The UN's IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has been publishing papers about the risk of our climate overheating for many years. Some believe that if the global temperature rises above a certain point then this would soon trigger a runaway warming process that would be irreversible, with the implication that the world would relatively quickly (choose your timescale) become too hot to sustain life as we know it.
Others assert that the IPCC has never supported the "Climate Emergency" narrative.
We also know that we have binned logical argument in favour of hysteria when sixteen year old young ladies are shamelessly groomed to lecture the world's powers on the "Climate Emergency" and when every disagreeable phenomenon is routinely blamed upon "climate change" regardless of evidence.
We feel that the emergency narrative fails anyway if the "Man-made Global Warming" thesis fails, so initially we will address our efforts here to exploring the latter.
So why this page? We are not climate scientists, so what can we contribute to the discussion?
We do not claim to solve the riddle, but we do hope to provide rational argument, and pointers to more competent sources of information. We hope to demonstrate that the case for irreversible climate change is by no means conclusive, to provide enough pointers to justify that assertion, and to encourage our visitors to pursue further investigations as you feel appropriate.
We believe that climate science is not settled and we will therefore update this page in the future as better information comes to our notice.
The critical assertions underpinning the global warming thesis can be summarised as follows:
(1) Industrialisation in this century and the last, involving the combustion of carbon-based fossil fuels, adds "too much" carbon dioxide to the atmosphere
(2) CO2 in the atmosphere is a greenhouse gas that traps heat by impeding the radiation of heat into space, thus the additional CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels causes global warming
(3) No other causes of global warming (such as variations in the heat output from the sun due to sunspot and other cycles, or variations in the levels of greenhouse gases other than CO2, or volcanic eruptions etc) come close to this effect (nevertheless the IPCC has felt the need to consider the effect of other gases such as methane, so maybe there is some doubt creeping in on this particular assertion)
(4) if the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere should ever exceed some critical level, the heating effect will become irreversible (we will all be doomed)
(5) near enough all the world's climate scientists agree on these assertions, so disagreement is futile.
If any of assertions (1) (2) or (3) fails, then the case for global warming driven by CO2 is seriously undermined or collapses entirely.
If (4) fails, we may still have global warming but we may not be doomed.
If (5) fails, then (1) (2) (3) and (4) might still be valid, but subjectively they are more likely to be undermined by updated knowledge or new argument.
* * *
It is worth noting that the IPCC bases its future projections on climate models constructed by various scientists. We would point out that such models do NOT constitute evidence for climate change - they are simply attempts to predict the future based upon the individual scientist's review and analysis of the evidence from the past, allied to whatever theories are chosen to apply in order to predict the future.
We feel that we should bear in mind the old adage, that accurate predictions are very difficult, especially about the future.
We are also mindful of the opportunity for some "scientists" to construct their model deliberately or otherwise so as to predict warming. This is not to say that all these scientists are in cahoots, it is simply to note that the opportunity exists and to underline the point that none of these models therefore constitute scientific evidence.
If we add in the enormous complexity of the atmosphere, the oceans, the tectonics and vulcanology in general, not to mention the cosmic weather through which our solar system travels, we can begin to see that the scope for error is not insignificant.
Atmospheric CO2 levels are traditionally measured in Hawai, and this continues so that comparable figures are obtained from one year to another. Nonetheless atmostpheric CO2 is normally produced everywhere close to sea level and CO2 is heavier than air, so concentrations may not always be uniformly distributed (we may expect levels at sea to differ from levels over rain forests, since cooling water absorbs CO2 - but there again, warming water will release CO2 . . . ).
The historical record over the last several hundred million years shows that the "natural" level could fall to catastrophic lows in the future if the very recent trend was to continue without man-made CO2 or if we enter another ice age any time soon . . . so something that reverses past trends (click to download - and see pages 7 - 9 for a graphical depiction of global CO2 vs temperature) may improve the prospects for the survival of life on earth.
Note that "In the last 600 million years of Earth’s history only the Carboniferous Period and our present age, the Quaternary Period, have witnessed CO2 levels less than 400 ppm". I also note that temperatures also have only been as low as today during the Carboniferous and Ordovician periods, after both of which they reverted quite rapidly (geologically speaking) to the more normal range at around 25oC !
This seems a reasonable proposition, but it does not follow that the "natural" level of CO2 is a stable constant.
In fact, historical records show that the level of CO2 over the past 600 million years has overall been declining (although not without major deviations from the straight line) from around 6000 ppm (parts per million) to 180 parts per million. At 150 ppm most plant species face CO2 starvation and death, so maybe our world has actually had a narrow escape.
Following the last ice age CO2 started rising from 180 ppm up to 280 ppm at the start of industrialisation. It now stands at around 400 ppm, so man's anthropomorphic activities (including deforestation, farming, industrialisation etc etc) may have added at most 220 ppm so far, leaving some way to go before we reach previous levels of 6000 ppm . . .
We conclude that this attribution of a rise of 280 ppm since the last ice age to human activity seems plausible.
Opinion ranges from "No it isn't" through "Yes but" to "Yes of course it is, everyone knows that".
But where is the evidence?!
This article is the closest I have found so far to explaining how the greenhouse gas effect is understood to work for CO2 in our atmosphere. It is supposed to be descriptive (and therefore understandable) rather than definitive.
The problem of course is that the atmosphere is for ever in motion and at different heights times and places it has different content (including clouds and dust particles of various natures), so practical experimentation to confirm any theory is tricky. That leaves us with inventing theories and trying to validate them through making predictions and observing if they are borne out. So far the record is - shall we say - inconclusive at best.
Nonetheless if we take their conclusions as correct, they find that a doubling of CO2 "adds 4 Watts per square meter to the planet's radiation balance". That implies that the law of diminishing returns governs the amount of heating generated by the release of CO2 - the increase in temperature is not directly proportional to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, it is logarithmic. So once you have added a total of x tons of CO2 and achieved a t oC temperature increase, the next x tons of CO2 added will increase the temperature by only ½t oC.
So we might agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, with the proviso that we may eventually achieve an improved understanding.
On the other hand . . . the independent Global Warming Solved site maintains that experimental data does not support this conclusion (see section "Q: Can CO2 cause global warming?" and "Q: Is there a greenhouse effect?") so you are free to disagree!
I'm thinking that this assertion is based upon the thinking in the above article. I have no way to validate that thinking.
The historical record of temperature vs CO2 levels clearly shows major discrepancies of actual temperature from that expected according to this theory (in fact temperature remained surprisingly constant at around 25oC, dropping occasionally to levels nearer to those of today), so at best this theory is unproven.
When we factor in the undeniably large effects of cloud cover (water droplets or other particulate matter, for example ash from volcanoes etc - just go outside on a clear night and a cloudy night and feel the difference!) then we should ask ourselves whether here is any reliable record of cloud cover extent in prehistory? Without such a record it is impossible to validate this argument.
Finally the inconsistent correlation between global temperature and CO2 cover over the past 600 million years would indicate that other factors must have been at work and CO2 has not really been correlated to temperature overall.
We consider this assertion to be a Fail.
If we accept the result under assertion (2) that a doubling of CO2 "adds 4 Watts per square meter to the planet's radiation balance" then this implies that each doubling of the total amount of CO2 only achieves the same fixed temperature rise.
So each successive doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere would simply raise global temperature by a fixed amount. To achieve runaway irreversible global warming we would need successive additions of CO2 to lead to larger and larger increases in temperature, not smaller and smaller.
Another factor is that the historical record shows that as CO2 levels fell from 6000 ppm to 180 ppm over 500M yrs, the temperature did not fall neatly alongside but overall remained (with exceptions) roughly constant at around 25oC. However overall it did fall on occasion, so if 6000 ppm didn't cause runaway heating in the past, and we are at only 400 ppm now (having added a mere 220 ppm since the last ice age), it seems unlikely that irreversible warming could occur any time soon. This is at least consistent with the previous result that runaway heating is unlikely.
On the basis of the above, we suggest that this assertion is emphatically rejected.
We contend that (5) is already busted, since Albert Einstein single-handedly overthrew centuries of scientific agreement (on Newton's Laws) early in the last century, thus discrediting the unscientific concept of the immutability of "settled science" for ever.
We also note that climatology (involving oceanography, vulcanology, meteorology, hydrodynamics, hydroclimatology, thermodynamics, photochemistry, heliophysics, geography, geophysics, biogeochemistry, paleoclimatology, statistics, error analysis, and no doubt more ) is vastly more complex a topic than Newton's laws, so the likelihood is that as research advances, new knowledge and new theories may be expected to confound today's "settled science".
Another point of note is that the IPCC creates it's predictions based upon assessment of all the different models which have been adopted by its various scientists - in other words, all these models are not the same, so there is no single theory behind the IPCC's work. You could from this point alone reasonably deduce that the science is not settled.
For an up-to-date review of how actual warming data support the climate sensitivity viewpoint promoted by the IPCC (ie: based on climate models rather than actual data), watch this video:
On the basis of all of the above, we have no hesitation in suggesting that assertion (5) is a Fail.
This all rather gives the lie to the idea that man-made CO2 is producing extraordinary global warming outside normal ranges, leading to catastrophic conditions. In fact if past precedent is any guide we may expect a revertion to more normal (ie: higher CO2 and temperature levels around 25oC) quite soon geologically speaking (ie: at some time in the next few million years).
This may indeed be catastrophic for anyone in equatorial lattitudes but it won't be abnormal for mother earth.
This whole climate paranoia thing has been brewing up at least since the Club of Rome produced their report "The Limits to Growth" in 1972, followed by "The First Global Revolution" in 1991 amongst many others.
Now there is a lot in these reports that most people might regard as plausible and sensible, but they are not scientific papers (although they do cite scientific research) - they are political in nature. The Club of Rome however cannot be described as a democratic body - rather it appears to be a think-tank of the elite.
The UN is an assembly of representatives from all the nations on Earth, and the IPCC is its creation. The UN lacks any elected Parliament and is thus less democratic than the EU and even less accountable.
What all this boils down to is that we are faced with two alternatives:
a) The Climate narrative is driven entirely by altruism and the genuine realisation that there is good scientific reason to believe that global warming is essentially man-made and is a bad thing that bodes bad outcomes for the world. The UN has therefore launched a political project to address this issue and save the world.
b) The Climate narrative is a political project that has been concocted by a global group of unaccountables (not necessarily associated with the Club of Rome I should add) who see it as a means to further their own agenda (whatever that might be). These globalists exert huge influence through the funding of academia in general and scientific research projects in particlar, and can thus can manipulate the research results that are permitted to be published, enabling them to develop, manipulate, and (through control/ownership of the global media companies) propagate the global warmist message. Could this really be true?
* * *
This is probably the first time in the history of the world that we have knowingly faced such a dilemma. To shed more light on what is going on we may seek informed opinion, but ultimately we will each have to make up our own minds for ourselves.
We will not pretend that we have selected items below in a balanced way. There are plenty of alternative sources that present the case for the global warming narrative, in particular the primary political authority the IPCC to which we have provided links.
Below we will try to redress the balance.
(28/04/2020) A documentary by film-maker Michael Moore, brought to us via the Global Warming Policy Forum. One hour and forty minutes of difficult truth.
"All that you have to do is to say 'yes' ".
Like / Dislike this video here.
As might be expected, this film has provoked controversy.
We don't share it here because it is "anti" or "pro" any type of fuel, we share it here because we think it offers some very pertinent insights into how we got to where we are today, regardless of your view on global warming, the effectiveness of the latest "green" technologies, or the abundance of remaining fossil fuel reserves.
After all, we won't cure a problem unless we are clear-sighted about its causes.
(01/03/2020) Like/Dislike this video here (Dr. John Robson is a Canadian historian and journalist).
We note that Michael Mann was challenged in court in British Columbia in 2011 to share the data from which he graphed his infamous "hockey stick", but he failed to do so and therefore, finally in 2019, reportedly had his libel case thrown out.
Also of note here is that the video above brings out the difference between world temperatures as measured directly in recent times, and those inferred from tree rings for historical times. It illustrates the real problems that scientists face when trying to decide how to best deduce historical temperature records, historical cloud cover records, historical any-kind-of records.
The road to paleoclimatology is strewn with pitfalls . . .
The video below by Dr Shiva Ayyadurai gives us some insight into what the good Doctor thinks is afoot . . . (inaccuracy alert: CO2 is an entirely natural constituent of our atmosphere and cannot be considered a pollutant), and he is unafraid to mix it with politics.
"The sensible environmentalist"
(20/03/2020) This article from Independence Daily traces the history of climate alarmism since the formation of the United Nations, and provides a number of useful links.
If the climate agenda was truly based on science, would it not have had its origins in a coming-together of the world's climate scientists to present their case and demand action of the world's politicians?
(10/02/2020) Troy Media (Canadian, since you ask) make a powerful case for climate moderates everywhere to wake up and smell the coffee before they are priced and taxed out of their lifestyle. The climate zealots can now smell victory - it's time to make your mind up if you are for or against climate extremism and act accordingly.
(04/02/2020) This article from NASA (2006) describes the work they did in an attempt to explain how a 1oC drop in mean global temperature due to the sun's cyclical cooling during the last Maunder Minimum (1645 - 1715) might have caused the much larger temperature drops actually experienced in the northern hemisphere.
Of course, if the climate activists are correct then our CO2 emissions may negate any cooling effect - we shall see.
(03/02/2020) I'm no fan of Bill Gates, having abandoned Windows 10 (which used to screw up my PC) in favour of Linux Mint (which doesn't) some years ago. But credit where credit is due - his views on the likely usefulness of renewable sources of energy are refreshing:
(29/01/2020) As a co-founder of GreenPeace and a lifelong ecologist, Dr Patrick Moore has had a life-long ring-side seat to observe the morphing of GreenPeace into today's global ecolo-political juggernaut. Was the original motivation to stop the destruction of the world transformed somewhere along the way . . . and if so, how and where?
(27/01/2020) The Global Warming Policy Forum publishes a review of his programmes over the years . . .
Also see 2019 - Year of Peak Green BullS**t. Now we just need a "year of peak green sanity" - and to get that we need more people to challenge the BullS**t. Pass the ammo along please . . .
(01/01/2020) At the start of 2020 we can be sure that the powers that be will intensify their drive to ramp up the climate hysteria (and the associated taxes overt and hidden that they plan to heap upon us) so now is perhaps an opportune time to put the case for the reality of climate change.
First up we have a short and sweet debunk that puts the case in simple terms that are readily understandable:
To back that up with as much evidence as even the most fanatical may have the stomach for, Dr Patrick Moore (founder member GreenPeace who left that movement when it became in his view divorced from the science) sets out his case for the true science of climate change:
This article on Forbes.com treads the reasonable middle road by pointing out that the extreme predictions now being circulated by supporters of climate apocalypse are not supported by the IPCC.
“You’ve got to come up with some kind of middle ground where you do reasonable things to mitigate the risk and try at the same time to lift people out of poverty and make them more resilient,” ... “We shouldn’t be forced to choose between lifting people out of poverty and doing something for the climate.”
(28/11/2019) This interview is longer than you might think - there is a break half-way. Stick with it!
If plants thrive on higher levels of carbon dioxide, won't that help us feed the growing global population? And if higher levels of CO2 have existed in the past without tipping the world over the edge into run-away heating, why would they do so now?
Another investigative team that has put effort into trying to establish the truth about the scientific consensus that we face a climate catastrophe - these guys have done research off their own bat over a period of years. That's what I call initiative, and their results make for very interesting reading.
(28/10/2019) Another outspoken comment on what we are instructed to believe. And just what is wrong with being outspoken? It turns a dry scientific presentation into something relevant and interesting. Why should the global warmists be the only people permitted to have a strong emotional attachment to their viewpoint?
(19/10/2019) Dr Turley's style may not be to everyone's taste but his content is pertinent.
(04/10/2019) Not unrelated, the video below notes the linkage between the Green Monster and the Central Bankers - an unholy alliance if ever there was one.
Before you just dismiss this out of hand as "conspiracy theory", let me ask you a question: just when were conspiracies to rule the world actually abolished?
And a supplementary - when did Greta Thunberg become a fully qualified climate authority? If she didn't, then what (or who) gives her the authority to do what she does? and what exactly does she do?
(24/09/2019) An interesting presentation by one of ours (as in English). A bit deep but by no means inaccessible.
This says it all really.
If the Global Warmists are paying attention then they could be next. See our Links page for more on this topic.
(10/08/2019) This illuminating little article has little to do with Brexit and a lot to do with the state of our so-called government today. As our new Prime MInister is known for a degree of independent thought perhaps there is hope that he may pay attention.
It illustrates the huge gap between the practical people who have to work within our energy policy (driven by the "imperative" of "man-made climate change"), and the politicians and scam-artists who at least partially now misrule the world.
Support and pray for the former and do what you can to refute the latter:
(14/08/2019) See also this article by the same author.
OK, this is one-sided, but I think that the other side gets enough of an airing elsewhere.
Just in case you think that this guy is by himself in his views:
This is another link that tries to add some much-needed perspective.
I don't know how the hell this got in here . . .