It seems that the Covid scam artists are in general retreat, falling back behind previously prepared defensive lines, mostly reliant upon either the Shaggy Defense (“It wasn't me”) or on the canard that the science changed and that they then updated their advice. Naturally, both of these contentions are falsehoods that can be seen for what they are by anyone who is still practicing the dark art of critical thinking, but this category of person isn't the target audience anyway. That dubious honor is reserved for the soft center, those that have yet to wean themselves off a diet comprised of the BBC or CNN.
In truth, it doesn't seem likely that Fauci, Walensky et al even care what the dissidents think, because they calculate that the Resistance is impotent. Neither do they seem overly worried about the viability of their version of events – they fully expect that the Great Pretending will continue to be enforced, which will ensure that they avoid any Truth and Reconciliation style reckoning.
While the Covid 'pandemic' itself is necessarily time limited – even if it has been repeatedly extended well beyond its sell by date – it seems very likely that other 'pandemics' are scheduled to become a feature of our near-future. I suspect we will have to wait a short while yet, at least until the WHO power grab has been accomplished, to see what the next viral apocalypse will be comprised of. I have covered that particular theater of operations extensively and will certainly campaign there again at some point.
However, there is one sacred cow that even the recently emboldened Covid critics are reluctant to slaughter, but which is the most important of all – climate change. Or, henceforth, to be referred to by its original moniker, rather than the descriptor that was adopted once the climate proved recalcitrant – global warming.
This reluctance to address the issue exists despite the fact that the play-books for both global warming and Covid are remarkably similar, not least in their shared insistence that we all follow the science without question (science that is beyond reproach, on the one hand, and ever changing on the other). The science itself is rarely, if ever, delineated and what we are instead assailed with is a collection of statements that are backed by no evidence whatsoever and, even though 'global warming' has been superseded, its basic premise has survived into the new 'climate change' era. We are still expected to believe that man-made emissions (plus, latterly, the methane produced by cows, in particular) are responsible for what will soon be catastrophic warming, rising sea levels, extreme weather events, droughts, other pandemics etc etc.
We must accept this premise because this warming has already happened and the causation has been established – it's now 'settled science', a consensus view of the vast majority of climate experts; some say that 97% of these experts agree although, as with nearly everything to do with the global warming scam, this is a lie. The Oregon Petition, signed by 31,487 American scientists (including 9,029 with PhDs), disputes the entire premise.(1)
Figure 1
But, no matter. In the minds of the authoritarians, there is ample justification for a vast armada of policies aimed at attaining Net Zero. In fact, it is our moral duty to achieve that target, because the alternative is runaway global warming. This is the basic outline of the globalist elites' thinking from the likes of Sunak, Trudeau, Biden, the EU and the rest of the collective West.
The breadth and depth of the measures that they are attempting to foist upon us is vast in scope and will be the subject of my next offering. However, my initial intention is to examine the foundations upon which the entire global warming facade is constructed and, in articles three and four, to give examples of where the battles are currently being fought and to sketch the dystopian future that awaits us unless we man the barricades pretty damn soon. This latter task isn't particularly strenuous, as we already have a couple of shining exemplars. And so, let's have a look at the most basic of the cultists' claims; firstly, the climate history of our planet, right up until the present day.
For the first four billion years of its existence, Earth was an ice ball, but around 540 million years ago a transformation occurred; the planet became a warm and humid world. Although ice sheets subsequently appeared at higher latitudes, the planet was warm until around 30 million years ago, when Antarctica separated from South America and the Southern Ocean was created. Shortly thereafter, glaciers began expanding in Antarctica. However, modern climate didn't start developing for another 25 million years, as continents increasingly separated and ocean currents were established.
The past two million years has seen a succession of alternating Ice Ages and interglacials, the former lasting 90,000-100,000 years and the latter lasting 10,000-20,000 years. These cycles have been produced by variability in Earth's relation to the Sun. The average temperature changes between the two contrasting periods has been in the order of 5-7°C although, at higher latitudes, variance may be as high as 10-15°C . The last Ice Age began approximately 110,000 years ago and reached its coldest point 21,000-17,000 years ago when much of the world was desert or semi-desert. Although not widely appreciated, there are droughts in cold conditions, as more water is trapped in ice sheets and doesn't, therefore, fall as rain. Sea levels were 400 feet lower than today.
Several further abrupt fluctuations followed - including a sudden warming 14,000 years ago, which raised global temperature to present day levels - before the current interglacial (the Holocene) established itself 11,500 years ago. Again, the warming was sudden, with half of it likely to have occurred within fifteen years. Grass replaced desert and trees replaced grass; ice sheets melted and sea levels rose and, between 7000 to 3000BC, the Earth was blessed with a Climate Optimum. It was warmer and wetter than currently and the Saharan and Arabian deserts supported hunting, herding and agriculture.
This was followed by a cooling event around 2,600 years ago, although the planet remained wet. Another cold period (from 600BC to 200BC) preceded the Roman Warming, which lasted 800 years. Once again, it was warmer than today by between 2°C and 6°C.(2) This period of abundance saw global temperatures peak at 1-1.4°C higher than today. California was even more blessed, with a temperature 3.2°C warmer than the current time. The Vikings established vineyards on Greenland; this was possible because the poles tend to see more temperature variability and it's likely that Greenland was up to 4°C warmer than today. The Vikings even called Newfoundland 'Vinland'.(3) We also know that German vineyards operated at heights of 2,500 feet above sea level, 1,000 feet higher than now and the English were growing grapes as far north as Hadrian's Wall.(4) England had a population of around 5.5 million, a number that wouldn't be achieved again until the late 16th century, due to the three and a half centuries that followed.
The onset of the Dark Ages was sudden; the Earth cooled rapidly in 535AD and the following year and by 540AD, trees had almost stopped growing. Snow fell in Mediterranean Europe and droughts and famines were commonplace.(5) Justinian's Plague killed 25 million people in the sixth century, mostly in Europe. Civilizations and empires collapsed. And then, in around 900AD, the Dark Ages ended as quickly as they had begun and the four hundred years of the Medieval Warming took hold.
Europe was warmer and wetter, the climate was stable and there was an excess of the good things in life. This was the period of the crusades and of great architectural projects. It was also a time when subsistence agriculture gave way to trade. Cities were built and universities were founded.
However, a two stage Little Ice Age rapidly followed, between 1303AD and 1850AD, condemning humanity to less than optimal living conditions which, in turn, resulted in massive depopulation.(6) Again, the change was rapid – the major cooling took only 23 years. It was around 1.2°C less than it is currently,(7) which makes it more of a cool interval within our ongoing interglacial, but it had a devastating impact, due to the fact that times of plenty had preceded it and populations were unprepared for the sudden onset of cold times. Once again, there was massive depopulation. Sea ice surrounded Iceland, trapping the population, the French used frozen rivers as roads when invading the Netherlands and New Yorkers could walk from Manhattan to Staten Island over the frozen Hudson.(8)
The warming recovery, starting in around 1850, lasted until 1940, with most of it occurring in the last twenty years of that span. There was a cooling trend between 1940 and 1975, a sudden warming spurt from 1976-1978, a very slight increase in global temperature between 1979 and 2014 (according to satellite data) and no change between 2014 and the present.
“We know that temperature has varied greatly over the millennia. We also know that for virtually all of that time, global warming and cooling were driven entirely by natural forces, which did not cease to operate at the beginning of the 20th century.”(9)
We are still in an Ice Age, defined as a period when there are ice caps at the poles; we just happen to be in an interglacial, fortunately. We are still recovering from the Little Ice Age of the Middle Ages and haven't yet reached the global temperature that was achieved in both the Roman and Medieval Warmings. However, the next sizeable temperature shift will be in a downwards direction; we are on borrowed time as it is and the next Ice Age is coming, whether we like it or not. A global drop of 15°C is likely (40°C at the poles) with accompanying ice sheets in Canada, Scandinavia and Russia.(10)
This is far from being a novel observation as, prior to the apocalyptos settling on global warming as their weapon of choice, they were all-in on warning us about the coming Ice Age, which was variously described as a man-made phenomenon (by virtue of our pollution blotting out the Sun)(11) or an occurrence that was inevitable via natural variation.(12)(13) This, in addition to other obsessions with famine,(14) the ozone layer,(15) acid rain (16) and the likelihood of us all disappearing in a cloud of blue steam due to pollution.(17)
Clearly, none of these exigencies have come to pass. Neither have any of the alarmists' predictions about global warming, either. The original Jeremiah, an American called James Hansen, made a career out of being wrong about everything, including droughts in the MidWest
Figure 2
and the certainty that the 1990s would consist of a succession of long hot summers.
Figure 3
He wasn't the only fairground barker; the UN and others have been equally culpable, informing us that the Maldives would be underwater by 2018,(18) (when, in fact, the sea level in that area is down 11 inches over the period 1960-2010),(19) that other nations wouldn't even make it as far as 2000,(20) that children wouldn't know what snow is by the early 21st century,(21) that the Arctic would be ice free by 2018 (22) and much else besides, including the total failure of climate modelling, when measured against objective reality.
Figure 4
Other, less informed individuals have also chimed in with their own evidence free assertions; Prince (now King) Charles informed us that we had 96 months to save the world back in 2009,(23) Gordon Brown shortened the time frame considerably in the same year (24) – to 50 days – and serial liar Al Gore continued to push his own brand of pathology, regardless of the facts.(25)
Figure 5
All of these predictions relied upon one basic premise; that global temperature would rise. And therein lies the problem. Even if we were to accept that the authorities' data is gospel (and there are unimpeachable reasons to not do so), the Earth's climate stubbornly refuses to oblige the alarmists. The following graph is a record of the state-of-the-art automated measuring system in the US; it comprises 114 stations, all of which are sited well away from any non-climate related heating mechanisms. It shows that there has been no significant warming over the past two decades.
Figure 6
In fact, according to NASA and despite much obfuscation, the warmest years from the last century were in the 1930s and global temperatures have not risen (and have likely fallen) since 1998.(26) Additionally, the UN has always insisted that temperature levels would most obviously increase in the upper levels of the tropical troposphere, but measurements by balloons and satellites have not borne that out.(27)
The only way that the alarmists have been able to hang on in there is by fiddling the figures, in typical fashion. One favored method is to rely on a different set of weather stations in the US (America is hugely over-represented in weather station data, in contrast to the rest of the globe), stations that are badly compromised. 919 of these stations have been examined, comprising three quarters of the total, and only 11% met the official citing criteria. The other 89% had 'estimated contamination errors' of between 1°C and 5°C .(28)
Well over half of the 'siting errors' consisted of the 'urban heat island' effect, whereby the temperature readings had been distorted by artificial heat sources nearby, such as new buildings, asphalt parking lots, air conditioning vents or, indeed, airports.(29)(30) These can distort readings by several degrees upwards. Additionally, temperature measured one meter above ground surface can be more than 1°C different from temperature measured two meters above the ground and not all measurement stations are the same height above ground.(31)
A far better method would be to rely on sea surface temperature, as the oceans cover 71% of the planet and essentially determine the surface temperature of the Earth – there has been little if any global warming by this measure.(32) In fact, even if one includes the obviously corrupted data in a compilation of all temperature records, the warming effect comes in at 0.8°C since the mid-nineteenth century. If one tosses the data on the weather stations afflicted by the 'urban heat island' effect, the warming figure is halved and, since 1930, the planet has, in fact, cooled.(33)
Another way of prolonging the pretense is to periodically 'adjust' the data. All the major global databases have “undertaken retrospective upward adjustments in the recent past”.(34) This involved adding 30% warming to the recent record, which removed the 'pause' in global temperatures from 1998-2010. Removing the adjustment, however, would bring the surface temperature measurements in line with those from satellites and weather balloons.
Of course, one could also leave the modern record untouched and simply readjust older temperature readings downwards, thus effecting the same overall outcome of a seeming increase – which they've also tried, very recently.(35) However, since the El Niño weather event up to the start of 2016, global temperature has once again declined. Indeed, just last year, sea ice thickness along the coasts of Canada and Greenland increased. Naturally, this hasn't stopped the latest UN report from claiming that current global temperatures are the highest for 125,000 years.
“It is also claimed that temperatures will rise by 0.4°C in around a decade, an interesting opinion, based presumably on surface records that can be retrospectively adjusted, but an unlikely scenario given global warming ran out of steam over two decades ago. By 2100, the IPCC says global warming could rise to 4.4°C, although things need to be moving on a bit smartish given barely 0.1°C warming in the first two decades of the century.”(36)
In truth, the alarmists and their enablers have no real option but to lie profusely. This is because, in addition to peddling the fiction that global warming is real, they have also committed themselves to the explanation as to the why of it – man-made CO2 emissions – and, because the proportion of atmospheric CO2 is continuing to rise (allegedly), the temperature must, too. To accept that there is no correlation and that CO2 is not the prime driver of temperature would be devastating to the entire narrative, even though it demonstrably isn't and despite the fact that no-one has ever managed to come up with an accurate measurement of man's contribution, either. It is, at present, impossible to quantify.(37)
At best, atmospheric CO2 is a trace gas. Air is comprised primarily of nitrogen and oxygen (78.1% and 20.9% respectively. Of the remaining 1%, four tenths is water vapor, which accounts for 95% of all the greenhouse effect. Carbon Dioxide makes up only 0.038% of the atmosphere, methane 0.0002% and nitrous oxide 0.00003% - the latter being 310 times more capable of storing heat than CO2.(38) It is known that 80% of the carbon dioxide from human activities entered the atmosphere after 1940. Logically, then, any warming prior to 1940 (including the very warm 1930s) must be largely natural.(39)
There are some other immediate and obvious problems with the narrative. As we have seen, there was much wailing and clutching of pearls in the 1970s, when it became apparent that the Earth had cooled appreciably since the end of World War II. The next apocalypse was assuredly an Ice Age, we were informed. And yet, if CO2 is the element that is responsible for the greenhouse effect and humans were busy pumping it into the atmosphere, temperatures should have been rising, even if the residence time of atmospheric CO2 is only four years (which it is, even though the UN want us to believe that it's 50-200 years, so that their warming climate models work)(40). There is no time lag component to the narrative.
But global temperature was in decline. Furthermore, since 1970 CO2 has steadily been enriching the world's atmosphere – from 320 parts per million in 1970, to 365 ppmv in 2000, to 418 ppmv in 2022.(41)(42) If we believe what we are being told, of course, and there is room for skepticism, given the fact that we have no means of validating the calculation. In addition, the manifest manipulation of the temperature data by the UN tends to erode faith in the rest of the narrative with which we are presented. The location of the site of the primary data set is not uncontroversial, either; the United Nations claim that, by siting their measurement site on the side of a volcano in Hawaii, they are obtaining untainted data. This assertion is difficult to square with the fact that volcanoes emit large quantities of CO2 – not just Mauna Loa (the location of the measuring site), but other Hawaiian volcanoes, too.(43)
Nor is this the only problem. The raw data is 'edited', by deleting whatever is considered poor data. This rules out 82% of the measurements. The implications are manifold:
“With such a savage editing of raw data, whatever trend one wishes to show can be shown. In publication, large natural variations in CO2 were removed from the data....to make an upward trending curve showing an increasing human contribution of CO2.”(44)
The methodology, over time, has also been inconsistent. A chemical method was employed between 1812 and 1959, which showed that for much of the nineteenth century (and between 1935 and 1950), atmospheric CO2 levels were higher than they are at present and, further, that they fluctuated widely. It is known that CO2 can vary by as much as 75 ppmv, even now.(45) Further clouding the issue is that fact that when the Hawaiian site became the 'gold standard', the method of measurement was changed to infra-red spectroscopy, although the method was never validated against its predecessor and is known to be problematic, due to its inability to filter out the other trace greenhouse gases.
Therefore, values since 1959 may not be considered part of an ongoing data set that originated in 1812. They must also be treated with great caution, given the editing and the smooth upwards trajectory of atmospheric CO2 saturation that looks entirely different to the 90,000 precise measurements (accurate to within 1%-3%) previously accumulated; it is therefore possible that the recent record is entirely fallacious.(46) It certainly cannot be held to be incontrovertible.
Nonetheless, even if we accept that we aren't being misled and that atmospheric CO2 was (and is) rising and that the relationship between CO2 and temperature is also as asserted, how could global temperature have been cooling between the 1940s and the 1970s and how is it that the Earth hasn't warmed since 1998? There's an obvious explanation, but it's not one that the climate cultists deign to acknowledge – the relationship between temperature and carbon dioxide is not as we are led to believe and, by extension, our contribution towards non-existent global warming has been greatly exaggerated.
The evidence for this alternative explanation is copious and compelling. Firstly, the song and dance about CO2 in the air is a sideshow; the atmosphere contains around 800 billion tonnes of carbon, but the oceans contain 39,000 billion tonnes and surface rocks have 6,500,000 billion tonnes:
“Atmospheric carbon only occupies 0.001% of the total carbon in the upper crust, oceans, life and atmosphere....each year, 18% of the atmospheric CO2 is exchanged with life and the oceans...”(47)
While there is no doubt that air is colder without CO2 content, there is absolutely no evidence that demonstrates that global temperature rises in line with an increase in atmospheric CO2; in fact, the mechanism works the other way around. Temperature rises first, then there is an increase in atmospheric CO2; this has been the case for at least 240,000 years.
“...ice cores have revealed that temperature and CO2 levels have tracked closely together during the warmings after each of the Earth's last three ice age glaciations. However, the CO2 changes have lagged about 800 years behind the temperature changes. Global warming has produced more CO2, rather than more CO2 producing global warming. This accords with the reality that the oceans hold the vast majority of the planet's carbon, and the laws of physics declare that when oceans warm, they must release some of their gases to the atmosphere.”(48)
This finding is not in any way contentious; the UN knows it to be true, because colder sea water absorbs more CO2 than warmer sea water. They just don't want us to know these facts and so we have (unreported) mainstream science coexisting with a countervailing fantasy narrative and never the twain shall meet - they hope. It is also the case that there has been far more atmospheric CO2 in the past and yet the Earth (and the vast majority of its species) has, nonetheless, survived without the globe turning into a fiery ball. Around 50 million years ago, CO2 was likely six times higher than today and, in the Carboniferous period (340 million years ago), it may have been twelve times higher. Incidentally, neither of those periods are notable for their fossil fuel fired heavy industry.(49)
In fact, there is very little about the CO2 narrative that is true (the same goes for the narrative about methane, incidentally). CO2 in the atmosphere slows down heat loss, but it doesn't wholly prevent it. If there was none, far more heat would be lost and the Earth's average temperature would be -3°C , not 15°C as it is now. But the efficiency of the heat trap is insensitive – if atmospheric CO2 was doubled, it would make very little difference to global temperature; perhaps an increase of 0.3°C . That's all.(50)
“Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere operates like a curtain on a window. If you want to keep out light, add a curtain. A second curtain makes little difference.....CO2 operates the same way. Once there is about 400 ppmv CO2 in the atmosphere, the doubling or tripling of the CO2 content has little effect on atmospheric temperature because CO2 has adsorbed all the infra-red energy it can adsorb.”(51)
The alarmists' theory holds that anthropogenic CO2 creation will be responsible for a 'tipping point', after which runaway global warming will result. This is more nonsense, as demonstrated by the climate history of the planet. There has never been runaway global warming, even when CO2 concentrations have been many times higher.
Further, despite seemingly endless propaganda to the contrary, CO2 is 'nature's fertilizer' and we are living at a time when atmospheric content has been dangerously low. At 180 ppmv, plants stop growing, which would clearly have a catastrophic effect on mankind's ability to survive. An increase to 1000 ppmv would be welcome, as it is clear that even modest rises are hugely beneficial. The increase of 100 ppmv in the past fifty years has been a major part of the reason for a substantial greening of the planet.
Indeed, since 1982, despite the alleged destruction of large swathes of the Amazon rainforest, Earth's tree cover has increased by 2.24 million square kilometers (or 7.1%).(52)
Figure 7
This is a demonstration of a carbon sink; atmospheric CO2 is sunk into excess foliage, rather than remaining in the air and purportedly causing 'global warming'. Increased greening equates to an increased ability to feed humanity, were we to take advantage of that fact.
So far, then, we have discovered that, not only is the Earth not currently warming, if it were to be, the causation would not be man-made atmospheric CO2, as temperature rises first, followed by CO2 content. It therefore follows that the basic premise that underpins the global warming alarmists' narrative is false; man is not ruining the planet by burning fossil fuels and there is no prospect of runaway global warming.
Further, we are living through an interglacial and, for the past 170 years, we've also been recovering from the Little Ice Age. We have still not regained the warmth with which we were blessed during the last two Warmings (Roman and Medieval). Lastly, far from facing a future that will be devastated by too much heat, we will instead find ourselves plunged back into another Ice Age at some point in the not too distant. In the meantime, more atmospheric CO2 would be a boon.
There is a startling disconnect between what we are told is happening and the evidence of our lying eyes. The propaganda to which we are subjected is never corrected; forecasts made on the back of climate models are inevitably flawed because of two primary factors – the inbuilt assumption that CO2 is the sole driver of global warming, which immediately skews models off the straight and narrow, and the inability (on behalf of the modelers) to admit that the causes of climate variability are extraordinarily complex and poorly understood.
That is not to say that there are not several factors that are obviously critical, but which are almost entirely ignored. More on that shortly. Firstly, a whistle-stop tour of some of the other glaring untruths. Remember Al Gore's polar bears? The ones that had drowned because there weren't enough ice flows any more? It so transpires that, far from facing extinction, eleven of the thirteen polar bear groups in the region are flourishing. Many other populations in Canada and Alaska have reached their maximum sustainable level.(53)
Then there's the allegation that higher temperatures will kill off the world's corals. Corals date back at least 450 million years and those still in existence today have managed to survive 200 million years, during which time both temperatures and atmospheric CO2 have been much higher. Indeed,
“...just in the past two million years, coral reefs have been through at least seventeen glacial periods, interspersed with their warm interglacial periods. These...shifts imposed repeated dramatic temperature changes, along with sea level changes as drastic as four hundred feet.”(54)
In addition, El Niño events cause major Pacific temperature changes every four to seven years. Corals react to large temperature changes by bleaching, not dying. It's part of their strategy. And so we find that, far from having to bear witness to widespread coral destruction, the Great Barrier Reef (as an example) currently has the highest levels of coral cover in 35 years.(55) It is far from alone; scientists are 'astonished' to find that many more around the world are also thriving.(56)
We have also been gaslit about rising sea levels and disappearing ice caps. For starters, melting sea ice would not change sea levels – only melting terrestrial ice would add volume to the oceans. Additionally, there are numerous instances of land sinkage being the actual mechanism of change. East Anglia, in the UK, has sunk by six metres in the past 6,500 years, largely due to the fact that Scotland is still rebounding from its glacial past. London is also sinking.(57)
There are other variables, such as the cycles of the moon. The year 2006 was a maximum year for the 18.6 year lunar nodal tide, which resulted in large volumes of warm water inundating the Arctic which increased the melting rate of summer sea ice, although not to the levels seen in the 1930s.(58) Underwater volcanoes can also alter sea levels, by uplifting the ocean floor. However, non-existent global warming is having no effect on the ice caps, other than to thicken them. The huge East Antarctic ice sheet, which contains approximately 90% of the world's ice, is growing in the middle and melting at the edge. The same is true of the Greenland ice sheet.(59)
A rise in global temperature of 5°C (which the alarmists maintain will occur by the end of the century unless we take action) would make very little difference on the high Antarctica plateaus where winter temperatures range from -40°C to -65°C.(60) The ice caps aren't going to disappear. As we've seen, temperatures in Greenland in the Medieval Warming were much warmer than today and yet the ice cap remained.
Further, during the last interglacial period (130,000-116,000 years ago), the average global temperature was 6°C higher than today for 8,000 years and Greenland ice still remained frozen.(61) Even the West Antarctic ice sheet, the one that photogenically calves vast chunks of glacier into the ocean (and which is at least 10,000 years past its last ice age), still has another 7,000 years worth of ice to melt, where it continue to do so – which it won't.(62)
There's another reason why sea levels won't rise much, regardless. While warmer temperatures cause the volume of water to expand and melt glacier ice,
“...warmer temperatures also evaporate more water from oceans and lakes. When clouds deposit the increased moisture from that rapid evaporation on polar ice caps and glaciers around the world, the ice caps and glaciers will grow, trapping more water...”(63)
For these reasons, and others, the most likely rate of sea level rise in the 21st century is 4 to 6 inches, the same rate of increase of recent centuries, although we may get no rise at all.(64) However, never fear; the doom-mongers have yet another prediction up their sleeve – the specter of more severe weather events although, once again, the evidence dictates otherwise.
The Earth's weather patterns are driven by the ways that the planet heats unevenly, both during the day and during the seasons. The equator, the broadest part of the globe, absorbs the most heat and the poles, conversely, absorb the least. The bigger the temperature difference between the two areas, the more energy created to drive winds and waves. Logically, then, a global warming that primarily increased polar and winter temperatures ought to give rise to less storms of a milder character.(65)
So, the alarmists' theory falls at the first hurdle. Additionally, historic records show that the Caribbean was pummeled by nearly three times as many hurricanes during the Little Ice Age (between 1701 and 1850) as during the much warmer period between 1950 and 1998.(66) Of the ten most devastating hurricanes of the 20th century, seven occurred before 1975.(67) The same lack of credibility afflicts alarmist tropes regarding tornadoes, despite the media's best efforts. The number of strong to violent tornadoes has declined dramatically for nearly half a century.(68)
As we have seen, then, the entire global warming narrative is simply a fiction, from top to bottom and from one side to the other. Even the UN themselves have occasionally had to 'fess up, most recently when they were obliged to acknowledge that 42% of their climate scenarios rely on low likelihood rises in temperature and are, therefore, almost entirely without merit.(69) They are also routinely captured while hiding and altering data. The obsession with greenhouses gases – although not the most potent, such as water vapor, by CO2 and methane, instead – is unwarranted if one were looking to evidence as a justification. The true primary driver of the Earth's climate has nothing to do with man's habits or his use of fossil fuels and cannot be manipulated for political ends. And the two most potent systemic threats to humanity's existence are natural phenomena that we could never expect to control.
In the first instance, I refer, of course, to the Sun. The evidence linking the effect of solar cycles on the Earth's climate is overwhelming:
“The Earth continually warms and cools. The cycle is undeniable, ancient, often abrupt, and global. It is also unstoppable. Isotopes in the ice and sediment cores, ancient tree rings, and stalagmites tell us that it is linked to small changes in solar activity.”(70)
But it's complicated. The Milankovitch Cycle theory holds that even very slight changes in incoming solar radiation drive major climate change, although the exact mechanism is unclear. The cycles themselves are plentiful; in addition to variable tectonic activity, there is a known galactic cycle of 143 million years, three orbital cycles of 100,000 years, 41,000 years and 21,000 years respectively, the aforementioned lunar cycle of 18.6 years and five solar cycles, ranging between 11 and 1.500 years.(71) What appear to be random variations in solar output, regardless of orbital cycles, also have a large role to play.
In broad terms, however, the sun-climate hypothesis is as follows:
“...Tiny variations in the sun's irradiance are amplified into major climate changes on Earth by at least two factors: (1) cosmic rays creating more or fewer of the low, cooling clouds in the earth's atmosphere; and (2) solar driven ozone changes in the stratosphere creating more or less heating of the lower atmosphere...”(72)
When the Sun's activity is weak, more low clouds form, which has a cooling effect. The opposite is also the case. There is a very strong correlation between Arctic temperatures and solar activity over the past 130 years.(73) Additionally, there is clear evidence that the late twentieth century warming coincided with a 70 year period when the Sun had been more active than at any time in the past 11,400 years.(74)
This inversely correlates with the last grand solar minimum, the Maunder Minimum of 1645-1715, the most intensive cold spell of the Little Ice Age, when solar activity was particularly anemic.(75) And, in truth, the linkage of solar activity to climate change ought not qualify as revelatory – it's simply a glaring example of Occam's Razor in action.
“The sun is 865,000 miles across with a surface temperature of 10,000 degrees Fahrenheit. The sun’s core temperature is 27,000,000 F. Earth has a diameter of 7,900 miles and a core temperature of about 10,000 F., the same as the surface of the sun. Earth’s atmosphere is 300 miles thick and its oceans average 2.3 miles deep. There are 34.5 people per square mile of the surface of the earth. Adults run between 5 and 6 feet in height. The Sun and the Earth control the temperature, no matter what anyone says.”(76)
The evidence for the primacy of the solar effect is further corroborated by the fact that other planets in the solar system were also experiencing warming in the late twentieth century – Triton, the largest moon of Neptune has heated to the extent that its surface frozen nitrogen appeared to be melting into gas by the turn of the new century. Between 1998 and 2005, Neptune, Pluto and Mars all warmed and Jupiter followed suit in 2006. Planets throughout the solar system were therefore warming, none of them as a result of man-made atmospheric CO2.(77) The only possible conclusion is that there is a separate warming mechanism.
But what it tells us about our present and near future is far more reliable than politically expedient climate modelling and, as a consequence, in line with the physical evidence. The combined effects of the various solar cycles dictate that
“...today we’re in the rising phase of a solar cycle (slight warming) at the beginning of a GSM (intense cooling) in the warming phase of a super-grand solar cycle (persistent warming). All generated by the sun, not people. That’s us, warming and cooling at the same time.”(78)
Sun spot activity over the past couple of years has been markedly low. Darker, colder years are coming and it seems as if they can be forecast with a degree of precision – 2028 through 2032, with the possibility of several more at the end of that small cycle. It may also be that we experience a rise in volcanic activity, which would exacerbate the cooling effect by launching cubic miles of material into the atmosphere. Again, this was a feature of the Maunder Minimum.(79)
It's entirely possible that the GSM will prompt more extreme weather events in the form of heavy snowfall, droughts and flooding, as well as a truncation of the summer growing period. In fact, the recent record snowfalls in the United States may be a sign that we are already experiencing the beginning of this stage.(80)
While man-made CO2 and runaway global warming are fictional threats to our continued existence, that's not to say that we are home free. The Sun, vital to our survival as a species, is also one of the potential sources of greatest peril, as recently demonstrated – to almost no acclaim. In March of this year, a coronal mass ejection (CME) on the far side of the Sun blasted a shock-wave into space, which was powerful enough that it still reached Earth a half hour later, after covering 93 million miles in the interim.(81)
It was our good fortune that the explosion took place on the other side of the Sun, although the region had been facing Earth just days prior. Had we been less lucky, the effects would have been catastrophic. We know this because there is a precedent; the Carrington event of 1853, during which telegraph communications around the world failed, due to the shock-wave. Except this would have been much worse, as early estimates suggest that this explosion was ten to a hundred times more powerful.
That being the case, it is almost certain that all electrical operating systems, instruments and networks would have been fried. Power supplies would instantly vanish and industry would cease production:
“Massive amounts of data, including almost all financial data, would simply disappear. All methods of communication beyond voice range would no longer exist. It wouldn’t be a matter of waiting to be rescued by a government of any sort. Government would have shrunk to little more than a notion. The very tools on which relief, and even recovery, depend would simply have vanished.”(82)
None of which sounds favorite, but informed scientists had been predicting just such an event for the past fifty years; it's just that no-one told us. Apparently, we have dodged a bullet that won't be re-fired for a century or so, even though we weren't even aware of it at the time.
The second systemic threat to humanity's future is also natural in origin and a repeat offender – a supervolcano eruption. A single supervolcano can change global climate, as large volcanic eruptions emit as much energy as an asteroid impact. By way of example, it is known that a volcanic episode began 2.67 million years ago and that there was, concurrently, an onset of rapid glaciation that is incompatible with Milankovich Cycle outcomes. It is, therefore, highly likely that airborne volcanic ash played a prominent role in this global cooling.(83)
We have no recent experience with large volcanic explosions. Tambora (1815) and Krakatoa (1883) were relatively modest in size and Mt St Helens (1980) was globally insignificant. We have to go back to the explosion of supervolcano Toba (in Sumatra) 74,000 years ago if we wish to gain an appreciation of what is possible. Mt St Helens pushed perhaps a cubic kilometer of dust into the atmosphere; by contrast, Toba released 2,800 cubic kilometers of dust. It also released at least 1,000 million tonnes of sulphuric acid aerosols, some of which remained in the air six years later.(84)
The data suggests that a six-year volcanic winter resulted and that glaciation accelerated. A millennium of subsequent cooling dropped Northern Hemisphere temperatures by 10°C. The 15cm of volcanic ash that fell over India and Asia was a more immediate problem, given that as little as 1cm can destroy agriculture. There is no doubt that the low latitude lands were hugely affected and this was where the majority of humanity's hunter-gatherer population lived. As a result, our species almost became extinct; total human population was reduced to between 4,000 and 10,000 individuals.(85)
Unfortunately, we cannot comfort ourselves with the knowledge that such events are solely symptomatic of a developing planet and are less likely to occur in modern times. The supervolcano currently centered on Yellowstone National Park is active and will explode again at some point, as there is still a huge underground chamber of molten rock containing gases dissolved at very high pressure. The last gas explosion there occurred 13,000 years ago and left a crater 5 kilometers wide.(86)
Land-based supervolcanoes can create mass extinction events, whereas submerged supervolcanoes change climate. There are huge supervolcano provinces beneath the oceans which are affected by plate tectonics and, in the very recent past, the number of known submerged volcanoes has nearly doubled – an additional 19,325 to go with the 24,643 that had already been identified.(87) That number will undoubtedly rise further as only 20% of the ocean floor has been accurately mapped by sonar.(88) This is clearly less than reassuring.
In addition to their possible role in potentially catastrophic climate change, it's worth noting their more prosaic, ongoing function in connection with CO2. As we know, volcanoes emit CO2 – including those under the waves. Given that we have discovered that there are a lot more of them than we thought and that it is likely that they play an important part in determining long term climate via the medium of ocean mixing....and given that heat from submarine volcanoes warm the oceans and warmer oceans result in the emission of CO2 into the atmosphere, might it be sensible to include the data in climate modelling? Some might think so – but not the high priests of the models themselves. They already have the answer they're looking for – it's settled science.
And so we find ourselves laboring under the yoke of a constructed narrative that, in its essentials, contains not a single grain of truth, a narrative that was birthed at the end of the Cold War and nurtured by the likes of Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and others who had suddenly been robbed of their raison d'être (nuclear disarmament) are were therefore in need of a new obsession. However, while they were only ever a fringe influence during the nuclear stand-off – because the possibility of armed conflict between East and West provided the military/industrial complex rich pickings – their new religion is front and center, and for many of the same reasons.
The fiction of anthropogenic global warming feeds a vast, subsidized green energy sector and the elites have not been backwards in coming forwards with their hands out and, if that were the extent of the deception, the cost would be severe enough. But there's a little more to it than that. This time around, because the activists are inside the tent pissing out inside of splashing the canvas from outside, they have been co-opted by the same class of elites that they viewed as their mortal enemy half a century ago.
They have allowed themselves to be cast in the role of useful idiots, the loony tip of the globalist spear. In truth, their politics are a reflection of their personalities and climate activists have never needed much prompting when it comes to expressing hatred for mankind and our alleged despoilment of Mother Nature – the inner Malthusian is never far from the surface.
Nonetheless, without 'climate change' there is no Net Zero and no justification for all the mayhem that will accompany it. It therefore follows that, without a confrontation of the false narrative, any opposition to the policies it spawns will be ineffectual. And facts win prizes, if we repeat them often enough. All we have to do is accept that being labelled a 'denier' on Twitter by an idiot that we have no respect for isn't the end of the world and spread the word.
Citations
(1) http://www.petitionproject.rg/
(2) Ian Plimer, Heaven And Earth, Global Warming: The Missing Science, pg 59.
(3) S. Fred Singer and Dennis T. Avery, Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1,500 Years, pg 47.
(4) Brian Sussman, Climategate, pg 28.
(5) Heaven And Earth, pg 61.
(6) Heaven And Earth, pg 80.
(7) Climategate, pg 22.
(8) Heaven And Earth, pg 75.
(9) Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1,500 Years, pg 11.
(10) https://expose-news.com/2023/04/21/less-than-1-scientists-agree-humanity-causing-climate-change/
(11) https://www.newspapers.com/image/435402308/
(13) https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/outreach/CDPW40/CD&PW_reeves_denver.pdf
(14) https://www.newspapers.com/image/9818993/?terms=paul%2Behrlich%2Bblue%2Bsteam
(15) https://www.newspapers.com/image/69651456/?terms=ozon%2Bdepletion
(16) https://www.newspapers.com/image/353862247/?terms=%22acid%2Brain%22%2Band%2Bkill%2Bbefore
(18) https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/102074798
(19) Climategate, pg 110.
(20) https://www.newspapers.com/image/247922164/?terms=global%2Bwarming%2Bnoel%2Bbrown
(25)
https://eu.usatoday.com/#.XVm6Py2ZNu3
(26) Heaven And Earth, pg 99.
(27) Christopher Booker, The Real Global Warming Disaster, pg 230.
(28) The Real Global Warming Disaster, pg 274.
(29) Nigel Lawson, An Appeal To Reason, pg 9.
(30) The Real Global Warming Disaster, pg 198.
(31) Heaven And Earth, pg 377.
(32) Heaven And Earth, pg 339.
(33) Climategate, pg 61.
(37) https://expose-news.com/2023/04/21/less-than-1-scientists-agree-humanity-causing-climate-change/
(38) Climategate, pg 67.
(39) Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1,500 Years, pg 141.
(40) Heaven and Earth, pg 413.
(41) https://expose-news.com/2023/05/11/carbon-dioxide-nitrogen-and-climate-change/
(43) The Real Global Warming Disaster, pg 177.
(44) Heaven And Earth, pg 416.
(45) Ditto
(46) Heaven And Earth, pg 419.
(47) Heaven And Earth, pg 365.
(48) Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1,500 Years, pg 107.
(49) Climategate, pg 71.
(50) Heaven And Earth, pg 366.
(51) Heaven And Earth, pg 374.
(52) https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0411-9
(53) The Real Global Warming Disaster, pg 146.
(54) Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1,500 Years, pg 183.
(55) https://www.australiangeographic.com.au/news/2022/08/coral-makes-comeback-on-great-barrier-reef/
(57) Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1,500 Years, pg 305.
(58) Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1,500 Years, pg 306.
(59) Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1,500 Years, pg 271.
(60) Ditto
(61) Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1,500 Years, pg 266.
(62) Heaven And Earth, pg 156.
(63) Ditto
(64) Heaven And Earth, pg 153.
(65) Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1,500 Years, pg 202.
(66) Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1,500 Years, pg 203.
(67) An Appeal To Reason, pg 49.
(68) https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2023/04/tornadoes_climate_change_and_the_media.html
(69) https://clintel.org/thorough-analysis-by-clintel-shows-serious-errors-in-latest-ipcc-report/
(70) Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1,500 Years, pg 3.
(71) Heaven And Earth, pg 234.
(72) Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1,500 Years, pg 30.
(73) Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1,500 Years, pg 31.
(74) The Real Global Warming Disaster, pg 241.
(75) https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2021/04/the_coming_modern_grand_solar_minimum.html
(77) Ditto
(78) The Real Global Warming Disaster, pg 189.
(80) https://weather.com/storms/winter/news/2022-11-18-snowfall-records-united-states-days-month-season
(82) https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2023/03/dodging_the_apocalypse.html
(83) Heaven And Earth, pg 212.
(84) Ditto
(85) Ditto
(86) Ditto
(87) https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2022EA002331
Figure 1 https://expose-news.com/2023/04/21/less-than-1-scientists-agree-humanity-causing-climate-change/
Figure 2 https://realclimatescience.com/2019/05/hansen-got-everything-wrong-alarmists-claim-victory/
Figure 3 Ditto
Figure 7 https://expose-news.com/2023/05/11/carbon-dioxide-nitrogen-and-climate-change/
https://harvard2thebighouse.substack.com/p/f33
Fantastic article as always! I have awakened (not woke) many up with "the Romans were growing wine in York, and they were skating on the Thames in the middle ages, the first with lower co2 than the latter, there by showing reverse correlation" maybe I need to say vikings in Greenland!! https://open.substack.com/pub/harvard2thebighouse?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android has a wonderful theory that we humans are from the rising of the land mass of the himalayas coupled with the mass caldera event in yellow stone 140000 year's ago causing us to eke out our survival clinging to volcanic off gassing vents for heat, [all our cultures refer to high mountains...look to east or west or north or south depending on our civilisations geography from the himalayas] Jesus I'm kinda regretting the corna mass ejection didn't hit us, it would have been bliss to have to not deal with the "super informed" wokesters who haven't a fucking clue for a while. I will share this with article many. Honestly I believe that the climate change/warming bullshite narrative is the hardest to shake people out of, but article's like yours will do a lot. Keep up the good work, Adrian