Climate Alarmists Winning the War of Words, Despite Evidence that Nothing Unusual is Happening

Opinion By Dr. Jay Lehr & Tom Harris

Thanks largely to Democratic presidential contender Bernie Sanders and 16-year-old climate activist Greta Thunberg, “existential’ was selected as the word of the year by Dictionary.com. The on-line dictionary describes the phenomenon as follows:

Searches for existential spiked throughout 2019, especially after politicians used the word to characterize the dangers and disruptions climate change is widely held to pose for human life and the environment as we know them.

At a town hall on February 25, Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders helped send searches for existential up over 179% when he called climate change “an existential crisis that impacts not just you and me and our generation but our kids and our grandchildren.”

Search volume for existential was higher than average throughout summer and fall 2019. August witnessed fires rage across the Amazon and Hurricane Dorian ravage the Bahamas. Many outlets and organizations discussed these disasters not only in connection to climate but also in existential terms. The non-profit Amazon Watch, for instance, framed the conflagration starkly: “ … it’s not only the Amazon, but our entire planet that is in crisis as the devastation of this life-giving biome poses a real, existential threat for all of humanity.”

September saw the worldwide Climate Strike and major speeches by the Swedish teenage activist Greta Thunberg. On September 18, Thunberg notably urged the US Congress: “I have a dream that the people in power, as well as the media, start treating this crisis like the existential emergency it is.”

Similarly, Oxford Dictionaries picked “climate emergency” as its word of the year. Clearly, alarmists are winning the war of words in the climate debate. Here’s why none of it makes any sense.

Our atmosphere is made up of 78% Nitrogen, 21% Oxygen, 0.9% Argonne, some trace gases and only 0.04% of carbon dioxide (CO2), the gas most often blamed by alarmists for the supposedly ‘existential’ climate change threat. There is no way that this minuscule volume of life-giving gas (the only reason we can inhabit the Earth) is a threat to life as we know it today.

Direct atmospheric CO2 measurements began in 1958 at the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii. They show a steady rise in CO2 from 314 parts per million (ppm) in 1958 to 406 ppm in 2017.

The 40% increase from 280 ppm at the end of World War II to 410 ppm in 2019 is widely recognized to be mainly man-made, derived primarily from fossil fuels, including power plants, factories, and automobiles. But these CO2 levels are neither unusual nor dangerous when viewed in the context of the long-term record of our planet’s climate.

We know from our fossil record that CO2 levels throughout Earth’s history have averaged more than six times our modern concentrations. We also know that nuclear submarines submerged beneath the ocean for weeks at a time, average 5000 ppm CO2, with no health problem ever reported.

Antarctica has had the longest continuous accumulation of ice. It has provided data going back 800,000 years, while data from Greenland in the Northern Hemisphere gives CO2 data going back into the last interglacial period 128,000 years ago. Temperature and CO2 levels have varied during this long period, and importantly, temperature changes preceded changes in CO2. In other words, carbon dioxide has NOT driven temperatures for the last 800,000 years.

During each glacial advance, CO2 levels dropped to dangerously low concentrations, to below 200 ppm. These low levels were dangerous because the minimum threshold for plant life to exist is 150 ppm, and we nearly reached that ‘line of death’ during our most recent ice age. Not only is rising CO2 not a bad thing, it could save civilization for future generations, centuries and thousands of years into the future.

Dr. Patrick Moore, the co-founder of Greenpeace, who now battles the lies that alarmists often tell to enrich themselves, believes the day will come when we will be crushing limestone to add more carbon dioxide to our atmosphere. He seriously describes this future need because the record shows that over the past 150 million years in the fossil record there has been an alarming downward trend toward CO2 starvation. 

The forecasters of climate doom assert that CO2 levels have never been as high as today. Well that is only true for the past 800,000 years. They prefer to view the increase of 120 ppm over the past 150 years through the narrow lens of recent geologic time. To properly analyze the current levels, we need to put the data into the proper context. During our current geologic period, called the Quaternary, there has existed the lowest average CO2 levels in the entire history of the Earth. In the lush vegetative days of the dinosaurs, the CO2 levels stood in excess of 1600 ppm. The average C02 concentration in the preceding 600 million years was more than six-times our modern era level.

The combustion of fossil fuels has allowed humanity to increase concentration of this beneficial molecule and perhaps avert an actual CO2-related climate apocalypse. The climate delusion used by alarmists in their attempts to defeat capitalism and destroy human freedom would set us back centuries to a time when backbreaking work and shortened life expectancy was the norm.

Carbon dioxide emissions are not an existential threat, but the climate alarmists most assuredly are.

Portions of this article were excerpted with permission of the author of the book “Inconvenient Facts” by Gregory Wrightstone, which is recommended for everyone desiring the full story of the climate delusion.


Dr. Jay Lehr is Senior Policy Advisor with of the Ottawa, Canada-based International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC) and former Science Director of The Heartland Institute which is based in Arlington Heights, Illinois. Tom Harris is Executive Director of ICSC and a policy advisor to Heartland.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

160 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
January 7, 2020 4:40 pm

Little known issue with electric cars: Chances are good the electric car would not make it to Dawson City depending on the tme of year. At 20 degrees F it would loose 41% range if the heater is turned on. If the heater is not turned on the driver may well freeze or experience hypothermia. Always dress like you’ll have to walk back.

Denis Ables
January 8, 2020 4:10 pm

The climate alarmists, particularly those in favor of jailing skeptics, represent an existential threat.

Kristi Silber
January 8, 2020 8:31 pm

“The climate delusion used by alarmists in their attempts to defeat capitalism and destroy human freedom would set us back centuries to a time when backbreaking work and shortened life expectancy was the norm.”

What an odd thing to say. The rest of the post is about science (using tired arguments that have been addressed again and again), then ends on this clearly political assertion for which no evidence whatsoever is offered. With a grand finale like this, it turns the whole thing into a politically-driven argument.

If you want to argue about science, keep politics out of it. If you want to argue about politics, let good science inform those arguments, not silly claims like CO2 can’t affect the planet’s temperature, or that because CO2 was higher in the past, it can’t affect temperature today. It’s a mistake to look at climate in general so simplistically. CO2 is not the only thing to affect the temperature, but it is the only reasonable explanation for most of the change we are seeing, considering the other factors. For an example of some of the things that can affect climate (referring to the last 800,000 years),

“There is evidence that small, predictable changes in the Earth’s orbit about the Sun act as triggers for the glacial and interglacial periods. By themselves however these are not able to explain all the cycles of global warming and cooling. A more comprehensive plausible explanation is now emerging that also requires taking into account variations in ice sheet size, snow and ice albedo, atmospheric CO2 concentration, ocean currents, extent and productivity of wetlands, melting permafrost, deep ocean CO2 ventilation and atmospheric dust.”

https://environmentcounts.org/ec-perspective-accounting-for-800000-years-of-climate-change/

John Endicott
Reply to  Kristi Silber
January 9, 2020 6:58 am

Kristi it’s been a politically driven issue for decades now. Ever since the IPCC (a political body) got involved (actually even before then).

“We need to get some broad based support,to capture the public’s imagination…So we have to offer up scary scenarios,make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts…Each of us has to decide what the right balance between being effective and being honest.”
– Prof. Stephen Schneider, Stanford Professor of Climatology, lead author of many IPCC reports

This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for the, at least, 150 years, since the industrial revolution
– Christiana Figueres, the Executive Secretary of UNFCCC

“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse?
Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”
– Maurice Strong, founder of the UN Environment Programme

“A keen and anxious awareness is evolving to suggest that fundamental changes will have to take place in the world order and its power structures, in the distribution of wealth and income. Perhaps only a new and enlightened humanism can permit mankind to negotiate this transition.”
– Club of Rome, United Nations Think Tank

“We’ve got to ride this global warming issue.Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.”
– Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation

January 11, 2020 6:06 pm

Alarmists are winning the war of words by using the fear weapon.  Deniers must fight fear with fear. e.g.  Over the long term, CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has been declining.  It is now only 260 ppmv above the level at which C3 plants die.  Without C3 plants most humans starve.  This is too close for comfort.  100% renewables could result in human extinction. Or, Another Krakatoa or asteroid hit could blanket the atmosphere with dust.  In this case, 100% renewables will be humanity’s death warrant.      

Ron
January 13, 2020 10:49 pm

And:
The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere fell to an all-time low of 180-ppmv during the last glacial.  This was only 30-ppmv above the level at which C3 plants die and most humans starve.  A slight CO2 dip could have seen extinction of 4-million humans.  Natural processes  restored only 100-ppmv before the Industrial Revolution.  Thanks, in part, to fossil fuels, CO2 concentration is 260-ppmv above the mass extinction level today and the trend toward the next glacial has been “comprehensively reversed because of greenhouse gas emissions.”[1]
100% renewables might plunge Earth into another glacial.  Civilization would be destroyed and 8-billion people could be exterminated.  

[1] “What causes an ice age and what would happen if the Earth endured another one?” Dr. Steven Phipps, paleoclimatologist and climate system modeler, as reported by Kylie Andrews, ABC Science. 14 June 2016.

Johann Wundersamer
January 20, 2020 9:23 am

“CO₂-related climate apocalypse. The climate delusion used by alarmists, [ ], climate doom …”

says it all:

There’s no green “consens scientists” at all.

The consensus is about a quasi religious leadership where the vanguard priests live on behalf of the collection basket.

Ron
January 20, 2020 1:40 pm

“Global warming/climate change/whatever they’re calling it this week” still ranks dead last on the list of issues people are concerned about…”  

That can change fast.  Presidential candidates, Mike Bloomberg and Tom Steyer, have pledged to spend over two billion dollars to unseat President Trump and to replace fossil fuels with “clean energy.”  If they succeed, their Risky Business Project stands to earn several times that amount.

Verified by MonsterInsights