Although the subject is rather "dry" for a neophyte like me, thank you for this very interesting and enlightening article. You ask "are we being misled to serve a different agenda...? ». I think so. For my part, I have thought that this discourse of climate panic serves only the interests of this ultra-rich-powerful minority that wants to grab even more – everything else – of the resources of this planet. I also think that, to acheive this, they intend to clean up (already well begun) a good part of the useless little people like us. But no they shall fail.
Your description of CO2 exchanges in our bodies is fascinating. And seems to me a beautiful analogy between the microcosm of the human and the environment where we evolve in symbiosis…?
Apr 12, 2023·edited Apr 15, 2023Liked by Madhava Setty
Thank you. A wonderfully clear and articulate look at climate.
I've not been convinced of the climate doomsday argument. I laugh at the need to kill cows to save the planet. Before the invasion of North America by the plundering invaders, so to speak, there were 60million or 100million buffalo. Many millions of caribou, and who knows how many deer. I don't think killing even a few million cows is going to save us. Such an empty, insane totally illogical and unintuitive solution to a 'so-called' problem.
Yes, our respect for the planet is a serious problem. All of us likely have the presence of microplastic particles in our cells. Killing the life of the oceans and the earth is not going to serves us well. And there are certainly practical and relatively inexpensive ways to stop the fast paced greed motivated need for instant excess everything.
Thank you for this excellent look at the climate hoax.
As a former climate activist, lobbying politicians with Citizens' Climate Lobby for several years, I would never have questioned the "climate science" until I saw the same people who debunked "climate denial" get to work on "inoculating people against misinformation about the vaccines". The penny dropped. I think I have been, as JJ Couey describes it, Scoobydood! My "climate hero" Bill McKibben, despite having written chapters in his book Falter about the trans humanist/ technocrats' agenda, was mysteriously silent about them during the pandemonium. So were all my Green climate activist friends. One could almost believe that if/when they found out it was a plandemic, they decided to turn a blind eye because their anti-human-ecology-loving philosophy supports the idea of a "cull" - possibly they were totalitarians who believe they know best "for-the-greater-good" all along?
The light of awareness does come in through different doors! This is a subtle and inspiring example of having open eyes to see and the open curiosity to pursue what the eyes are seeing. Thank you for sharing, Dr. RF. Inspiring to me and uplifting, too.
Quick note on Bill McKibben … his website is called 350.org because we supposedly need to lower atmospheric CO2 levels to 350 parts per million. They are currently about 400 to 420 depending on whose numbers you choose. The 350 ppm target figure has been widely publicized, so believing the atmosphere to be 3% carbon dioxide is not brilliant.
Really great piece! Enjoyed the breakdown and story telling of what I also found to be the most important pieces of scientific data and conversation for people to consider on this topic. By and large, most people I know have not taken the time to truly look at the science on C02 and climate and thus have a very limited scope of how controversial the conversation truly is. Similar to vaccines, they are being shamed into accepting the mainstream narrative without question and nuance.
First of all the fact that Al Gore said it made it immediately meaningless. No science needed (and no I didn't vote for Bush or Gore). Secondly, of course, the miniscule change is meaningless. And, of course, the if one is really concerned (which we should not be), plant more trees or just watch nature grow. The whole thing was ridiculous from the start. Again, no science needed. All one has to do is look at things from a macro level. All of this micro-analysis is unnecessary to determine what is or what isn't total B.S. This is just another grift to steal from the many to give to the few (again refer to Gore being involved (and everyone else).
IMO, the only way to change the trajectory of where this is going is to show the other side how they have been bamboozled. The science is on our side and it's necessary to change minds. You cannot change the planet if you cannot change a mind.
If we start with...1968 creation and agenda of the “Club of Rome”, the originators of the global warming/climate change theatre...personaly, at least after these last 3 years, I think that we do not need any other data, studies, "science", stories about this subject to understand what is realy going on.
While agree that this global initiative has long been in the planning, the data and studies are useful in showing how "science" is being used to manipulate the non-scientific. My intentions are to demonstrate that one does not have to be an expert or even a scientist to see through the trickery.
Apr 13, 2023·edited Apr 13, 2023Liked by Madhava Setty
I was a 30 year climate warrior until the pandemic came along. I was stunned by the parallel language used by the World Economic Forum to cajole us into action on climate change. It was exactly the same as their references to the pandemic and vaccines. I smelled a rat.
I went back and checked out the Bible of our movement: "Limits to Growth." Discovering that it was supported by the predecessors of the WEF suggests a very long-standing conspiracy to manipulate the public with the climate change message. (Previously, the very long time line of the implicit conspiracy seemed so improbable that I was convinced that right-wing hoax accusations were crazy.) This piece helps me step away from the world I had been in.
Believers belonging to the Green Church of Climate rarely consider the trade-offs that arise from their actions. Congratulations on the decision and the return to lucidity!
This is an issue that bothers me every day as I watch the clear skies daily receive the toxics from these planes. When that happens, the sunny day is gone. Also Dr Ana Mihalcea has studied toxins in people. She too writes on Substack.
I am referring to the data from the Antarctic Ice cores that go back a half million years or so. It’s a good place to start and it’s what Al Gore used to make his argument
OK... just scientists seem pretty sure in for example the time of the dinosaurs the CO2 levels were much higher than now, but of course dinos were around much further back than half a million years, more like 200 million.
I believe dinosaurs were around up until 65 million years ago. And yes, CO2 has been much higher than it is today and it is up for debate in regards if it was lower 2 million years ago. it depends where you get the data. many graphs from ice cores clearly show CO2 higher even 2 million ya. Like this one.
Yes, I follow Ben Davidson too- his science is very advanced, so I just listen to him for the general concepts. I'm fascinated by the 12,000 year disaster cycle, which fits with what I've read and learned elsewhere about catastrophism.
Every stable system has one or more negative feedback loops. The fact that CO2 is as stable as it is indicates that there are indeed such loops. Further, negative feedback loops typically give ever stronger negative feedback as the variable in question moves further in a given direction.
I've never seen anything to explain why the negative feedback suddenly becomes positive feedback in the case of CO2. I think the 'climate researchers' are lost in the weeds.
I believe the positive feedback loop is as I described. Solubility in the oceans decrease as temperature increases. However this effect is overcome by variations in insolation as ice core samples suggest
Thanks. Yes, insolation (over millennia) drives temperature, which in turn drives CO2 release from the oceans. So Mr. Gore has cause and effect backwards.
But CO2 could still contribute to temperature increase in the short run (decades) via greenhouse effect.
The point I didn't make very well above is that my intuition says that the "buffers" or negative feedback loops (plant growth, etc.) are strong enough to offset human contributions. And those negative feedbacks would intensify as CO2 increased, further buffering the CO2 increase. Thus, instead of a hockey stick leading to disaster, we're much more likely to see moderation as all the various feedback loops continue to keep our climate as remarkably stable as it is.
In other words, a system as stable as ours is unlikely to be thrown off the rails by tiny changes in one constituent. I totally agree with your intuition on this.
The fact that you actually used real factual information is telling me your moving from the left side of the political spectrum to the right. Facts to someone on the left is like krypton to Superman. Something to avoided at all costs.
But you could have saved yourself time and just asked who said that this climate is normal? Why wasn’t the climate that created the last ice age normal? What caused it? No one can tell you what caused it they only have theories. Why have there been multiple ones long before Homo sapiens inhabited the earth. And why would we think that it can not happen again. Climate change is nothing but a religion for those who want to be tyrant’s.
Although the subject is rather "dry" for a neophyte like me, thank you for this very interesting and enlightening article. You ask "are we being misled to serve a different agenda...? ». I think so. For my part, I have thought that this discourse of climate panic serves only the interests of this ultra-rich-powerful minority that wants to grab even more – everything else – of the resources of this planet. I also think that, to acheive this, they intend to clean up (already well begun) a good part of the useless little people like us. But no they shall fail.
Your description of CO2 exchanges in our bodies is fascinating. And seems to me a beautiful analogy between the microcosm of the human and the environment where we evolve in symbiosis…?
I would highly encourage you to read "The Hockey Stick Illusion" by A. W. Montford. https://www.amazon.com/Hockey-Stick-Illusion-W-Montford-ebook/dp/B005A54KEM?
It is quite revealing!
I also enjoy Judith Curry's website "Climate Etc" https://judithcurry.com
Follow the funding
By the way, Your presentation at the Sudbury Library was fabulous!
Thank you. A wonderfully clear and articulate look at climate.
I've not been convinced of the climate doomsday argument. I laugh at the need to kill cows to save the planet. Before the invasion of North America by the plundering invaders, so to speak, there were 60million or 100million buffalo. Many millions of caribou, and who knows how many deer. I don't think killing even a few million cows is going to save us. Such an empty, insane totally illogical and unintuitive solution to a 'so-called' problem.
Yes, our respect for the planet is a serious problem. All of us likely have the presence of microplastic particles in our cells. Killing the life of the oceans and the earth is not going to serves us well. And there are certainly practical and relatively inexpensive ways to stop the fast paced greed motivated need for instant excess everything.
Thank you for this excellent look at the climate hoax.
Great article. Amazing actually.
As a former climate activist, lobbying politicians with Citizens' Climate Lobby for several years, I would never have questioned the "climate science" until I saw the same people who debunked "climate denial" get to work on "inoculating people against misinformation about the vaccines". The penny dropped. I think I have been, as JJ Couey describes it, Scoobydood! My "climate hero" Bill McKibben, despite having written chapters in his book Falter about the trans humanist/ technocrats' agenda, was mysteriously silent about them during the pandemonium. So were all my Green climate activist friends. One could almost believe that if/when they found out it was a plandemic, they decided to turn a blind eye because their anti-human-ecology-loving philosophy supports the idea of a "cull" - possibly they were totalitarians who believe they know best "for-the-greater-good" all along?
Fascinating. Thank you for your observations
The light of awareness does come in through different doors! This is a subtle and inspiring example of having open eyes to see and the open curiosity to pursue what the eyes are seeing. Thank you for sharing, Dr. RF. Inspiring to me and uplifting, too.
Quick note on Bill McKibben … his website is called 350.org because we supposedly need to lower atmospheric CO2 levels to 350 parts per million. They are currently about 400 to 420 depending on whose numbers you choose. The 350 ppm target figure has been widely publicized, so believing the atmosphere to be 3% carbon dioxide is not brilliant.
Really great piece! Enjoyed the breakdown and story telling of what I also found to be the most important pieces of scientific data and conversation for people to consider on this topic. By and large, most people I know have not taken the time to truly look at the science on C02 and climate and thus have a very limited scope of how controversial the conversation truly is. Similar to vaccines, they are being shamed into accepting the mainstream narrative without question and nuance.
First of all the fact that Al Gore said it made it immediately meaningless. No science needed (and no I didn't vote for Bush or Gore). Secondly, of course, the miniscule change is meaningless. And, of course, the if one is really concerned (which we should not be), plant more trees or just watch nature grow. The whole thing was ridiculous from the start. Again, no science needed. All one has to do is look at things from a macro level. All of this micro-analysis is unnecessary to determine what is or what isn't total B.S. This is just another grift to steal from the many to give to the few (again refer to Gore being involved (and everyone else).
IMO, the only way to change the trajectory of where this is going is to show the other side how they have been bamboozled. The science is on our side and it's necessary to change minds. You cannot change the planet if you cannot change a mind.
If we start with...1968 creation and agenda of the “Club of Rome”, the originators of the global warming/climate change theatre...personaly, at least after these last 3 years, I think that we do not need any other data, studies, "science", stories about this subject to understand what is realy going on.
While agree that this global initiative has long been in the planning, the data and studies are useful in showing how "science" is being used to manipulate the non-scientific. My intentions are to demonstrate that one does not have to be an expert or even a scientist to see through the trickery.
I agree, I appreciate and thank you for your work, it realy was a pleasure to read.
I was a 30 year climate warrior until the pandemic came along. I was stunned by the parallel language used by the World Economic Forum to cajole us into action on climate change. It was exactly the same as their references to the pandemic and vaccines. I smelled a rat.
I went back and checked out the Bible of our movement: "Limits to Growth." Discovering that it was supported by the predecessors of the WEF suggests a very long-standing conspiracy to manipulate the public with the climate change message. (Previously, the very long time line of the implicit conspiracy seemed so improbable that I was convinced that right-wing hoax accusations were crazy.) This piece helps me step away from the world I had been in.
Believers belonging to the Green Church of Climate rarely consider the trade-offs that arise from their actions. Congratulations on the decision and the return to lucidity!
This is an issue that bothers me every day as I watch the clear skies daily receive the toxics from these planes. When that happens, the sunny day is gone. Also Dr Ana Mihalcea has studied toxins in people. She too writes on Substack.
https://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/nanoparticle-contamination-cover-up-answers-from-a-scientist/
"It is true that CO2 levels are the highest they have ever been per our best historical data." Are you sure about that?
I've long read that we are actually near historical lows compared to the ancient past, or do you just mean within human history?
I am referring to the data from the Antarctic Ice cores that go back a half million years or so. It’s a good place to start and it’s what Al Gore used to make his argument
OK... just scientists seem pretty sure in for example the time of the dinosaurs the CO2 levels were much higher than now, but of course dinos were around much further back than half a million years, more like 200 million.
I believe dinosaurs were around up until 65 million years ago. And yes, CO2 has been much higher than it is today and it is up for debate in regards if it was lower 2 million years ago. it depends where you get the data. many graphs from ice cores clearly show CO2 higher even 2 million ya. Like this one.
https://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c017c37122187970b-pi
Ben Davidson shows the CO2 climate warming hoax regularly in his daily reports on the sun, see https://m.youtube.com/@Suspicious0bservers/featured
Yes, I follow Ben Davidson too- his science is very advanced, so I just listen to him for the general concepts. I'm fascinated by the 12,000 year disaster cycle, which fits with what I've read and learned elsewhere about catastrophism.
True, until you realize that they have a history of lying.
It’s amazing how the “experts” are not so expert. I too fell for Al Gore’s movie.
WE HAVE BEEN FED A BUNCH OF LIES 99% LIES AND 1% OF HALF TRUTHS
Save the planet Plant a Tree. and DO NOT listen too the experts. imo
Every stable system has one or more negative feedback loops. The fact that CO2 is as stable as it is indicates that there are indeed such loops. Further, negative feedback loops typically give ever stronger negative feedback as the variable in question moves further in a given direction.
I've never seen anything to explain why the negative feedback suddenly becomes positive feedback in the case of CO2. I think the 'climate researchers' are lost in the weeds.
I believe the positive feedback loop is as I described. Solubility in the oceans decrease as temperature increases. However this effect is overcome by variations in insolation as ice core samples suggest
Thanks. Yes, insolation (over millennia) drives temperature, which in turn drives CO2 release from the oceans. So Mr. Gore has cause and effect backwards.
But CO2 could still contribute to temperature increase in the short run (decades) via greenhouse effect.
The point I didn't make very well above is that my intuition says that the "buffers" or negative feedback loops (plant growth, etc.) are strong enough to offset human contributions. And those negative feedbacks would intensify as CO2 increased, further buffering the CO2 increase. Thus, instead of a hockey stick leading to disaster, we're much more likely to see moderation as all the various feedback loops continue to keep our climate as remarkably stable as it is.
In other words, a system as stable as ours is unlikely to be thrown off the rails by tiny changes in one constituent. I totally agree with your intuition on this.
The fact that you actually used real factual information is telling me your moving from the left side of the political spectrum to the right. Facts to someone on the left is like krypton to Superman. Something to avoided at all costs.
But you could have saved yourself time and just asked who said that this climate is normal? Why wasn’t the climate that created the last ice age normal? What caused it? No one can tell you what caused it they only have theories. Why have there been multiple ones long before Homo sapiens inhabited the earth. And why would we think that it can not happen again. Climate change is nothing but a religion for those who want to be tyrant’s.