Climate Change Demystified
by Richard K. Moore
cyberjournal.org December 21, 2019
Note by Peter Meyer: This article was republished on Serendipity on December 28, 2019, for the benefit of those poor people whose minds were captured by the "anthropogenic global warming" scammers, and who have not hitherto been able to free themselves from belief in this malicious hoax.There’s nothing complicated about understanding climate change. It’s just a matter of looking at the climate record, and noticing the obvious patterns. The records we will be looking at are from the official ice core data, which I downloaded from the NOAA website.
First let’s look at the long-term record, covering the past 420,000 years. The data here comes from ice cores taken in Vostok, Antarctica.
This record shows that the Earth is in an ice age most of the time. Approximately every 100,000 years there’s a sudden spike in temperature, rapidly melting the continent-size glaciers, and giving us about 10,000 years of warm weather. The warm interval is usually referred to as an ‘inter-glacial period’. When an inter-glacial period ends, temperatures then rapidly fall, just as rapidly as they rose prior to the period. We are now in an inter-glacial period, at the top of the most recent temperature spike, as shown at the right-hand end of the graph.
Let’s zoom in now and take a look at our own inter-glacial period. This next record is from ice cores in Greenland. It begins at 9,000 BC, while temperatures were still emerging from the last ice age, and goes up to 1800, prior to any possible human influence. We’re looking here at the natural climate pattern.
Remember that we’re looking at the tip of a major spike, a spike that goes up and down rapidly. We can see how that spike is still rising in the first half of the graph, and then begins its decline in the second half. This underlying up-and-down pattern is punctuated by minor spikes, about 1,000 years apart. Each of these minor spikes gives us a rapid rise in temperature of one or two degrees, followed by an equally rapid fall in temperature, taking us back down one or two degrees. Temperature spikes, regardless of their magnitude, seem to be always symmetric, rising and falling at the same rates and by the same amounts.
Let’s focus now on the last 3,000 years of this graph, from about 1,000 BC to 1800 AD.
We see there three of our minor spikes, each giving us a temporary surge in temperature of one or two degrees. The maximum temperature reached by each of these minor spikes declines by about one degree from spike to spike, reflecting the underlying decline of the major spike.
We have a minor spike that peaked near 1,000 BC, another that peaked near 0 AD, and another that peaked near 1,000 AD. As the pattern continues from there, nothing could be more natural than yet another minor spike of one or two degrees, peaking near 2,000 AD. And in fact, that’s exactly what has happened. This last minor spike began to rise somewhere around 1800, and since then we’ve had a rapid rise in temperature of one or two degrees, as expected.
That’s exactly what the climate scientists have reported, that temperatures have risen 1 or 2 degrees over the past two centuries. But they didn’t report, or didn’t notice, that this rise in temperature is exactly what we would expect from the natural record. Instead they totally ignore the natural record, and assume that 1800 temperatures represent some kind of long-term natural temperature level. Based on that blatantly false assumption, and continuing to ignore the natural record, they go on to assume that the rise since 1800 must be unnatural, indicating some kind of human cause.
All of their models are based on these blatantly false assumptions. They are trying to find a human cause for something that occurred naturally. It’s like a snowman melts, and they’re out looking for a culprit with a flame thrower. Hey guys, snowmen melt, that’s what they do. Spikes happen, and this one was expected. Case dismissed, human activity Not Guilty, there's No Case to Answer. The models are useless, garbage assumptions in and garbage projections out.
So there you have it, the truth about climate change: nothing unnatural has happened. There is no indication, none at all, that CO2 or anything else related to humans has had any effect on climate. There has been no effect that calls for a non-natural explanation. I hope everyone has been able to follow this material. There’s no real science or math involved here, it’s just a matter of paying attention to what the natural record tells us.
You also have the truth about ‘climate science’. What passes for climate science makes no scientific sense whatever. How can they claim to be doing climate science, if they ignore the climate record? I don’t care what degrees and credentials and reputations they may have, you and I and anyone else with a lick of common sense can see that their work is bogus, just by looking at the record. In fact their work is so obviously bogus that we can’t really accept that the scientists are that stupid. There is clearly some non-science agenda going on here, some reason why the powers-that-be want us to believe that CO2 drives climate and that runaway warming is in our future. We’re looking at a politically-motivated hoax here, not at an honest mistake in scientific reasoning.
There is no warming crisis, no reason to fear sea-level rise, or polar bear extinction, or ongoing warming. In fact we are facing a climate crisis of a quite different kind. Our interglacial period has already lasted 10,000 years and is nearing its end. If we look at our last graph again, which shows the major spike starting down, it almost looks as if temperatures would start shooting down after 1800, matching the rapid rise at the beginning of the graph.
We were lucky to experience one more minor spike, before the inevitable fast decline begins. In any case, we can now expect 200 years of rapid cooling, as the minor spike declines back down. The crisis we are actually facing is a cooling crisis: 200 years of rapid cooling, to be followed by a plunge into the next ice age, which will probably take about a thousand years to reach bottom in the Northern Hemisphere. This cooling crisis will be particularly hard for us to deal with if our energy sources are grossly diminished by a totally unjustified ban on petroleum-based energy, a ban enabled by the global-warming-crisis hoax.
Jan & Richard Discuss Climate
Jan Slakov (aka rebel jan) posted to Cyberjournal:Dear Richard,
My initial response [to your recent posting on Cyberjournal refuting climate science] is frustration — do we still need to argue over whether or not human activities are threatening life on Earth? How does one respond to people who insist on refuting what anyone who has a basic understanding of natural cycles can see — that if we continue to contaminate the Earth (not just with levels of atmospheric carbon [dioxide] never present since humans have lived on Earth, but also with radioactive and other wastes) life is and will be increasingly jeopardized?
[You] and I both believe “conspiracies” are possible, and have happened. ... But to believe that all these highly credible scientists and others are wrong about the climate issue belies a kind of hubris I find repellant. It’s all the more upsetting when we know that major fossil fuel producers have actually engaged in a “conspiracy” to hide the truth about the disruptive effects of their activities.
Then I remembered what a friend said, when I shared a (to me) credible film on a “conspiracy”. He felt sorry for me, that I could be so paranoid :) And then he added that we don’t need to believe in such conspiracies to understand that the war on Iraq was wrong. That, and other experiences, has led me to realize it can be a real waste of time trying to convince people of “conspiracies”.
In the case of the climate question we don’t need to believe in climate science to be able to see the benefits of taking action.
Richard replied:Hi Jan,
How nice to exchange ideas with you after all these years! Though it’s always sad when friends fall out over politics or religion. We act as if beliefs have magical powers, and that believing the wrong thing is directly causing harm. In fact what we believe or don’t believe has very little effect on the world around us. Surely you don’t believe that democracy is real, and that governments jump in response to our opinions and beliefs
You say: "My initial response is frustration — do we still need to argue over whether or not human activities are threatening life on Earth?" You certainly don’t need to argue over that with me. Human activity, or more accurately the activity of industrial civilization, is destroying topsoil, lowering water tables, creating desertification, poisoning our rivers and streams, depleting natural resources, and the list goes on. However despite all these terrible things we are doing, according to the official ice-core data, these activities are not affecting climate
"... we don’t need to believe in climate science to be able to see the benefits of taking action." If we wanted to make a serious effort to reduce our impact on the Earth, there are a lot of things that we as a society should be pursuing. It would make sense to reform agricultural practices, getting rid of toxic pesticides, industrial agriculture, and factory farming. We could revitalize local and national economies, undoing the ravages of globalization, and minimizing the need for long-distance transport of goods. We could get smarter about light rail, zoning, and minimizing the need for commuting. I’m sure we could all make a long list here. Instead, the belief in ‘climate science’ has narrowed the vision of environmental activism, concentrating almost exclusively on CO2 levels.
And what actions are governments taking about CO2? They aren’t trying to reduce oil production, except as usual to manipulate the market price. They aren’t even making a serious attempt to reform industrial practices to use less petroleum. Instead they’re implementing carbon taxes, so we pay more to continue doing the same things we’re already doing. And they’re implementing carbon trading, a shell game that keeps our emissions going, while Gore gets rich, and the Global South pays the penalty by being denied the resources to pursue much-needed and long-delayed (due to imperialist domination) development. Indeed, carbon trading is just a new form of imperialism, which as usual is creating immense profits for some.
And governments are also subsidizing and mandating ‘green energy’ development. They aren’t doing the math, or considering the environmental impact, of massively increasing the scale of solar and wind sources. It turns out such scaling-up just isn’t feasible. There are many issues involved, such as the scarce metals that are required for solar and for batteries, the relatively short lifespan and non-recyclability of turbine blades, the mass destruction of bird populations that would follow, etc. The bottom line is that oil will continue to be a major source of energy, despite carbon taxes and turbine-blighted landscapes.
"You and I both believe 'conspiracies' are possible, and have happened. ... That, and other experiences, has led me to realize it can be a real waste of time trying to convince people of 'conspiracies'." Just to be clear, my article is not really about conspiracies. It’s mainly a science study, examining the data, and identifying what that implies about climate change. In the course of this study, it became clear that the popular consensus about climate is so far wrong scientifically, that some kind of explanation is called for. Otherwise I’d be leaving the reader with the impression that the climate modelers are simply incompetent, and that would be very misleading. It takes more than incompetence to totally ignore the primary source we have for studying climate — the long-term record. By confining their attention to “since [thermometer] records have been kept” (in the 1800s) the only thing they are looking at is our fortunate escape from the Little Ice Age. When we look at Agenda 21 and other published information, the reason for the deception becomes blatantly obvious. This was not a deep dive into conspiracy land, it was simply pointing out the obvious, more as a side-comment than a main theme.
"But to believe that all these highly credible scientists and others are wrong about the climate issue belies a kind of hubris I find repellant." Hubris — challenging the Gods of Climate. I consider that a compliment. We need a hell of a lot more hubris in this fake-news, mind-controlled society of ours. We need a lot more people with the courage to think for themselves, rather than surrendering to the group-think mentality of the media-led herd.
As regards ‘credible scientists’ there are only a relative handful that run the models, and [like Michael Mann] they hide their calculations, manipulate their data, and launch a cover-up when released emails catch them with their pants down, ‘hiding the decline’. The rest of the scientific community, not being climate scientists, accept the output of the models as being valid, just as the general public does. Since the models predict run-away warming, the scientific community quite accurately points out all the terrible things that would happen if temperatures did run away. Credibility depends not only on the integrity and knowledge of the scientists, but also on the assumptions they are basing their work on.
"It’s all the more upsetting when we know that major fossil fuel producers have actually engaged in a 'conspiracy' to hide the truth about the disruptive effects of their activities." I’ve never understood why people are blaming the oil companies. Would you rather they had closed down the oil fields, shut down all the gas stations, and watched while everyone starved to death as no food could be produced or transported? Or is your concern that they paid for studies that denied CO2 causality? There’s no need to be upset with them about that, as most people dismissed those studies as corporate propaganda. If anything the studies were seen as evidence that the oil companies were hiding something, and that CO2 really is the problem.
In fact, the oil companies are fully behind carbon taxes and carbon trading. They know the price of oil will increase under that regime and they’ll make considerable profits as a result. And they’re investing in green-energy development, which with the help of government subsidies will bring them still more profits.
From a later posting to Cyberjournal:Laurence Imbash wrote:There is an additional point most people miss: the real source of all this climate hysteria, the main media and big money pulling the strings. Isn't it weird that those who spend fortunes manipulating what people are supposed to believe, have invested huge amounts of money creating and fueling this big hysteria! There are huge hidden benefits attached to it, generating collective fear makes people easier to control, and help distract their attention from real issues. How come people get so blind!
Richard replied:Yes, it does seem strange that people see climate activism as an anti-establishment movement, when it is being managed and financed from the top, and promoted non-stop by corporate-owned media and entertainment channels. But keep in mind that unless someone has a healthy dose of skepticism, and takes the time to search out and evaluate other sources of information, they are exposed only to mainstream narratives. The mainstream media is the voice of the powers-that-be, and it aims to control minds, not inform them.
And went on to say:In Ireland they’ve set a date, after which only electric cars will be permitted, and oil heating of homes will be banned. Do a little google searching and you’ll find this kind of thing is coming down the pike all over the place. It’s all part of Agenda 21/30.
In order to save the planet, there are many reasons why we need to reduce our consumption of energy and other resources. But the place to start with that is by reducing our energy requirements, not by restricting or over-pricing the supply. And reducing our requirements calls for infrastructure changes, such as a return to less energy-intensive agriculture methods, and a relocalization of economics and production, minimizing the need for long-distance transport of goods.
Instead we get carbon taxes, carbon-credit trading, and a future based on electric cars — which perpetuates our over-dependence on automobiles for transport. I’m not saying cars should be banned, but I am saying serious investment is needed in transport infrastructure that can minimize the need for cars. Even if we ignore the energy it takes to operate cars, immense amounts of energy and petroleum-based materials go into the production of cars and tires, and in the construction and maintenance of our excessive highway systems.
Considerable amounts of energy would be required in the short term to pursue the infrastructure developments that would be needed to reduce our long term energy requirements. That’s why restricting the supply early on is counterproductive.
Richard said above:We were lucky to experience one more minor spike, before the inevitable fast decline begins. In any case, we can now expect 200 years of rapid cooling, as the minor spike declines back down. The crisis we are actually facing is a cooling crisis: 200 years of rapid cooling, to be followed by a plunge into the next ice age, which will probably take about a thousand years to reach bottom in the Northern Hemisphere.
This graph, based on the NOAA data, shows that the previous "bottom" was around 10,000 BC. It's possible that advanced human society existed prior to then, but there's scant evidence of it. If it existed it was totally wiped out by the previous ice age. Probably the same will happen to ours in the next ice age. In the long term, such things come and go. All that is now best in human creativity, accomplishment and performance (and the opposite) will be lost forever. Behold, admire and enjoy it while you can.
A copy of the Serendipity website is available on USB flash drive. Details here.
Richard K. Moore's Articles on Serendipity Serendipity Home Page