Two Simple Proofs to Expose Climate Simpletons
There are two clear cut areas in which to expose the climate alarmist claims; (1) modern climate fits with historical natural patterns and (2) there is no proof CO2 is our climate’s control knob.
Such simple facts cannot be countered despite alarmists calling out their newest ‘big gun’ in the debate, 16-year-old Swede Greta Thunberg (pictured: who yesterday pronounced on UK climate policy to politicians and media whores).
Sadly for Greta and the happy-clapping dullards who rally to her cause, the scientific facts are against them:
- Empirical data shows that recent climate change is well within natural variability, as proven by ice core samples and;
- Empirical evidence also refutes the existence of a greenhouse effect, thus discrediting the claim that carbon dioxide is our climate’s control knob.
As the biased BBC reports: “Teenage activist Greta Thunberg has described the UK’s response to climate change as “beyond absurd”.” With their own level of scientific understanding barely at high-school level, the BBC proudly declares their new teen prodigy was “invited to Westminster after inspiring the school climate strikes movement.”
Of course, it doesn’t need to be said that the above is a case of the blind leading the blind (i.e. scientifically illiterate). The climate cult politicians are resorting to pushing to the fore the very same children they have been indoctrinating for a generation and who have been encouraged by their (government-controlled) teachers to skip school and become activists.
But for those who prefer to take scientific advice from qualified scientists rather than a brainwashed child, here for you are two clear-cut facts:
(1) Modern Climate Fits with Natural Variability
Outside of (government-rigged) computer models there is no proof that humans are dangerously impacting climate, if at all. Indeed, no science currently exists to show a definitive ‘human signal’ on climate change. Moreover, no teenager (including Greta Thunberg ) has experienced ‘global warming’ in their lifetime; according to the widely respected satellite data temps have been flat for over 18 years now. [1]
Indeed, current variation in recorded global temps is well within natural variation and the very slight (natural) warming seen since the Little Ice Age (LIA) is soundly established by the widely-accepted data from Greenland (thus no cause for alarm).
On this read ‘Modest Global Warming Since Little Ice Age – Natural Rebound of 337 Years Amounts To Only 2.2 Degrees,‘ [2] which shows:
“Greenland’s recording of both natural cooling and warming climate change proves that modern global warming is modest at best – as the evidence indicates, in the scheme of past climate change, current warming is well within natural variation.”
What the data reveals is that the Little Ice Age (LIA) is a well documented climate change period that was a global phenomenon. For the Northern Hemisphere, the coldest temperatures were reached during the mid-to-late 1600’s, and then a much needed warming rebound started.
For 337 years (well before human industrialization began) since the bottom of the LIA, the world has been slowly but surely warming. That rebound warming though has only amounted to an approximate 2.2C degree increase as indicated by the ice core temperatures (Kobashi et al. estimated as a current ice core decadal temperature of -29.9C degrees).
Conclusion: Over some 9,000 years, the ice sheets of Greenland have faithfully recorded natural climate change and the associated temperature changes. These past changes, both warming and cooling, have produced greater temperature changes and lasted longer than the current modern warming and the more recent Little Ice Age.
Although some scientists speculate that increasing CO2 levels from human emissions may be enhancing our modern, modest global warming, the overwhelming evidence proves the lion’s share of the warming rebound is likely from natural forces, which produced the same in the long ago past, multiple times.
(2) No Proof of a greenhouse gas effect in the real world
Meanwhile, alarmists make the scientifically unproven claim that human emissions of CO2 are a driver of climate. For that they rely wholly on the discredited greenhouse gas theory.
What these zealots don’t tell you is that in the 1950s the world’s scientific community understood that the greenhouse gas climate theory was long dead. We know this because world-leading climate expert, CEP Brooks, writing for the American Meteorological Society stated that the CO2 climate theory of Arrhenius, Fourier, et al:
“was never widely accepted and was abandoned when it was found that all the long-wave radiation absorbed by CO2 is also absorbed by water vapour.” [3]
But somehow this discredited hypothesis was brought back to life in the 1970s for political, not scientific reasons (i.e. population control; wealth redistribution). Independent researcher, William W. Kay explains the details in his excellent article: ‘The Rise Of Modern Greenhouse Gas Climate Fakery.’ [4]
But a major scientific omission that harms the climate cultists is that nobody on Earth has been able to replicate the “Greenhouse Effect” experimentally in a laboratory or otherwise. However, there have been several laboratory experiments that have empirically demonstrated that the “Greenhouse Effect” is impossible. One of those is ‘Filament Experiment Proves CO2 Causes Temperature To Fall, Not Rise.’ [5]
Sure, as fools are apt to do, the unthinking followers of mainstream media propaganda will continue to swallow the pronouncements of a 16-year-old gullible teen rather than invest time into doing their own research. But anyone investing a modicum of time and energy into educating themselves on the real climate facts will reach a less childish conclusion.
[1] https://www.climatedepot.com/2016/01/12/satellites-no-global-warming-at-all-for-18-years-8-months/
[2] ‘Modest Global Warming Since Little Ice Age – Natural Rebound of 337 Years Amounts To Only 2.2 Degrees’ (July 2012), https://www.c3headlines.com/2012/08/modest-global-warming-since-little-ice-age-natural-rebound-of-337-years-amounts-to-only-22-degrees.html
[3] https://archive.org/stream/compendiumofmete00amer#page/1016/mode/2up
[4] https://principia-scientific.com/the-rise-of-modern-greenhouse-gas-climate-fakery/
[5] https://principia-scientific.com/filament-experiment-proves-co2-causes-temperature-to-fall-not-rise/
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX. Telephone:
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Trackback from your site.
Al Shelton
| #
Thanks for that John.
I have a few people that I will send it to.. but probably to no avail.
Reply
Joseph Olson
| #
One cannot describe a massive, dynamic, chaotic system with an anecdotal, single parameter, linear hypothesis. One cannot correct a false hypothesis with a coefficient. Climaclownology is modern alchemy and an insult to the traditional Scientific Method.
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Joe,
“Climaclownology is modern alchemy and an insult to the traditional Scientific Method.”
You just implied; no, clearly stated that the alchemists did not practice traditional Scientific Methods as they attempted to test the ideas of the rational reasoning of Aristotle and his fellow philosophers, who never tried to test with experiments, their idea that the four forms of elementary matter were air, water, earth, and fire. From which all other matter, not elementary, could be made. This wrong idea persisted for nearly two millennia because no one else, than alchemists, were trying to make gold from these four claimed elementary matters.
And to my knowledge, no alchemist ever claimed to have made gold from these four elements. But one can read that Robert Boyle (The Sceptical Chymist, 1661), an alchemist, suggested that based on the experiments done on natural gold, that gold, itself, was probably elementary matter, an element.
Galileo wrote (1638) as translated to English by Crew and de Salvio (1914): “Gold and silver when pulverized with acids [acque forti] more finely than is possible with any file still remain powders, and do not become fluids until the finest particles[gl’ indivisibili) of fire or of the rays of the sun dissolve them, as I think, into their ultimate, indivisible, and infinitely small components.” Seldom have I read Galileo being described as an alchemist but this description of observations are strong evidence he was one or citeing what how been told him by an alchemist who had dissolved gold with aqua regia (about 1 part nitric acid and 3 parts hydrochloric acid) before the elements of nitrogen, hydrogen, and chlorine were known)..And based upon the powders known (observed), it seems clear that Galileo and probably the alchmists, based upon their experiments had concluded that matter was composed of indivisible extremely tiny particles. Which based upon quantitative experiments, after which most actual elements had been identified by various methods (including electrolysis).
So who do you think first made nitric acid and hydrochloric acid so they could be experimentation that this mixture could dissolve natural gold?
We should be so lucky if there were climatologists who follow the path blazed by the alchemists.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Robert Beatty
| #
My one stop shop for AGW is Henry’s Gas Law. See http://bosmin.com/HenrysLaw.pdf
What this tells me is that nothing happens to CO2 atmospheric concentration without the sea temperature altering in the first place. We cannot pose that AGW warms the sea causing CO2 to go up.
The sea must heat first BEFORE the CO2 levels increase.
Reply