12 reasons why I don't believe there's a climate emergency
I’m not a scientist. But I have reasons why I don’t fully trust the ‘climate emergency’ narrative. Here they are:
1 Looking back through history, there have always been doomsday prophets, folk who say the world is coming to an end. Are modern-day activists not just the current version of this?
2 I look at some of the facts – CO2 is 0.04% of the atmosphere; humans are responsible for just 3% of CO2; Britain is responsible for just 1% of the world’s CO2 output – and I think ‘really’? Will us de-carbonising really make a difference to the Earth’s climate?
3 I have listened to some top scientists who say CO2 does not drive global warming; that CO2 in the atmosphere is a good/vital thing; that many other things, like the sun and the clouds and the oceans, are more responsible for the Earth’s temperature.
4 I note that most of the loudest climate activists are socialists and on the Left. Are they not just using this movement to push their dreams of a deindustrialised socialist utopia? And I also note the crossover between green activists and BLM ones, gender ones, pro-Hamas ones, none of whom I like or agree with.
5 As an amateur psychologist, I know that humans are susceptible to manias. I also know that humans tend to focus on tiny slivers of time and on tiny slivers of geographical place when forming ideas and opinions. We are also extremely malleable and easily fooled, as was demonstrated in 2020 and 2021.
6 I have looked into the implications of net zero. It is incredibly expensive. It will vastly reduce living standards and hinder economic growth. I don’t think that’s a good thing. I know that economic growth has led to higher living standards, which has made people both safer and more environmentally aware.
7 Net zero will also lead to significant diminishment of personal freedom, and it even threatens democracy, as people are told they MUST do certain things and they must not do other things, and they may even be restricted in speaking out on climate matters.
8 What will be the worst things that will happen if the doomsayers are correct? A rise in temperature? Where? Siberia? Singapore? Stockholm? What is the ideal temperature? For how long? Will this utopia be forever maintained? I’m suspicious of utopias; the communists sought utopias.
9 If one consequence of climate change is rising sea levels, would it not be better to spend money building more sea defences to protect our land? Like the Dutch did?
10 It’s a narrative heavily pushed by The Guardian. I dislike The Guardian. I believe it’s been wrong on most issues through my life – socialism, immigration, race, the EU, gender, lockdowns, and so on. Probably it’s wrong about climate issues too?
11 I am suspicious of the amount of money that green activists and subsidised green industries make. And 40 years ago the greenies were saying the Earth was going to get too cold. Much of what they said would happen by now has not happened. Also, I trust ‘experts’ much less now, after they lied about the efficacy of lockdowns, masks and the ‘vaccines’.
12 I like sunshine. I prefer being warm to being cold. It makes me feel better. It’s more fun. It saves on heating bills. It saves on clothes. It makes people happier. Far few people die of the heat than they do the cold.
Exactly the right way to look at things
ReplyDeleteFrankly the first sentence set the tone.
DeleteWe all need to ask what the optimum level of CO2 is for healthy plant growth and at what level do plants start to die? 800 - 1200 ppm and 160 ppm. Ask any greeny, they won't know which is incredible! The planet is greening up nicely now :)
DeleteI love these statements, they reflect everything I believe- so lovely to see them put together so succinctly
DeleteUK anthropogenic CO2 emission are almost exactly one part in a million of the atmosphere; that millionth makes a (very small) contribution to the increasing biomass that is greening the planet so dramatically, speedily and so truly wonderfully.
ReplyDeleteDuring lockdown emissions fell 5.4% for the year 2020 (NASA) the equivalent to the 5th and 6th largest economies on the planet shutting down (Germany and Japan) or going 'Net Zero. As NASA coyly observed: we were surprised to find that emissions were within the normal range. Translation: it made NO difference. The Mauna Loa Observatory data actually shows 2020 CO2 seasonal spike was higher than 2019 and 2021. Net Zero can't even be measured it's so inconsequential.
ReplyDelete“Much” of what they predicted hasn’t happened? Much? I can’t think of anything they’ve predicted that has happened (until they started predicting everything, which is proof positive that the whole thing is a - very sinister - scam).
ReplyDeleteLive abroad and my building needs a new heating system. Oil and gas not allowed so the choice is dodgy solar, dodgy heat pumps or some shite from the lake I know nothing about. Its bleak.
ReplyDeleteSo the planet warms up - so what? A few 'heat intolerant' species die back, an equal number of 'cold intolerant' species thrive. Just as has been happening ever since life appeared here!
ReplyDeleteExactly.
DeleteI hope you might like my substack on the manmade climate crisis a scam? - https://tomed.substack.com/p/is-the-manmade-climate-crisis-a-scam
ReplyDeleteYour main argument seems to be "I don't like the people who believe there is a climate problem therefore they are wrong". However, let's at least get the factual bit right.
ReplyDeleteCO2 is indeed 0.04% of the atmosphere - this is utterly irrelevant - all it proves is that there is an awful lot of other gasses up there. What matters is how much CO2 there is - not how much non-greenhouse gasses there are.
Humans are responsible for about 3% of the CO2 generated each year but CO2 is part of a carbon cycle. Much of it is also removed from the atmosphere each year. Prior to the industrial revolution CO2 input and output was balanced. Since then the input has exceeded the output and as a result the CO2 in the atmosphere has shot up by 50%. Humans are responsible for that increase.
The fact that the UK only contributes 1% of the annual excess doesn't mean there isn't a problem - it just means our contribution to that problem is relatively small.
Well, only two of the 12 points are based around mistrusting opinions from those I dislike, not my main argument.
DeleteAs for the point about %, firstly, does this mean for sure that CO2 is a terrible thing, and secondly, as you say, if the UK contributes 1% then are you not admitting that our efforts to limit CO2 are pointless to help the planet?
As I say, I'm not a scientist but I want to ask questions and for there to be a wider debate than there currently is.
"Well, only two of the 12 points are based around mistrusting opinions from those I dislike, not my main argument."
DeleteFair enough 4, 10 are the only ones that are explicitly ad hominem. But 1, 5 and 11 are based on the psychology of those that believe there is a problem rather than evidence.
"As for the point about %, firstly, does this mean for sure that CO2 is a terrible thing,"
Of course the % of CO2 doesn't by itself mean that CO2 is a terrible thing. My point is simply that you cannot dismiss it simply because there are lot of other gasses in the atmosphere.
"if the UK contributes 1% then are you not admitting that our efforts to limit CO2 are pointless to help the planet?"
This is like arguing what is the point of me paying my taxes. It is only a tiny fraction of the total taxation required. If we want the world to react than we all need to contribute. And if we don't do our bit then how can we put pressure on the likes of China to do their bit?
" I want to ask questions and for there to be a wider debate than there currently is."
Fair enough but the debate is extremely widespread already. The problem is it mostly between rival echo chambers on the internet.
replying to the person above who would appear to be some kind of alarmist or at least a climate change 'believer'....
DeleteYes, climate change is real, its happened for billions of years.
However, it has never been proven that anthropogenic co2 emissions are the majority cause of the rise in atmospheric co2 measurements - which by the way - are only really measured since the 1960's AND if such measured increases were due wholly and entirely due to human emissions, one would expect the annual increase to raise each year. Why? Because the population has risen each year - from 3billion in 1960 to over 8 billion now - or approaching 3 times! - so how can the annual rise remains relatively constant? We are told the co2 sinks are 'full' and cannot take anymore - so obviously that means the annual increase must itself increase? It simply doesn't make sense - the annual increase is consistent and 'stable' - whereas human emissions are not!
In addition, if anybody bothers to look at the so-called carbon budget figures, they will see that annual human emissions amount to around 8 or 9 Gt annually - but look and the other 'natural' co2 fluxes, which are orders of magnitudes higher! Yet, amazingly, these natural fluxes are alleged to be perfectly STATIC !! and also, if any of these natural fluxes changed by a percentage point or two, they would dwarf human emissions. In short, there is no direct evidence that anthropogenic co2 is the major source of the measured increase........and this is all deductable from the 'official' published data.....but is hardly ever pointed out in the mainstream media....
It's called critical thinking, which along with common sense, enables most rational and semi-intelligent people to realise that we are being taken for a ride....
and - just for completeness - curtailing co2 emissions will not stop climate change. Even if one believes in the co2 war,ing hypothesis - which as a scientist, I do not - any warming effect is very slight (relative to water vapour and solar energy, etc, etc) and again, is therefore very minor compared to the whole system......
DeleteOh, and don't start with the positive feedback BS, because that is also unproven - and the mere fact that we have oceans to regulate our climate/temperature is demonstrable proof that over the warm and cool periods of Earths history, the feedback has always been 'negative' in the end....no runaway boiling of the oceans (despite thousands of ppm of co2) - no thermal runaway, etc.
Couldn't agree more with all 12 points.
ReplyDeleteFact is, if we have much less CO2, plant life may not survive.
There is no climate emergency.
The AGW / CAGW hypothesis has been disproved. It does not reflect reality.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.patriotaction.us/showthread.php?tid=2711
The takeaways:
1) The climatologists have conflated their purported "greenhouse effect" with the Kelvin-Helmholtz Gravitational Auto-Compression Effect (aka the lapse rate).
2) The climatologists claim the causative agent for their purported "greenhouse effect" to be "backradiation".
3) The Kelvin-Helmholtz Gravitational Auto-Compression Effect's causative agent is, of course, gravity.
4) "Backradiation" is physically impossible because energy cannot spontaneously flow up an energy density gradient.
5) The climatologists misuse the Stefan-Boltzmann (S-B) equation, using the idealized blackbody form of the equation upon graybody objects, which manufactures out of thin air their purported "backradiation", it is only a mathematical artifact due to that aforementioned misuse of the S-B equation. "Backradiation" does not and cannot actually exist. Its existence would imply rampant violations of the fundamental physical laws.
6) Polyatomic molecules are net atmospheric radiative coolants, not "global warming" gases. Far from the 'global warming gas' claimed by the climatologists, water acts as a literal refrigerant (in the strict 'refrigeration cycle' sense) below the tropopause. CO2 is the most prevalent atmospheric radiative coolant above the tropopause and the second-most prevalent (behind water vapor) below the tropopause. Peer-reviewed studies corroborating this are referenced in the paper at the link above.
humans are responsible for just 3% of CO2 or 33%? Give me a citation for 3% ... otherwise you're quite correct i.e. that there is no emergency.
ReplyDelete