Climate Change… The Truth?
What and who should we all believe?....... and what should be done about it?
The United Nations (UN) managed Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was supposed to be the official go-to authority that governments were supposed to follow in understanding the climate science and setting related policies to manage climate change and any impact.
The UN and IPCC has clearly positioned Carbon Dioxide (CO2) generated by humankind’s use of fossil fuels as the prime driver of climate change in their reports and are projecting significant global sustainability issues unless the use of Fossil fuels gets significantly reduced by undertaking a NetZero approach.
But many scientists and economists now believe that NetZero is unnecessary, technologically unattainable, economically unviable and extremely foolish.
There is a growing awareness that any panic effort to mitigate CO2 levels through the adoption of these NetZero policies will have a drastic impact on prosperity and human flourishing across both the mature and emerging economies and will result in significant human suffering.
Public Opinion
For the average citizens on the planet the understanding of the climate change emergency narrative and what action to take was very confused and got further distorted by both media hype and governments that sent mixed messages on the science and the impact of climate change.
But recent US opinion surveys show that a high percentage of the general population now rates climate change low on the list of policy priorities and it shows that they will certainly be unwilling to trade prosperity for any actions to undertake Net Zero, with recent government policy experience telling us that it will be difficult to expect the population to agree to any such fossil fuel mitigation policies that will increase the cost and reduce the reliability of energy.
This will probably mean that most citizens will vote for future governments that follow a localized adaptive approach to managing the impact of climate change that would use the existing power of fossil fuels with maybe a short-term move toward Nuclear.
It’s also clear based on the current negative experiences with the implementation of renewable technology that Wind & Solar and EVs will not become a significant solution in the mid-term.
The Science is far from settled!
To further dilute any possible resolve for strong NetZero mitigation policies we have a fast-escalating war raging between climate experts about the root causes and impact of climate change and any policies that should be undertaken.
A growing number of scientists and technical observers are organizing into discussion groups and joining the ranks of “Climate Realists” and are providing a significant cross section of papers, presentations and videos to inform that in most cases contradict the views of the IPCC and the traditional scientific institutions that mainly support the IPCC and the climate emergency narrative.
These “Climate Realists” consider the IPCC and its proposed policies to be “Climate Alarmism” and they argue that although the climate is changing its still not certain its being mainly driven by the increase in human generated CO2, and even if that is true, it’s far from an emergency that requires a NetZero approach.
The IPCC and the traditional scientific institutions continue to be criticized for only following the human induced climate emergency narrative, and that they are politically and financially subjugated because their mandate was to only study human induced climate change, and are less mandated to find the true causation of climate change.
This is evidenced by the process followed by the IPCC in generating reports that clearly puts the political cart ahead of the scientific horse. In many cases a huge gulf exists between what is documented in the scientific reports and the report for policy makers. In some cases, even the scientific reports are “adjusted” to align with the more politized policy reports. Then the UN executives disregard these reports and make clearly alarmist statements to generate media sensationalism to feed the preferred alarmist narrative.
There is clear evidence that the traditional scientific institutions due to political and financial subjugation restrict open dialogue, alternative theories and evidence if it goes against the climate emergency narrative or will imped ongoing funding. And they use their protected peer review and scientific report publishing process to prevent a free flow of information and discussion across this growing scientific divide.
The “Climate Realist” groups consistently argue they are forced to have to push against and work around this “peer bloc” or what some are now calling “the climate emergency industrial complex” to be able to review and expose the scientific truth.
What is Certain?
It’s certain that there is conflict within the scientific ranks and more must be done to better manage much more open dialogue and inputs to better get to the scientific truth.
This situation makes it certain that the science is NOT settled. … but the climate emergency narrative keeps on going…. driven by the UN and their IPCC organization which has also been criticized as having a subjugated political agenda by cherry picking participants, scientific viewpoints and report manipulation to promote at all costs a narrative of human caused climate change.
It’s now certain that not all scientists agree or that CO2 can be validated using the scientific method as the main causation for the rise in global temperature, or that all of it is caused by the use of fossil fuels, or that further increase in CO2 will have any significant impact on climate change.
It’s certain that scientific conflict exists on many scientific theories and measurements that still need to be reviewed and fully understood. This includes how much the natural impact of the sun and cosmic rays have on cloud formation, and how large an impact clouds may have in controlling the climate. Also, if the natural atmospheric based thermodynamics in concert with the sun may have a far greater impact on climate change than the warming effect of the increase of CO2.
It’s certain due to much historical data that the rise in global temperature is not unprecedented and has happened across the globe at least four times in the last 10,000 years with clear indications that civilizations flourished.
It’s certain from current climate and weather impact data and reports from the scientific sections of the IPCC that the current slight rise in global temperature is not an emergency that requires more than some focused and localised adaptation and certainly not global wide mitigation of CO2.
It’s not certain what the future rise in global temperature will be, and if it will be an emergency. And it remains unknown if it will require more than some focused and localized adaptation or will require any global wide mitigation of CO2.
So, its very important we work through these unknowns and get our policies right and improve their communication to our citizens and gain a commitment to undertake them.
The scientific debate
The biggest ongoing scientific debate will be on the impact of CO2 on the climate with conflicting positions, facts and questions on both sides of the argument needing to be settled before any policies can proceed past focused adaption.
So far, the scientific method has not confirmed CO2 as the driver of climate only that currently there is some correlation… but no firm correlation.
Taking the IPCC and its reports as a baseline that state that the increase in CO2 is a climate emergency here are the main scientific organizations that have counter arguments and have provided information that explains the alternative position.
CLINTEL... Climate Intelligence (CLINTEL) climate change and climate policy
https://clintel.org/
The CLINTEL position is that …. There is no climate emergency…. and they have a global network of over 1900 scientists and professionals that has prepared this urgent message: -
Climate science should be less political, while climate policies should be more scientific. Scientists should openly address uncertainties and exaggerations in their predictions of global warming, while politicians should dispassionately count the real costs as well as the imagined benefits of their policy measures.
They state that …
Natural as well as anthropogenic factors cause warming.
Warming is far slower than predicted.
Climate policy relies on inadequate models.
CO2 is plant food and not a pollutant and the basis of all life on Earth.
Global warming has not increased natural disasters.
Climate policy must respect both scientific and economic realities.
They have produced a report called “The Frozen Climate Views of the IPCC”
https://clintel.org/the-frozen-climate-views-of-the-ipcc/
They define many errors and biased conclusions in the latest IPCC report/s.
They explain that there is a huge gulf between what is stated in the scientific sections and how these are “spun” in the sections for policy makers.
They consider the summary from the IPCC to be alarmist that projects huge increases in temperature due to CO2 and requests massive NetZero action to mitigate CO2.
The adjusted summary by CLINTEL finds no climate emergency, and that the current temperatures are not unprecedented compared to prior warming cycles in the last 10,000 years, and that CO2 will have a far lesser effect as it saturates, and that other more natural effects such as the Sun and Cosmic rays may have a far greater influence on the climate.
They explain that current climate impact data shows no adverse effect on humanity, and it’s clear that as wealth and prosperity increase globally with the power of Fossil fuels and technology, humans can cope with future climate change with only limited need for adaption, and that CO2 mitigation is unnecessary and energy solutions should be allowed to evolve to cleaner solutions as local economics allows.
CO2 Coalition...
https://co2coalition.org/
This group provides facts about CO2 and climate change and is the USAs leading organization providing facts, resources and information about the vital role carbon dioxide plays in the environment.
They have a papers and reports and published books to support the evidence they have gathered and have a website with a thought-provoking quiz to educate the population and the offer books for the education of children.
They have provided significant material to support the argument that the current warming is not unprecedented.
They have many leading scientists that provide a clear case against CO2 being the prime driver of climate change.
Tom Nelsons Podcast. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCfZS_wFmJCXqPr4MYtAIN6w
Many of the scientists on CLINTEL and CO2 Coalition as well as members from other groups such as the Heartland group and many other independent scientists and technical participants provide ongoing updates on this site, and all these sites are cross linked to provide a rich information exchange.
The Climate Realist Arguments….
All these climate realist groups provide a range of arguments against the findings of the IPCC’s scientific position in certain areas and these are the main ones : -
Argument # 1 … Climate change is not a crisis.
The argument is that a reasonable increase in global temperature will not be a crisis and can be managed with some localized adaption with the power of fossil fuels. So far even with the increased temperatures over the last 300 years since the little ice age no discernible impact has been recorded on human flourishing. In fact, the increase in temperature and CO2 has aided plant growth and improved the food supply.
Argument # 2 … Similar warm periods existed prior to now in the last 10,000 years…
The IPCC insists that the recent increase in global temperatures is unprecedented and is the recoded high for the last 50,000 years and the “hockey stick” favored by the IPCC does not show these past temperature peaks. But this constructed temperature plot uses questionable proxy and measured temperature data; and is heavily reliant on trying to define an average increasing trend from the massive fluctuating data which becomes a statistical nightmare to expect any meaningful result and conclusions.
The counter argument is that current temperatures are NOT unprecedented as past human civilisations in the last 10,000 years have seen at least three periods of increased temperatures higher than today, and they flourished. This is born out by events in history such as artifacts from the medieval warm period and before that the Roman warm period and before that the Bronze age warm period. This is supported with solid historical records.
So, if the current warming is not unprecedented than it’s likely that such current warming may be mostly natural and probably benign, which is also reinforced by argument #1.
Argument # 3 … CO2 will saturate with increasing composition.
Plenty of physics shows that CO2 will not continue to act as a green house gas in composition higher than the current levels due to its saturation. This is defined by experiments that validates Plancks law and the Stefan-Boltzmanns equation.
More work is needed to confirm this saturation argument, but so far Its clear from climate models that overstate predictions against actual temperatures with increasing CO2 concentration that this may be a true argument.
Argument # 4 … The Sun/Gamma Rays/Clouds creates a much larger impact on climate than CO2.
A considerable amount of science theory and measurement correlations point to the fact that clouds have a significant effect on the climate, and far more than CO2, and further causation arguments point to not only solar output but also the effect Costic rays have in conjunction with the sun to control the formation of clouds. This implies that the main driver of global temperature is not CO2, but clouds via the natural variation of sun and gamma rays.
Argument # 5…. The GHG Radiative forcing MODEL is wrong, and a thermodynamics MODEL is correct.
Many scientific papers point to the argument that the GHG effect centered around CO2 may not be a significant climate change mechanism, and that mostly CO2 increase is driven by temperature and NOT CO2 driving temperature. Also, recent theories and measurements point toward natural atmospheric based thermodynamics in concert with the sun having a far greater impact on climate change than the warming effect of CO2 increase.
Argument # 6 … NetZero is technologically unattainable and economically unviable.
Technologists, industrialists, and economists all agree that NetZero in the short to mid term is going to be impossible to undertake while maintaining a prosperous economy. We are currently witnessing this with the inability for renewables to be a reliable, productive and cost-effective energy source.
Summary
As already said the climate science is far from settled, and we should not undertake any climate related policies outside of some localized and focused adaption.
The future priority is for our governments to restructure the relationship with the UN and IPCC to ensure less political subjugation of the climate science. They must ensure improved communications and more open discussion across the scientific community to undertake meaningful research to close on these open arguments.
This must result in the ability to undertake the correct policies and improve their communication to our citizens and gain a commitment to undertake them with the required technologies, infrastructures and operating protocols for future sustainability that balances environment, economics and social harmony.
The Argument Documents….
Argument # 1 Climate change is not a crisis.
Why there is no 'climate crisis'
Climate: The Movie
A Climate Conversation
Andrew Dessler vs Steven Koonin: Climate Change Debate
John Christy: Climate Change is Not a Crisis | Tom Nelson Pod #260
Rising CO2 Levels Greening Earth
Debunking 3 Major Climate Change Lies
Gregory Wrightstone's Presentation to WY Senate Agriculture Committee
Wildfires | CO2 Coalition Climate Chronicles #ClimateChronicles #NoClimateCrisis
Argument # 2 … Similar warm periods existed prior to now in the last 10,000 years…
A Hot Time In The Old Holocene Climatic Optimum
Gregory Wrightstone ICCC - 14 Presentation
Argument # 3 … CO2 will saturate with increasing composition.
Will Happer: CO2, the Gas of Life | Tom Nelson Pod #158
Why the Forcing from Carbon Dioxide Scales as the Logarithm of Its Concentration
file:///C:/Users/nsout/Downloads/Telegram%20Desktop/20logarithmic.pdf
Climate Truths Summary (2).pdf
file:///C:/Users/nsout/Downloads/Telegram%20Desktop/Climate%20Truths%20Summary%20(2).pdf
Argument # 4 … The Sun/Gamma Rays/Clouds creates a much larger impact on climate than CO2.
Nir Shaviv, ICCC13 (Panel 1: Scientific Observations)
Henrik Svensmark & Nir Shaviv - How the sun regulates our climate
Argument # 5…. The GHG Radiative forcing is wrong, and a thermodynamic model is correct.
Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The...
https://arxiv.org/abs/0707.1161
Javier Vinós: The Sun and Climate: An Intimate Relationship | Tom Nelson Pod #226 - YouTube
Ned Nikolov: The Ill-defined “Greenhouse Effect” | Tom Nelson Pod #277
David Siegel: A framework for understanding climate | Tom Nelson Pod #239
New_Insights_on_the_Physical_Nature_of_the_Atmospheric_Greenhouse_Effect_Deduced_from_an_Empirical_Planetary_Temperature_Model/download.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/317570648_
Thermal Enhancement on Planetary Bodies and the Relevance of the Molar Mass Version of the Ideal Gas Law to the Null Hypothesis of Climate Change.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324599511
Argument # 6 … NetZero is technologically unattainable and economically unviable.
Our climate policies cant save the environment. So what will? | Bjorn Lomborg
Why renewables can’t save the planet | Michael Shellenberger
Gerard Holland lays out the staggering cost of renewable energy at ARC Australia
Australia’s net zero scheme won’t work
http://www.nigelsouthway.org/storage/01JXSMEHD3DMQZXM1BF2KM7SN3.pdf
Mark Mills: The energy transition delusion inescapable mineral realities
Europe's going bust over Net-Zero (and the rest of the world doesn't care) | Paul Marshall
Why Climate Fanaticism Is Killing Us | Lord Matthew Ridley - YouTube
Further reading.
What Americans Really Think About Energy and Climate
THERE IS NO CLIMATE EMERGENCY!!! - by Nigel Southway
THERE IS NO CLIMATE EMERGENCY!!!
There are many reasons I cannot agree with a climate emergency on this planet.
The Climate Change Stand-off. - by Nigel Southway
TAKE BACK MANUFACTURING
……………………………………………………………………………
🤔 Thought Experiment to Consider
Absorption and emission from CO2 is at the 15 micron wavelength.
This is long wave far-infrared with a temperature that equates to -80 C per Planck.
It can only warm things colder than it, unless it is a gas with higher kinetic energy than the others around it.
The lower atmosphere ranges from 15 C to -56 C.
Assuming that the kinetic energy of CO2 is the same as the other gases around it, can CO2 heat the lower atmosphere or Earth?
Hint: Second Law of Thermodynamics
Nigel, i see on Telegram that our realist community is trying to get on the same page. I have always been attracted to the thermodynamic autocompression theory…. But wonder, how do all the other forcings work given this autocompression is true? We have variations in sun’s TSI, clouds, distance to sun, magnetosphere, tectonics/volcanism, Henry’s Law, sun’s activity, water vapor, etc (cant think of anymore)… what affect do these natural changes have on the autocompression theory?