‘What They Haven’t Told You About Climate Change’

Written by Arjun Walia

Mainstream media outlets and political organizations have been predicting doom and gloom, what seems to be end of the world type of scenarios when they bring up the topic of global warming and climate change.

This type of perception is something humanity has been experiencing for decades, just take a look at this press release from 1989, which explained how United Nations officials predicted that entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth if the global warming trend was not reversed by the year 2000, it’s just one of many examples.

Furthermore, anybody who seems to question the official narrative of this issue that’s constantly pushed by mainstream media is made out to be a fool, and ridicule shortly ensues. Climate scientists have been ridiculed for even sharing their research and opinions suggesting that a doom and gloom scenario is not real, and that the issue of climate change is quite complex, and that man’s CO2 output is not playing the role that most have been made to believe it plays.

Science itself has become sort of a slight irrelevance….Stories have been promoted over the last 25-30 years and they have completely re-directed the science. But more to the point they’ve also followed Eisenhower’s warning, that fundamentally as the state monopolizes the support of science it calls the shots. And so you have the scientists on the one hand, you know, on both sides, presenting I would say not particularly alarming scenarios, but then you have the body politic presenting something that does not by in large have the support of science about, you know, the end of the planet. But resting assured, the science won’t complain…I don’t think any field survives this degree of corruption without loosing if nothing else its self respect. In terms of climate science…it’s set back the field probably a few generations. I mean, it forced it into a channel that was not describing most of past climate change. So instead of trying to figure out how the Earth behaved, the field was co-opted into a situation where it was supposed to support a paradigm that the government wanted, or that the environmental movement wanted. Hard to disentangle the two, also, because the environmental movement itself has become highly political.  – Dr. Richard Lindzen, an atmospheric physicist who has published more than 200 scientific papers and books. He was the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and he is actually the lead author of Chapter 7, “Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks,” of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Third Assessment Report on climate change. (source)

Based on my research, there are many academics, researchers and environmental activists who are not buying the official narrative that’s been dished out by politicians for a very long time now. We are told that the majority of climate scientists agree, but that doesn’t seem to be the case as, again, there are many who are emphasizing that C02 is not really a dominant factor, and that there are a myriad of other considerations when it comes to the climate of Earth one must consider. Why are they doing this? Clearly, the ‘science is not settled.’

We Need To Clean Up Our Planet, Big Time

Our planet is no doubt in need of great environmental care. Species extinction, deforestation and pollution are at an all time high. The air quality on planet Earth is embarrassing, and our planet needs a big time clean up/restoration attempt. All of these are not due to CO2, but rather due to industry, the dumping of toxic waste, pesticides, and much more. These are what we should be focusing on, not a carbon tax. What’s even more frustrating is that it’s not a matter of finding solutions, they’re already there, it’s a matter of overcoming elitist agendas, human greed and ego. It seems that a carbon tax is simply being used to put more profit into the hands of the global elite. Imagine if we spent as much time coming up with ways to clean up our oceans, develop new energy technology, stoping deforestation and animal agriculture, passing laws that make packaging without biodegradable substances illegal, and much more rather than simply focusing on C02. A lot more would get done. I go more in depth on C02 and why I believe it should not be the main focus when it comes to environmental awareness.

Again, just to reiterate, we are big time environmental activists, but we simply feel the important issues are not given as much attention as the intention behind C02 reduction is not to benefit the planet, but to benefit rich people who really have no concern for our planet.

The Video

Below is a video of Dr. Patrick Moore explaining some of his thoughts on the phenomenon. Dr. Patrick Moore has been a leader in the international environmental field for over 30 years. He is a founding member of Greenpeace and served for nine years as President of Greenpeace Canada and seven years as a Director of Greenpeace International. As the leader of many campaigns Dr. Moore was a driving force shaping policy and direction while Greenpeace became the world’s largest environmental activist organization.

People like Patrick are often criticized by the mainstream media. As I do with everyone else, I suggest you listen to what is being said, look it up, and focus on the information instead of character assassination  attempts.

That being said, Moore also claimed that Glyphosate was completely safe and not harmful to humans. This is something we completely disagree with, he also seems to be a supporter of Genetically Modified Foods, something we do not support either. In fact, it was surprising to me to look into what he’s said about these two topics, and quite a head scratcher. In fact, we wrote about his ,what now clearly appear to be false/misinformed, comments on Glyphosate when he made them. You can read that article here.

We clearly do not agree with Moore on many topics, like the ones listed above, but that doesn’t mean he is working for corporations, or is completely misinformed. There is a division of opinion on a myriad of topics today, and again, it’s best to look at what’s being said and fact checking it ourselves instead of simply reverting to character assassination. When we looked and examined his comments on Glyphosate and GMO foods, we found them to be false. When we look at his comments regarding climate change, we find them to be valid or at least worthy of consideration. We completely disregard judgement and simply examine the claims being made, something we encourage more people to do. One thing is for certain, our right to explore and examine information openly and freely should not be taken away and censored. 

My Thoughts About CO2

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is a natural and beneficial constituent of the atmosphere.  By volume percentage, 99% of dry air is nitrogen (78%) and oxygen (21%). Most of the rest is argon (0.93%), with carbon dioxide amounting to only 0.04%, but slowly increasing. Even smaller amounts of other gases, neon, helium, methane etc., make up the remainder.

Atmospheric CO2 is a key to life on earth, this is because plants use sunlight to combine CO2 molecules from the air with H2O molecules to make carbohydrates (for example, sugar) and other organic compounds. In the process, oxygen molecules (O2) are released to the atmosphere. At CO2 levels less than 150 ppm (parts per million), most plants stop growing. Over most of the history of multicellular life on earth, CO2 levels have been three or four times higher than present levels. Current CO2 levels of 400 ppm are still much less than optimum for most plant growth.

Air also contains water vapor (H2O), from as much as 7% in the humid tropics to less than 1% on a cold winter day. Human exhaled breath typically contains 4% to 5% CO2 and about 6% H2O.Water vapor,

Water vapor, clouds and carbon dioxide hinder the escape of thermal radiation to space and allow the earth’s surface to be warm enough for life.  Without this “greenhouse warming,” most of the oceans would be frozen.  Increasing levels of the greenhouse gas CO2 from fuel combustion will slightly increase the surface temperature of the earth.  Observations indicate that every doubling of the CO2 concentration will increase the earth’s surface temperature by 1 to 2 C, and perhaps less.  The warming is so small that the resulting longer growing seasons and increased plant productivity from additional CO2 will be of great benefit to life on earth. (source)

The climate is changing, and it has been changing for a very long time. In fact, the climate has always been changing, and there are a myriad of factors that influence climate change like solar activity and much more. If you’re not educated on climate science, it’s easy to adopt the “doomsday” perspective that’s often dished out by mainstream media. However, when you look at what actual climate scientists are saying, it doesn’t seem like anyone on either side agrees with the media’s “climate hysteria” narrative.

The main argument among those who ascribe to the hysteria perspective is that CO2 levels are the highest they’ve ever been since we started to record them, currently sitting at approximately 415 parts per million (ppm). It’s not like climate scientists disagree on the idea that C02 causes some warming of our atmosphere, that seems to be a fact that’s firmly established in scientific literature. But what’s never mentioned is the fact that CO2 levels have been significantly higher than what they are now; in fact, CO2 levels have been in the thousands of ppm and Earth’s temperature has been much warmer than it is now. The idea that human CO2 emissions are responsible for shifts and changes in climate is not scientifically valid, yet policy initiatives that do nothing for our environment are being produced and put forward, putting large sums of money in the pockets of some very powerful people.

“Our crop plants evolved about 400 million years ago, when CO2 in the atmosphere was about 5000 parts per million! Our evergreen trees and shrubs evolved about 360 million years ago, with CO2 levels at about 4,000 ppm. When our deciduous trees evolved about 160 million years ago, the CO2 level was about 2,200 ppm – still five times the current level.” – Dennis T. Avery, agricultural and environmental economist, senior fellow for the Center for Global Food Issues in Virginia, and formerly a senior analyst for the U.S. Department of State (source)

CO2 causing a temperature increase is the backbone of the global warming argument, but does CO2 even cause the temperature to increase, or does an increase in temperature cause a rise in C02?

“The question is how does the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) determine that an increase in atmospheric CO2 causes an increase in global temperature? The answer is they assumed it was the case and confirmed it by increasing CO2 levels in their computer climate models and the temperature went up. Science must overlook the fact that they wrote the computer code that told the computer to increase temperature with a CO2 increase. Science must ask if that sequence is confirmed by empirical evidence? Some scientists did that and found the empirical evidence showed it was not true. Why isn’t this central to all debate about anthropogenic global warming?” – Dr. Tim Ball, (source) former professor in the Department of Geography at the University of Winnipeg

William Happer, American physicist and the Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics, Emeritus, at Princeton University, is one of what seems to be thousands of academics to go unheard by the mainstream media who shares the same perspective:

n every careful study, the temperature first rises and then CO2 rises, and the temperature first falls and then CO2 falls, temperature is causing changes of CO2 at least for the last million years, there’s no question about that. (source)

He also pointed out the major ice ages in Earth’s past when C02 levels were also extremely high, much higher than they are now, and did so to show how the correlation between C02 and temperature is “not all that good.”

In their paper on the Vostok Ice Core, Petit et al (1999), they show how CO2 lags temperature during the onset of glaciations by several thousands of years, but offer no explanation. They also observe that CH4 and CO2 are not perfectly aligned with each other, but offer no explanation. The significance is that temperature may influence C02 amounts. At the onset of glaciations, temperature drops to glacial values before CO2 begins to fall, suggesting that CO2 has little influence on temperature modulation at these times as well.

Since 1999, this theory has been discussed in numerous scientific papers, but not one shred of evidence exists to confirm that a CO2 increase causes ‘extreme warming.’

Doubling COinvolves a 2% perturbation to this budget. So do minor changes in clouds and other features, and such changes are common. In this complex multifactor system, what is the likelihood of the climate (which, itself, consists in many variables and not just globally averaged temperature anomaly) is controlled by this 2% perturbation in a single variable? Believing this is pretty close to believing in magic. Instead, you are told that it is believing in ‘science.’ Such a claim should be a tip-off that something is amiss. After all, science is a mode of inquiry rather than a belief structure. The accumulation of false and/or misleading claims is often referred to as the ‘overwhelming evidence’ for forthcoming catastrophe. Without these claims, one might legitimately ask whether there is any evidence at all. Lindzen (source)

Another quote stressing this point:

Now here is the currently popular narrative concerning this system. The climate, a complex multifactor system, can be summarized in just one variable, the globally averaged temperature change, and is primarily controlled by the 1-2% perturbation in the energy budget due to a single variable – carbon dioxide – among many variables of comparable importance. This is an extraordinary pair of claims based on reasoning that borders on magical thinking. It is, however, the narrative that has been widely accepted, even among many sceptics. This acceptance is a strong indicator of the problem Snow identified. Many politicians and learned societies go even further: They endorse carbon dioxide as the controlling variable, and although mankind’s CO2 contributions are small compared to the much larger but uncertain natural exchanges with both the oceans and the biosphere, they are confident that they know precisely what policies to implement in order to control. Lindzen (source)

A number of times, Lindzen and many others have been quite outspoken regarding the conclusions of this document that are drawn by politicians, not scientists. There will be more on that later in the article.

According to Dr. Leslie Woodcock, emeritus professor at the University of Manchester (UK) School of Chemical Engineering and Analytical Science, is a former NASA scientist:

The term ‘climate change’ is meaningless. The Earth’s climate has been changing since time immemorial, that is since the Earth was formed 1,000 million years ago. The theory of ‘man-made climate change’ is an unsubstantiated hypothesis [about] our climate [which says it] has been adversely affected by the burning of fossil fuels in the last 100 years, causing the average temperature on the earth’s surface to increase very slightly but with disastrous environmental consequences. (source)

In the IPCC documents, we can see how tenuous the link between climate change and CO2 emissions are, specifically in their findings titled ‘Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis.’ Here was one of their recommendations:

Explore more fully the probabilistic character of future climate states by developing multiple ensembles of model calculations. The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future exact climate states is not possible. Rather the focus must be upon the prediction of the probability distribution of the system’s future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions.

If we go back to the 1995 2nd Assessment Report of the UN IPCC, we can see how much the agenda overshadowed and muted the actual science. The scientists included these three statements in the draft:

  1. “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed (climate) changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases.”
  2. “No study to date has positively attributed all or part (of observed climate change) to anthropogenic (i.e. man-made) causes.”
  3. “Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the natural variability of the climate system are reduced.”

The “Summary” and conclusion statement of the IPCC report was written by politicians, not scientists. The rules force the ‘scientists’ to change their reports to match the politicians’ final ‘Summary.’ Those three statements by ‘scientists’ above were replaced with this:

  1. “The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate.”

Here’s another great point made by Lindzen:

How did we get to this point where the science seized to be interested in the fascinating question of accounting for the remarkable history of the Earth’s climate for an understanding of how climate actually works and instead devoted itself itself to a component of political correctness. Perhaps one should take a broader view of what’s going on. (source)

Climate Change Is Big Business

In 1988, NASA scientist James Hansen told the US Senate that the summer’s warmth reflected increased carbon dioxide levels. Even Science magazine reported that the climatologists were skeptical.

The reason we now take this position as dogma is due to political actors and others seeking to exploit the opportunities that abound in the multi-trillion dollar energy sector. One person who benefited from this was Maurice Strong, a global bureaucrat and wheeler-dealer (who spent his final years in China apparently trying to avoid prosecution for his role in the UN’s Oil for Food program scandals). Strong is frequently credited with initiating the global warming movement in the early 1980s, and he subsequently helped to engineer the Rio Conference that produced the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. Others like Olaf Palme and his friend, Bert Bolin, who was the first chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, were also involved as early as the 1970s. – Dr. Richard Lindzen, an atmospheric physicist who has published more than 200 scientific papers and books. He was the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and he is actually the lead author of Chapter 7, “Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks,” of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Third Assessment Report on climate change. (source)

The ‘Green New Deal (The Sunrise Movement) is already being adopted in the US,  104 members of Congress, and three of the four frontrunners for the Democratic nomination next year have endorsed it. The legislation promises to cut carbon emissions to zero by 2050 and gives the  government large amounts of control over healthcare, wealth redistribution, transport, food production and housing. This movement has it’s roots in the financial elite, a bunch of neoliberal think-tanks and financiers.

Formed by French President Emanuel Macron and investment corporation BlackRock capital last year, the Climate Finance Partnership sees government-funded carbon reduction as a “flagship blended capital investment vehicle.” Salivating at potential profits in the world’s “developing and emerging markets,” the partnership calls for the “unlocking” of pension funds and government money to finance green industry in the developing world. Only instead of calling our planet’s situation a “climate emergency,” they call it “the climate opportunity.”

The Blended Finance Action Taskforce – comprised of 50 financial giants including HSBC, JP Morgan Chase and Citi – is even more explicit, calling for a “layer of government and philanthropic capital,” as there are “profits to be had” in “climate-related sectors…across three regions including Latin America, Asia, and Africa.”

Put simply, financial giants want your pensions and your taxes to support their investments half a world away. Greta Thunberg and The Climate Emergency Movement are paralyzing you with fear, and knowingly or unknowingly aiding the interests of the world’s mega-rich. (source)

This isn’t about the planet, it’s about money, period. Climate change is no different than using ‘the war on terror’ to create patriotism and to drive the population into accepting measures that hurt them, not benefit them. These ‘fear’ narratives are completely fake. We saw the same thing with Al-Qaeda:

“The truth is, there is no Islamic army or terrorist group called Al-Qaeda, and any informed intelligence officer knows this. But, there is a propaganda campaign to make the public believe in the presence of an intensified entity representing the ‘devil’ only in order to drive TV watchers to accept a unified international leadership for a war against terrorism. The country behind this propaganda is the United States.” (source)

In the 1980s, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund became the sole authority of the global warming agenda. The fund boasts of being one of the first major global activists by citing its strong advocacy for both the 1988 formation of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the 1992 creation of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.

“The global elite have always benefited in some way shape or form from crises, we’ve seen it over and over again with war.

What is important, however, is to acknowledge the role of the Rockefeller family –which historically was the architect of “Big Oil”– in supporting the Climate Change debate as well as the funding of scientists, environmentalists and NGOs involved in grassroots activism against “Big Oil” and the fossil fuel industry.

Debate on the world’s climate is of crucial importance. But who controls that debate?

There is an obvious contradictory relationship: Whereas “Big Oil” is the target of Global Warming activism, “Big Oil” through the Rockefeller Family and Rockefeller Brothers Trusts generously finance the Worldwide climate protest movement. Ask yourself Why?” – Michel Chossudovsky, Canadian economist and Professor Emeritus of Economics at the University of Ottawa (source)

You can access the full report here. It was published by the Energy & Environmental Legal Institute in 2016.

Read the full article here: www.collective-evolution.com


PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX. 

Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.

Comments (3)

  • Avatar

    Tom O

    |

    This early on statement is intriguing in itself –

    ” All of these are not due to CO2, but rather due to industry, the dumping of toxic waste, pesticides, and much more.”

    This, of course, is in reference to environmental pollution. Note that the “bad boys” in this are not exactly different from those blamed for the CO2. Environmental issues are not actually strictly industry’s fault.

    In fact, many environmental issues are the fault of “environmentalists” that insist we clean everything up but offer no solutions as to how except to penalize via a “tax” or “fee” which is somehow supposed to magically stop it. It never does, of course, since costs are merely passed forward to the people demanding the service/product that industry is supplying. In the meantime, the organization or government enacting the fee/tax sees their “war chest” being filled with yet more money.

    If a government, as an example, actually wanted to see some sort of solution to the problem, they could ban it – prohibitions tend to fail – or they can try offering a reduction in taxes as a benefit to the company or companies involved. Problem there is that the greed of the government tends to prohibit the use of carrots, and the sticks it uses only tends to drive the prices up, not increase the quality of the product or reduce the damage done to the environment.

    So the problem actually falls to the methods in which we “learn” what is right and what is wrong. When it comes to the environment, it usually is a case of “fear teaching.” We teach the “ugly” side of pollution and tend to try to frighten people into wanting the change. I don’t think this ever really works, but that is the method chosen. We never try to “soft sell” a change, we always have to try to hard sell it. Not show what you can gain if you change, but what will happen if you don’t. Just as if people cannot learn without the stick. As long as the approach is always a negative sell instead of a positive sell, nothing is likely to ever change. But a positive sell will take time to sell as well, but at least as society “drifts” towards the ideas being sold in that manner, things improve a little or at the least the negative impacts tend to get less.

    As for why is “big oil people” supporting the drive away from carbon fuels? That’s fairly easy since carbon capture for creation of hydrocarbon products such as plastics is far easier if you start with the hydrocarbon compounds such as crude oil, and there is vastly more profits to be made from oil as plastics, synthetics, and other recyclable carbon based products than watching that profit “burn up” in a carbon fuel based engine or furnace. So the UN pursuit of “anything but carbon” for power goes hand in glove with their visions.

    Of course, if there is an oncoming ice age, which seems likely, the die off of humanity in a world of hypothermic temperatures will still work for both parties, and the carbon fuels will be available to those that can afford it.

    The opinions stated here are strictly those of this writer, and not of any other normally sane person.

  • Avatar

    jerry krause

    |

    Hi Tom,

    Your comment is much better and shorter than Argun’s posting.

    In some posting or comment I recently read there are still geologists (maybe of community of geologists) who still resist the idea of catastrophic geological changes .
    But I question how many PSI readers are aware of what I read in Encyclopaedia Britannica’s Micropaedia Volume X, pp 381-382, about Immanuel Velikovsky.

    “In his first book , Worlds in Collision, he hypothesized that in historical times an electromagnetic derangement of the solar system caused Venus and Mars to approach the Earth closely, disturbing its rotation, axis inclination, and magnetic field.”

    “The animosity of the U.S. scientific community toward Worlds in Collision caused the original publisher, threaten with a boycott of its scientific-textbook division, to turn Velikovsky’s work over to a firm not involved in textbook publishing.” In an earlier edition of the Britannica, which I do not have available to quote from, the scientific community was more specially referred to as the geological community.

    My point is that the geological community, during the 20th Century, do not have a good science track record. So, my question is: What is New?

    Have a good day, Jerry

  • Avatar

    Doug Harrison

    |

    It is my contention that big oil has got along side the greens to get rid of coal. Coal is still the cheapest energy source known and if Big Oil can get rid of it they will prosper even more.

Comments are closed