Hadron collider experiments affirmed his research a few years back.
“All this to say, this is what is behind climate today and this science does not support the fanatic response of governments to decarbonize our societies and we are already seeing the horrifically damaging outcomes of this crusade on our daily lives and pocketbooks. It hurts the poorest people the most and that is irresponsibly wrong. Note the Net Zero Watch newsletter from Global Warming Policy Forum on these issues.” Wendell Krossa
Another post on climate
“I am stuck home convalescing from this bloody prostate operation (unsettling thing to see blood coming out your urethra when peeing or even when not). They “reamed” it out as my Dad would say. Gutted the core of it. Poor ____ (my wife) is outside doing the yard work while I pretend to busy myself inside.
“So I am going to take out my boredom on you two, as I am just warming up to this climate warming issue and have already discussed it too much with varied others over past years. The climate issue never ends as we continue to discover new things about the complexity of the climate system, things that show humanity is not responsible for climate change and climate change is not becoming a crisis or catastrophe but has been “net beneficial” (i.e. the mild one degree C of warming over the past century has lessened human deaths from cold that are far more than any increased deaths from warmth. And more CO2- the basic food of all life- has resulted in a 15% increase in green vegetation across the Earth just since 1980, meaning more food for animal life and increased crop production for humanity).
“But oh, how complex this climate thing is and it concerns all of us because alarmists are trying to tell us that we are facing the end of the world and must decarbonize immediately to “save the world”. This has horrific impacts on the poorest people. Note, just for example, the increased deaths from cold in Britain every year, people not able to afford energy due to rising costs directly related to Green policies to shut down fossil fuels, making scarce supplies much more expensive. They estimate up to 50,000 vulnerable Brits (older, weaker) die in some years from cold. Cold kills more slowly, over weeks, while heat kills more suddenly, and this is partly why news media ignore the more serious cold threat. Also, up to 100,000 Americans die every year from excess cold.
“But back to climate basics…
“Climate changes endlessly. There is no stasis in nature, no static optimal state. So no one “denies climate change” as media fraudulently report all the time. And CO2 contributes to warming, no one denies such. But CO2 is only a “bit player” and often overwhelmed by other natural factors that influence climate.
“I mentioned the cosmic ray influence and Svensmark’s research. Cosmic rays come in from outer space to charge atmospheric molecules around which water vapour forms.
“To quote one explanation: “cosmic rays are atomic fragments – mostly nuclei – blown into space from exploding stars that constantly bombard the Earth. When they enter the atmosphere, their electric charge helps form clusters of molecules – aerosols – that in turn act as seeds, or nuclei, for water droplets to condense around, creating clouds”.
“Cosmic rays extend the lifespan of those molecules that would otherwise more immediately disappear. That extended life allows clouds to form, mainly the low clouds (below 3000 meters) that are more reflective of incoming sun radiation. So simply put- cosmic rays coming in cause more clouds and that blocks sunlight which then results in climate cooling.
“But the sun is a cyclical beast and goes through regular cycles of high activity (solar maximums) and low activity (solar minimums). We see that in sunspots and solar flares and the sun’s magnetic field spreading out across our solar system. When the sun is active and sends its magnetic field out, that blocks incoming cosmic rays. Hence, less clouds form and more solar radiation gets to Earth’s surface, hence climate warming.
“The sun was active at the end of last century hence we had a warming period. Since then, the sun has been in a solar minimum state and hence the flat line in climate (no further warming since the early Oughts, and the 2015/16 warm years were due to strong El Ninos). Media say little about this flat line in climate change over past decades even though some alarmist scientists have admitted it. Media choose to focus on every heat event and claim they are “the worst on record” which is not true as the worst heat waves were in the 1930s before industrialization could be blamed. Specifically 1935-36.
“All this points to the complexity of the climate issue and how insane it is to claim one small element- CO2- is mainly responsible when so many other natural factors are involved. And then the insanity of the demonization of CO2 as a pollutant when it is the food of life and more of it has benefitted all life with a massive greening of the Earth over past decades. Sheesh, eh.
“We also have evidence that life flourishes in a much warmer world, with extended habitats for all life. Scientists have discovered the remains of tropical plants and animals at both poles. Those were once tropical regions. And look at tropical regions today- that is where the most diverse forms of life, both plant and animal, are found. Not in colder regions. Greens should welcome a warming world with extended habitats for life, and more diverse life forms in now cold regions.
“Further, more warming does not necessarily make already warm areas hotter because the great ocean and atmospheric convection currents (Hadley tropical air current) carry the extra heat to the polar regions, warming the colder areas, the colder seasons (winter) and colder times of day (night). So that evens out the climate across the world. And the warming of colder regions also makes for less storminess because there are less severe gradients between cold and warm areas, severe gradient differences being responsible for tornadoes forming and other storms. Does this explain why US tornadoes have been at historical lows over past decades of warming?
“And finally, I also go after the apocalyptic element in all this- the repeated claims we are facing the end of the world, claims that are just as repeatedly proven wrong as life continues as ever before.” Wendell Krossa
Added note: News media continue to “construct crisis” over Arctic warming and the melting of ice in varied regions of the world. Why the panic-mongering over melting ice? With global warming, the increasing warmth is naturally distributed by Earth’s convection currents to warmer areas of the planet which evens out climate differences across the world. The natural warming of colder regions means extended habitats for animals and plants with an increase in species diversity in colder regions just as the highest species diversity today is found in the tropical regions. Some cold region species may suffer (most adapt as history shows) but many more species will benefit. Further, an ice-free world with tropical species in both polar regions is a more normal and natural world as paleo-climate history shows (i.e. for more than 90% of the history of life the planet has been ice free). Again, remember to balance the climate alarmism narrative with evidence on the many net benefits to life from more warming.
A warmer world is a more normal, optimal, and safer world for life than a cold world. And heat wave events will continue naturally just as they have through both warming and cooling eras of past history. Humanity has shown the ability to adapt to both cooling and warming events, with more success in regard to warming (i.e. cold still killing far more people every year than warmth).
Trey Gowdy on the critical importance of fairness in life and the harm that abandoning fairness creates…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NR81FRHISpMrey
Along another line of thought…
Pushback against hate with common human love, Wendell Krossa
A troubling issue of our era is the unhinged public expressions of hatred toward differing, disagreeing others, notably on social media and other public forums. We are observing all-too-common public attempts to vilify, humiliate, and dehumanize others and this raises the concern- Where is the fundamental human impulse to love, to include and treat the differing other as family, to forgive the failures of others to live as human, to exhibit the common decencies of mercy and kindness toward all others? (If not outright “hatred”, it appears to be something close- i.e. “despising” the other.)
In the heat of contemporary partisan battles it appears that many are tolerating and justifying the dark retaliatory impulse when that childish impulse should be endlessly stigmatized as the ugly eruption of inhumanity that it is. Punitive retaliation, via language, dehumanizes both sides in eye-for-eye cycles. For example, note the unashamedly gleeful use of terms like “slammed… destroyed… crushed…” when describing someone’s response to a perceived enemy attack from the “other side”. Or the use of exaggerated language to demonize the differing other- “Nazis… existential threat to democracy… right-wingers/leftwingers (distorting pejoratives intended to discredit even though many on both sides are mixed moderates of varied shades)”. And then there are the ongoing attempts to criminalize opponents in any way possible.
The retaliatory impulse is at its worst when it descends to full-on cancelling of some differing other, often over words misspoken, even if long in the past, cancelling that ignores any remorse or subsequent growth and development.
A maturely humane response? The embrace and practice of human love at whatever level the individual understands. Begin somewhere and then pursue ever-greater understanding and expression of love in one’s own unique way. We ought to make love the dominant ideal, goal, and practice of our lives. “Ought to” because it is the single most defining feature of what it means to be authentically human.
Pursuing a life of love involves embracing all the humanizing facets of love- generous forgiveness of the faults of others, inclusive/indiscriminate welcome of all others, respect for the freedom and self-determination of all (non-dominating, non-controlling), and non-punitive justice in the treatment of human failure (restorative justice).
It’s a lifetime project that is about restoring love to prominent place in public interaction and conversation and thereby defusing the too widespread eruption of public nastiness that most of us decry today (all sides intuitively get when some step across the boundary of commmon human decency into the “ugly”). We will never all agree on many things, and we should robustly advocate for what we view as public good and against what we believe will harm public good, but as one human family we can learn how to disagree much more agreeably. There are civil ways of engaging public debates without belittling some disagreeing other (stick to the content of issues and avoid ad hominem attacks).
After all, we are here for these short experiences of human existence to primarily learn what love is, how to give and receive love. We abort our very life purpose if we fail to embrace the hero’s quest to learn how to love universally and without conditions. See Joseph Campbell’s good comments on this in sections below.
“When life produces what the intellect names evil, we may enter into righteous battle, contending from ‘loyalty of heart’; however, if the principle of love (Christ’s “love your enemies”) is lost, our humanity too will be lost. ‘Man’, in the words of the American novelist Hawthorne, ‘must not disclaim his brotherhood even with the guiltiest’”, Joseph Campbell, Myths To Live By, p.168.