Climate Crisis? What Climate Crisis? Part One: The Evidence

By Neil Lock

March 14th, 2023

Recently, I was asked to make a podcast on the subject of “global warming,” otherwise known as “climate change.” Regrettably, the material I had was too much and too detailed, so the podcast did not go ahead. As I had already spent considerable time assembling an armoury of facts on the issue, I decided to make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear. I have chosen to expand the level of detail considerably, and so to build the material into a matched pair of major essays.

This, the first essay in the set, will concentrate on the accusations that are being made against humanity and our civilization over this issue, and the evidence that we are not guilty on those charges. In the second part, I’ll tell the back-story to these accusations, and how the UN, governments, mainstream media and others have joined together in a project, whose objective appears to be no less than the destruction of our human industrial civilization.

Much of the material in these essays, I have published before; but never all together.

The background

Why am I writing this? And why now, in the early spring of 2023? In the “United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland” today, our rights and freedoms, our economy, and everything we stand for as human beings, all hang in the balance. Over 40 years and more, successive UK governments have persistently lied to and misled us. And, in cahoots with the European Union, the United Nations and other internationalist organizations such as the World Economic Forum, they have imposed on us a torrent of bad laws and ever-increasing taxes. Hurtful green policies have progressively chipped away at our rights, our freedoms, our standard of living and our quality of life. And the nastiness of their policies, the speed with which they are seeking to implement them, and the dishonesty with which they are behaving towards us, are rising in a mighty crescendo. One obvious symptom of this right now is their escalating war against our right to drive cars. Here is a recent, topical example: [[1]] and [[2]].

All the main political parties are in on this. In a supposed “democracy,” it should be the people (that is, persons eligible to vote) who dictate the direction in which a country moves, not a bunch of lying, thieving, scheming politicians. Still less should policies be driven by unaccountable internationalist and globalist élites. Yet, that is what is being done to us.

There is no way to create change through the ballot box. None of the four major parties (Tories, Labour, Lib Dems, Greens) offers anything but the same old same old tyranny. “Democracy” is a total sham, when there is no-one worth voting for. Indeed, I myself haven’t voted in a UK general or local election since 1987! And in a first-past-the-post system, new parties take decades at least to get any traction. So, there is no prospect of any relief within the existing system.

Therefore, change for the better must come from the grass roots. There must be, to use a phrase, some “climate change.” We must change the climate of thought in people’s minds, and help them to join us in the struggle to re-gain our rights, our freedoms, our prosperity and our dignity as human beings.

My part in creating a “climate change”

Many among my friends are warriors for human rights and civil liberties. Indeed, in my own way, I am one myself. But protests and mass action are not my style. I see myself as more of an educator. I try to document the facts in a way which makes very complex issues, like “global warming” (or is it “climate change?”), understandable to ordinary people. This means that an essay such as this one will be, unavoidably, long. It will also include some numbers! My excuse is that, in a context like this, numbers can often tell more than words. But I’ll do all I can to keep the numbers simple.

This pair of essays will also be very wide ranging. I have been studying this subject for 16 years now, and writing about it for six. I have found a need to make myself into a combination of amateur scientist, historian, philosopher and journalist; not to mention psychologist! Add to that my long-ago degree in mathematics and my career as a software consultant, and I think I have earned the moniker, with which I sometimes label myself: generalist.

My job here, as I see it, is to give my readers the facts – lots of them – and some of my interpretations of those facts. I see this process as rather like one of those dot puzzles we all did as children. I’ll give you the facts – the dots. Your part of the job is to join them up; and then, you will have something far more valuable than mere facts. You will have understanding. From which, you can form your own views, both on this matter and on others. And you can take things from there.

I expect I may get flak for writing and publishing this. “Fact checkers” (most of whom are really “political correctness checkers”) will accuse me of “misleading,” “conspiracy theory,” “fake news” or “disinformation.” Faceless bureaucrats may try to get these essays removed from the Internet on spurious grounds of “safety.” To which I respond, what I write here is simply the truth, to the best of my knowledge and belief; with some deductions I have made from it. As the saying goes, if you’re getting flak, you’re close to the target!

The claimed case against us

To begin, I’ll ask: What are the specific accusations being made against us human beings under the moniker of “climate change” or “global warming?”

I’ll note, first, that simply to accuse humanity of causing “global warming” or “climate change” is very imprecise. To spell out just what it is that we are being accused of, it is necessary to split the accusations into several parts, and to state each one clearly. Also, to refer to the matter in just two words, “climate change,” is a big over-simplification. For the Earth’s climate changes. It always has, even before humans existed; and it always will! Human beings cannot possibly be responsible for all “climate change.”

And yet, the United Nations, which has been the main driver of the green agenda for the last half century, has had since 1992 its very own definition of “climate change.” Article 1, paragraph 2 of the Framework Convention on Climate Change [[3], page 3] says: “‘Climate change’ means a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.” So, now we know. “Climate change,” because of the way the UN defines it, has to be our fault! So much for the presumption of innocence.

The six claims

I divide the accusations into six specific claims.

Claim One: It’s warming. It has been warming since at least 1880 or so. And the warming is global, not just local or regional.

Claim Two: The warming is unprecedented.

Claim Three: All, or a significant part of, the (global) warming is the result of emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) by human civilization. The effect, by which these gases cause warming on a planetary scale, is known as the greenhouse effect. The major GHGs are: methane, nitrous oxide, carbon dioxide (CO2) and water vapour. (There are some others, most of which are fluorinated gases).

Our accusers see CO2 as by far the main culprit in the warming, and the burning of fossil fuels as by far the biggest contributor to it. Although water vapour is the strongest GHG of them all, being responsible for about half of the entire greenhouse effect.

Claim Four: This warming will have significant negative effects on the planet and on human well-being and prosperity.

Claim Five: The benefits from avoiding the negative consequences of this warming outweigh the costs of taking action to avoid them. Thus, pre-emptive action to stop the warming is preferable to letting the warming happen and then fixing any problems as they arise. The former approach is known as “mitigation,” the latter as “adaptation.”

The mitigation approach depends heavily on Claim Three, that all or much of the warming is caused by carbon dioxide emissions, being true. For if not, no amount of reduction in CO2 emissions could prevent any amount of warming! To force people to make such reductions would turn out to have been far worse than a mere waste, if it turned out that CO2 wasn’t the main culprit after all.

Claim Six: It’s a crisis! There is a climate crisis, and we need to act NOW!

It’s important to note that ALL of these six steps must be proven beyond reasonable doubt in order to “justify” any of the extreme political actions that have been and are being proposed. Such as making it unaffordable, within only a very short time from now, for anyone but the rich to drive cars. In the UK, and probably in most of the rest of the world as well.

Evidence for a climate crisis?

What evidence is being presented that there is a “climate crisis?”

As I’ll show later, there’s no hard evidence of any crisis, at least none that I can see. But here is a list of some of the things the alarmists are wailing about. In almost every case, they are claiming that these things are happening now.

  1. Weather disasters are becoming worse and more frequent!
  2. We’re facing more and worse storms and hurricanes!
  3. We’re facing more and worse floods!
  4. We’re facing more and worse droughts!
  5. We’re facing more and worse wildfires!
  6. We’re facing more and stronger heatwaves!
  7. More and more people are dying from heatstroke!
  8. There are millions of climate refugees!
  9. Arctic sea ice is disappearing fast!
  10. Because of this, thousands of polar bears are dying!
  11. Sea levels are rising fast!
  12. And the rate of rise is accelerating!
  13. Because of this, islands like Tuvalu and the Maldives are being submerged!
  14. Antarctica and Greenland are losing ice fast! This will lead to melting of ice sheets, and catastrophic sea level rise!
  15. Hundreds of thousands of square kilometres of coral reefs are dying!
  16. We soon won’t be able to grow enough food to feed the population!

All these things, so they claim, are our fault for emitting so much CO2!


Before going further, it is necessary to understand one particular aspect of the politics. The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) was set up in 1988. In its own words, it “prepares comprehensive Assessment Reports about the state of scientific, technical and socio-economic knowledge on climate change, its impacts and future risks, and options for reducing the rate at which climate change is taking place.” [[4]]. The IPCC is a United Nations organization. Unsurprisingly, then, it takes the alarmist side.

Responses to the accusations

It’s time to take a look at the facts on the six accusations.

Is it warming?

It’s commonly agreed that the climate has been warming for centuries. The so-called Little Ice Age was a period of relative cold, which lasted from roughly the 14th century AD to the middle of the 19th. Across the Northern Hemisphere, temperatures went down by more than half a degree Celsius over this period. The Central England temperature record (in Hubert Lamb’s reconstruction, see the IPCC’s first assessment report [[5], page 202]) troughed out in the mid-17th century at a full degree below where it had likely been in the 14th century.

The Little Ice Age itself followed the Mediaeval Warm Period. This was the time, roughly between 950 and 1250 AD, in which commerce took off in southern Europe; and at the same time, the Vikings had farms in Greenland. Earlier, there had been a Roman Warm Period, from about 250 BC to 400 AD. The Romans were able to grow grapes in Scotland! It’s hard to “measure” temperatures with any accuracy that far back, but some scientists think this warm period may have been as much as two degrees Celsius warmer than today.

You might expect that it would be far easier to measure temperatures accurately today than to infer temperatures for the past. It’s true that the only means available to estimate temperatures for times before written weather records were “palaeo” records such as ice cores and tree rings. But going forward, it’s not that simple. For a start, there are many ways to measure temperature. There are surface measurements with thermometers. There are satellite measurements of temperatures at different heights in the atmosphere. There are weather balloons and radiosondes. At sea, there have been ships’ buckets, and more recently buoys.

Further, each kind of temperature record has its own set of difficulties. For instrument-based land records, for example, there are changes in instrument siting. There are new stations. And there are discontinued stations, of which there may be large numbers at once; for example, in Russia after the fall of the Soviet Union.

For all temperature records, there are changes in instrument types and accuracy, and even in whether records are kept in Fahrenheit or Celsius. There is the problem of how to deal with missing readings. And even with the best will in the world, instrument operators will make mistakes. To make matters worse, most of the data we have comes from land, and from Europe and North America. There is poor coverage of the southern oceans, for example. And there is the thorny question of how you try to in-fill areas which have no data at all, for example by extrapolating from neighbouring regions.

Satellite measurements have their own problems, too. Complex calibrations and adjustments are necessary. Satellites have an unfortunate tendency to drift in their orbits. And when the responsibility for the measurements is moved from one satellite to another, there may be a discontinuity between the old readings and the new.

Then there is the problem of trying to assemble the whole into a coherent picture of “the global temperature” over time. Inevitably, there will be huge levels of uncertainty in any such picture. It doesn’t help that in many cases this is being done by government agencies, some of which (such as the UK Met Office) choose to take an alarmist position at any opportunity. But there is general agreement that global temperatures have been warming since the 17th century. And that they have warmed very close to 1 degree Celsius since 1880.

Is the warming over the last 150 years or so unprecedented?

Past records show temperatures going up and down by large amounts, sometimes over relatively short time periods. For example, Lamb’s Central England Temperature record shows a huge dip into, and an even bigger rebound out of, the trough of the Little Ice Age.

More recently, there seems to have been strong cooling, on a global scale, between about 1880 and 1910, followed by strong warming over the following 30 years. And if we look at the magnitude of the temperature changes apparent in the Roman and Mediaeval warm periods, and juxtapose them with the last century or so, they are very comparable.

So, on the question of whether recent warming is “unprecedented,” my verdict is the Scottish one: Not proven.

How much warming has been, or will be, caused by CO2 from human civilization?

To the third accusation, that all or much of the global warming is the result of emissions of carbon dioxide gas by human civilization.

Now, there’s a plausible scientific hypothesis that says that greenhouse gases, including CO2, do cause some warming. The basic idea is that molecules of CO2 absorb photons of radiation, then re-emit them in directions that, on average, are more downwards than upwards, thus keeping heat in rather than letting it escape to space. The forcing is usually expressed in watts per square metre, at a suitably selected point high in the atmosphere.

For ease of understanding, the forcing can be converted into a temperature rise in degrees Celsius per doubling of CO2. It is calculated this way, because according to the greenhouse effect theory, the effects of CO2 are logarithmic. That is, each doubling of CO2 is expected to produce the same amount of warming. This warming is not expected to be evenly distributed over the globe; there is likely to be far more warming at higher latitudes, and so a lower temperature gradient from the tropics to the poles.

In its Third Assessment Report (2001), the IPCC gave this value as 1.46 degrees Celsius: [[6]]. Their latest technical summary report [[7]], on page 27, gives a central estimate of 1.07 degrees Celsius. Richard Lindzen, an atmospheric physicist and a skeptical expert, has given 1 degree Celsius: [[8]], page 4. But some skeptics come out with considerably lower numbers. See [[9]] for an argument suggesting the figure may be as low as 0.5 degrees Celsius.

A major problem arises at this point. For surface level warming (“forcing” in Climatespeak), whatever the reason for it, is theorized to cause more warming (“feedbacks”). This is because a warmer surface is expected to cause more evaporation from the oceans, so more water vapour in the atmosphere; and water vapour is a strong greenhouse gas, far stronger than CO2. Moreover, warming is also likely to cause more cloud cover. Clouds can cool, as on a hot summer day, or warm, as on a cold winter night. Which of these effects is stronger when averaged over the whole globe, and by how much, are very difficult questions to answer.

The alarmist camp think that the overall feedbacks are strongly positive, and the 1.07 degrees Celsius of forcing translates into an equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) of 2.5 to 4.0 degrees Celsius per doubling of CO2. Interestingly, in the Third Assessment Report, the 1.46 degrees of forcing translated into an ECS for a doubling of CO2 of 1.5 to 4.5 degrees Celsius. So, over 20 years, the IPCC’s estimate of the forcing has gone down significantly; but the feedbacks seem to have become bigger to compensate!

The skeptical camp, on the other hand, think that the feedbacks are considerably lower, perhaps zero or even negative. Lindzen discusses this in the paper at [8]. In which he goes so far as to say: “the stability of the tropical temperature suggests negative rather than positive feedbacks.”

Nic Lewis, in a comment in the same paper (page 17), suggests that the ECS, or otherwise put the long-term warming, from a doubling of CO2 is 1.5 to 2 degrees Celsius. This is well below the IPCC’s range. Lewis’s own best estimate, with Judith Curry, is between 1.50 and 1.76 degrees Celsius: [[10]]. In a reply to the comment (page 20), Lindzen suggests that even Lewis’s numbers are high.

CO2 is currently at 412 parts per million (ppm) compared to pre-industrial times with about 280. We are now a fraction over half way towards our first doubling. (412/280 is about 4 per cent larger than the square root of 2). If I accept Lewis and Curry’s most pessimistic estimate of 1.76 degrees for a doubling, including feedbacks, that means 0.88 degrees of temperature rise from CO2 which has been emitted from 1880 up to now. So, the higher the proportion of the feedbacks which have not appeared yet (and I’d guess this is quite small; 140 years is a long time!) the higher the proportion of the close to 1 degree Celsius warming we have seen since 1880 must be due to causes other than CO2.

There is one piece of (lack of) hard evidence, which suggests that the idea of large positive feedbacks from surface warming which was caused by increased CO2 is almost certainly wrong. Calculations lead to a conclusion that feedbacks from surface warming should result in a “hot spot,” warmer than its surroundings, in the atmosphere over the tropics at about 10 to 12 kilometres altitude. Since human caused emissions of CO2 have been going on constantly for decades now, if CO2-caused warming leads to large feedbacks, there should be a permanent hot spot at this altitude. But neither weather balloons nor satellite measurements find any such hot spot, despite attempts by the alarmists to claim that it exists after all.

Moreover, the Roman and Mediaeval warm periods were, without doubt, warmer than today. Although alarmists have tried, at various times and in various ways, to air-brush them out of the record. These warm periods cannot possibly have been caused by emissions of carbon dioxide by human civilization, can they? So, the question is, what caused them? There are lots of theories, such as solar variability, lack of volcanic eruptions, and ocean oscillations bringing more warm water to the surface over a long period. But no-one knows for sure. And if we don’t know what caused these warmings, how do we know those phenomena aren’t still active, and causing, or at least contributing greatly to, the modern warming period?

What will be effects of warming on the planet and on human civilization?

Historically, human civilizations have tended to thrive during warmer periods rather than colder ones. Roman civilization flourished during a relatively warm period; yet Rome collapsed not long after it ended. There is also some evidence, further back, for a Minoan Warm Period, which coincided with the Minoan civilization up to about 1500 BC. It’s not impossible that the end of that warm period might have been a factor, not only in the fall of the Minoan civilization, but in the wider “Late Bronze Age collapse” across the region in the 12th century BC. Moreover, the early Middle Ages, as I said earlier, was the time in which commerce began expanding in southern Europe. Whereas the 14th century, during which the warm period ended, was a time of wars, diseases, and disasters in much of Europe.

But the alarmists keep on screaming about the TERRIBLE consequences if “we” don’t reduce CO2 emissions and stop the warming RIGHT NOW! Cognitive dissonance, anyone?

Yet, looking forward, wouldn’t a warmer world be likely to be a better world? And if not, why not? Fortunately, today we have a technique, a means of exploring the consequences of hypothetical situations such as a warmer world. It’s called cost-benefit analysis. Why don’t we do a cost-benefit analysis on this issue?

Why don’t we estimate, as best we can, the cost of the damage which would be caused by a particular amount of warming, if we took no action at all to reduce CO2 emissions? Then compare that with our best estimate of the costs of the mitigation approach – acting to reduce CO2 emissions just enough to avoid that amount of warming? And with our best estimate of the costs of the adaptation approach – not bothering to reduce CO2 emissions at all, but simply fixing any negative consequences of warming as and when they become problems. And the time to do such an analysis is, obviously, before any action is taken, and before huge sums of money are spent on what may well prove to be a wild goose chase.

Now, I’m in danger of getting ahead of myself here; but I can’t resist telling you a little bit about what has happened in terms of cost-benefit analysis on the “global warming” issue. Not only has no objective, unbiased cost-benefit analysis ever been done on the issue. But the UK government has taken steps, which I can only interpret as being intended to prevent such a cost-benefit analysis being done. And still, no proper cost-benefit analysis has been done.

The cost-benefit saga is a long, complicated, sorry tale, and I’ll tell it when I get to the back-story. But the only answer anyone can honestly give, even now after we’ve already suffered decades of costly climate “action,” to the question “What would be effects of X amount of warming on the planet and on human civilization?” is: “We simply don’t have a clue.”

Mitigation or adaptation?

In the absence of any proper cost-benefit analysis on the matter, the fifth accusation, that pre-emptive action to reduce CO2 emissions in order to stop warming (mitigation) is preferable to letting the warming happen and then fixing any problems as they arise (adaptation), becomes moot. Moot, in the dictionary sense of “having little or no practical relevance, typically because the subject is too uncertain to allow a decision.”

From a philosophical viewpoint, I myself tend strongly to prefer adaptation over mitigation, because it avoids spending large amounts of effort and money on what may well turn out to have been non-problems. And if no proper cost-benefit analysis has been done at all, then the case for adaptation over mitigation becomes even stronger.

Many people will have noticed that governments, particularly in the UK, have shown an increasing tendency towards a culture of over-safety, and even of “safety at any cost.” This culture subjects us to ever more, tighter and more costly restrictions on how we live our lives. It reduces our freedoms and puts us more and more under government micro-management, yet we get little or no demonstrated benefits in return.

Those that want to “mitigate” putative warming, I think, are letting themselves be driven by this culture of over-safety. Again, I’m in danger of getting ahead of myself here. But I can – and will, in the second essay – tell you about where that culture came from, and how the UK government fostered it. It’s not a pretty story.

So, is there really a climate crisis today?

At last! The sixth and last accusation is one I can (mostly) answer directly. With facts and evidence.

Climate alarmists have been making accusations against us for more than 30 years. They’ve been screaming, again and again, “we’ve got ten years to save the planet!” (Or twelve years? Or 18 months?) So, by now, if the accusations are true, we should be able to see and to measure the negative effects they claim, should we not?

If we can see all or some of these negative effects happening today, then the next question to ask is, what caused them? Is it, all or mainly, CO2 emissions from human activities? Or is it, all or mainly, other human activities, such as land use changes and the urban heat island effect? Or is it, all or mainly, processes independent of human activities? (Some like to call these “natural” processes, but I find that a misnomer; for in my view, humans are just as natural as any other species on our planet!)

What I found out in responding to the first five accusations suggests that the effects on the climate of non-human-caused processes are very significant, and that we don’t know at all how significant CO2 emissions are, or even whether they are a real problem. Not much of a “case for the prosecution” so far, even if we could see some of negative effects that they claim when we observe the real world today.

But, looking as closely as we can, are these touted negative effects evident? If not, then the idea that they are likely to happen in the future ought to be called into serious question.

The evidence

It is part of my character that I seek to follow the sage advice of Bertrand Russell. “When you are studying any matter or considering any philosophy, ask yourself only what are the facts and what is the truth that the facts bear out. Never let yourself be diverted either by what you wish to believe or by what you think would have beneficent social effects if it were believed, but look only, and solely, at what are the facts.”

So, here we go. The data and papers I link to come mostly from 2020 or 2021, a few from earlier. Not all the data is global; some of it is US specific. But even US figures do give a picture of the situation over a significant part of the globe.

Are weather disasters becoming worse and more frequent?

Global deaths from disasters such as droughts, floods and extreme weather have gone down dramatically in the last century or so: [[11]]. During which time, temperatures have risen by very close to 1 degree C. (Hover the mouse over one of the categories at the right to see that category more clearly). Deaths from extreme weather have dropped very significantly from the peak in the 1970s. Deaths from floods are now far lower than they were in the 1930s or 1950s. And deaths from droughts have come down enormously since the 1920s.

The drops in deaths from natural disasters have been even more spectacular when looked at in terms of death rates per 100,000 people: [[12]].

Global death risk from extreme weather has declined 99% over 100 years and global costs of extreme weather have declined 26% over the last 28 years: [[13]]. And the weather isn’t getting worse, as our accusers tell us it is. See [13], section 2.8, and particularly figure 17.

Are there more and worse storms and hurricanes?

Even the IPCC finds no trend in global hurricane frequency, and has low confidence in attribution of any changes in hurricane frequency to human activity: [13], section 2.6. Moreover, the USA has not seen any increase in landfalling hurricanes since 1900: [13], Figure 14.

Yearly “accumulated cyclone energy” in the Northern Hemisphere has not been increasing in the last 30 years, and it was unusually low in 2022 (33% down on the average for 1991-2020): [[14]]. The data was captured from dynamic web pages supplied by Colorado State University.

Are there more and worse floods?

Flood damage in the USA, as a proportion of Gross Domestic Product, has been trending down since 1940: [[15]]. The IPCC cannot say whether flooding on a global level is increasing or decreasing: [13], section 2.4.

Are there more and worse droughts?

Deaths from droughts, floods and extreme weather have gone down dramatically in the last century or so: [11]. The IPCC says: “there is low confidence in attributing changes in drought over global land areas since the mid-20th century to human influence.” [13], section 2.3.

As at 2012, there had been little change in global drought over the previous 60 years (Sheffield et al. 2012, referenced from [13].)

Are there more and worse wildfires?

“Many consider wildfire as an accelerating problem, with widely held perceptions both in the media and scientific papers of increasing fire occurrence, severity and resulting losses. However, important exceptions aside, the quantitative evidence available does not support these perceived overall trends.” (Doerr and Santín 2016, quoted in [13], section 2.5).

Are there more and stronger heatwaves?

In the USA at least, heat waves in the 1930s were an order of magnitude stronger than in any of the previous or subsequent decades: [[16]]. There is no apparent trend in the rest of the data.

Are there more and more people dying from heatstroke?

Looking at [11], it appears that deaths reported as caused by “extreme temperatures” have been rising since about the 1970s, peaking around the 2000s. But they are only a small proportion of deaths from all natural disasters.

In terms of deaths per population, the rise has been much less clear. Both may well be attributable to the reporting of these deaths by poor countries improving over time. So, the jury is still out on this one.

Moreover, a recent paper [[17]] analyzing data from 750 locations around the world concluded that deaths caused by cold were approximately ten times as many as deaths caused by heat. Suggesting that warming on a global scale should have a beneficial effect on human survival, rather than a negative one.

Are there millions of climate refugees?

Not that I am aware of. I certainly haven’t met one. But then, what exactly is a climate refugee?

I came across this paper from 2001: [[18]]. Oddly, it was written on behalf of a UN agency, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees. This does, however, appear to be a part of the UN which is less corrupted than most. A couple of quotes from the paper: “Practical concern with the plight of poor people leaving fragile environments has not translated into hard evidence of the extent or fundamental causes of their problems.” And: “Without a firm definition of who is an ‘environmental refugee’ it is not easy to say that this category of people is increasing.”

I’m with the paper’s author on this one. I won’t believe anything I hear about “climate refugees” without evidence that they exist, that there are a lot of them, and that their plight is due to human-caused climate change, not to war, political oppression, or anything else.

Is Arctic sea ice disappearing fast?

At its yearly summer minimum, Arctic sea ice reached a low point in 2012. But by 2021 and 2022, it had rebounded to around 50% above that value: [[19]]. (Click on 2021 and 2022 to see those lines on the graph).

Are thousands of polar bears dying because low sea ice means they can’t find food?

We keep on hearing stories about polar bear populations declining abruptly. But these stories aren’t always what they may seem. See this report: [[20]], and note the caveat. “Scientists caution a direct link between the population decline and sea ice loss in Hudson Bay wasn’t yet clear.” See also this: [[21]].

The world-wide polar bear population has risen from about 10,000 in the 1960s to 26,000 now. This estimate comes from the IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature): [[22]]. One polar bear expert has estimated 32,000 bears: [[23]], see particularly Figure 3.

Are sea levels rising fast?

Sea levels have been rising for 12,000 years, since the last Ice Age. Most of that was obviously not caused by human-caused CO2 emissions! As measured by tide gauges, the current rate of sea level rise varies a lot by location. This is as you would expect, since some coasts are rising, others falling. But a sea level rise of 1-3 millimetres per year is typical.

Here is a table of sea level data for 1,269 tide gauge stations spread around the world: [[24]]. Most of the data goes up to the end of 2015. The “trend” column shows the rate of sea level rise at each station in millimetres per year. The mean rate of rise was 1.65 millimetres per year, and the median 1.78. Of the 1,269, 199 show sea levels falling by more than 1 mm/year, and 215 show a rise of more than 4 mm/year.

As an aside, more than 40 years ago, I lived in the Netherlands, in a polder almost 6 metres below sea level. They have serious flood defences there! The nearest tide gauge (Maassluis) has been in operation since 1848. It is almost right in the middle of the list of stations when they are sorted by rate of sea level rise. The detail graph for the Maassluis tide gauge is here: [[25]]. It shows an average rise from 1848 to 2021 of 1.69 millimetres per year (plus or minus 0.1). At that rate, it would take around 3,500 years for sea levels to rise 6 metres!

Is the rate of sea level rise accelerating?

Satellite measurements seem to show an acceleration of sea level rise in the last 20 years or so. Tide gauges, in general, don’t. Here’s a skeptical perspective: [[26]]. In any case, the discrepancy needs to be fully explained before anyone can reasonably claim that acceleration of sea level rise is a problem.

My Dutch tide gauge shows an acceleration of 0.0041 millimetres per year per year. That’s 0.41 millimetres per year per century. So, in 100 years, the current 1.69 mm/yr might rise to 2.10 mm/yr. (Might). And Maassluis is in the top half of the 1,269 stations sorted by rate of acceleration, though not by much. Wake me up when the world is under water.

Are islands like Tuvalu being submerged?

There have been claims that low lying atolls like Tuvalu and the Maldives would become flooded and submerged by rising sea levels. But even some of the mainstream media have noticed that, on a multi-decadal scale, many of these islands are growing, not shrinking: [[27]]. 80 per cent of all the islands surveyed (including Tuvalu) were either growing, or staying about the same.

Are Antarctica and Greenland losing ice fast?

The Antarctic continent has not warmed in the last seven decades: [[28]]. For the entire continent, the winter (June to August) of 2021 was the second-coldest on record: [[29]]. So, if Antarctica is losing ice from its ice sheets, it isn’t because of warming; and surely not because of warming caused by CO2.

As to Greenland, see the “Con:” argument here: [[30]]. I quote: “the total ice loss each year is a nearly undetectable five one-thousandths of one percent (0.005 percent) of the Greenland ice mass.” At that rate, melting it all would take 20,000 years. Also see here: [[31]].

Are hundreds of thousands of square kilometres of coral reefs dying?

The biggest coral reef I know of is the Great Barrier Reef. And that seems, after an iffy period around 2012 or so, to be doing fine: [[32]].

Florida’s reefs have taken a bit of a pasting, and through human actions too. But the problem is not “global warming,” but local water pollution: [[33]]. And coral reefs are a lot more resilient to changing conditions than they are often given credit for: [[34]].

Can we grow enough food to feed the population?

Yields of most crops per area farmed have risen over the last 60 years. Wheat yields, for example, have gone up from just over 1 tonne per hectare in 1961 to almost 3.5 tonnes per hectare in 2020. And maize yields have gone up from 2 to well over 5, in the same units. You can find the data at [[35]]. Meanwhile, more carbon dioxide in the air has had a beneficial effect of “greening” the Earth: [[36]].

Sadly, there are places and times where farmers are not able to grow enough to feed local people, let alone export food. But in recent times, these problems have been caused almost exclusively by governments. It is green policies, not global warming, that have caused the famine in Sri Lanka and the troubles with farmers in the Netherlands!

Hubert Lamb’s warning

I recently read an interesting account of the life and work of Hubert Lamb, one of the earliest “climatologists” and the first director of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia: [[37]]. In his later years, he became rather skeptical of the idea that humans were causing catastrophic global warming.

In 1994, in the journal of the World Meteorological Organization, Lamb left for posterity the following warning. “A precarious and threatening situation has developed for climatology. A tremendous effort was made to land research funds in all countries, mostly the USA, on the basis of frightening people about the possible drastic effect of Man’s activities. And so much has been said about climate warming, that there will be an awkward situation if the warming doesn’t happen, or not to the extent predicted.”

Hubert Lamb was right; but I think he understated his case. As I’ve shown above, the drastic effects, which have been predicted from warming caused by emissions of carbon dioxide from human activities, aren’t in evidence today. Thirty years on from the Rio summit which triggered all the oppressive green policies, the argument that the bad effects are “baked in” already, but we just can’t see them yet, is losing any semblance of credibility. As the bad policies really start to bite into the rights and freedoms of ordinary people, there is indeed an “awkward situation.” Not just for climatologists, but for all those that have jumped on the “climate change” bandwagon, and used it either for personal gain, or as an excuse to carry out political aggressions against innocent people.

To sum up

Whatever alarmists may say, I for one don’t see any evidence for a “climate crisis.” Still less is there any hard evidence that emissions of CO2 from human civilization are causing any climate problems at all. Nor is it at all certain that any amount of reduction in CO2 emissions would achieve any improvement in the climate.

The alarmists, in order to argue that there is a climate problem, require that the surface warming directly caused by having more CO2 in the atmosphere is dwarfed by the “feedbacks” to this direct warming through other processes, notably water vapour and clouds. But many skeptics, including experts such as Richard Lindzen, do not agree. They think these feedbacks may even be negative. Moreover, an empirical estimate of long term climate response, including feedbacks, by Nic Lewis and Judith Curry suggests that the effects of CO2 on climate are way less than even the lower bound of the range given by the IPCC. The absence of a permanent “hot spot” at about 10 to 12 kilometres up in the atmosphere also suggests the feedbacks from warming induced by CO2 cannot be large.

The alarmists, I think, have caught themselves in a trap here. The effects of 1 degree of warming over 140 years have not been catastrophic. Why, then, should we suppose that the effects of at least one more similar warming would be any worse? That defies both common sense and history. The effects of the warming into the Roman and Mediaeval Warm Periods, and out of the Little Ice Age, weren’t bad, were they?

Of course, the alarmists will probably try to scare us by telling us that equilibration is slow, and there’s a lot more warming yet to come, which is already “baked in” from past CO2 emissions. But that would imply that a lot of the last 140 years of warming is due to factors other than CO2. The alarmists are wrong, either way.

In my view, the entire “global warming” and “climate change” accusation is a total fraud. Those that have peddled and are peddling it are traitors to human civilization. In addition, they are causing severe mental damage to many young people, through spreading lies, fear and scares. They deserve to be brought to justice, made to compensate all those they harmed, and duly punished as traitors deserve.

Those who have been bamboozled into believing there is a climate problem at all, let alone a crisis, need to look at the facts, evaluate them, and reach their own conclusions. They must stop fearing anything that hasn’t been proven to be a real threat. And they must stop accepting guilt for anything, without proof of their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. They also need to stop deferring to politicians, “authority” figures, “experts” and the mainstream media. Instead, they must use their own judgement, and spread the truth on the matter, as best they understand it, to all those they can.






































4.9 35 votes
Article Rating
Notify of
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Tom Halla
March 14, 2023 3:22 pm

A decent review article that will make no impression on the True Believers.

Neil Lock
Reply to  Tom Halla
March 15, 2023 3:06 am

Tom (and Graemethecat below, too):

My target audience for this article wasn’t the alarmist side. I am directing this towards ordinary people, who may not have taken all that much interest in the issue so far, and are just starting to wake up to how costly, in both money and freedom, the policies being ramped up now will be if we don’t stop them.

A very wise man once told me, “Don’t try to talk to your enemies. Talk about them.”

Reply to  Neil Lock
March 15, 2023 3:47 am

Ordinary people have up to 40 years of experience with actual global warming from 1975 to 2015. They know it was harmless. They do not know that climate howlers incorrectly predicted much faster warming every year since 1979.

They have no idea there was no global warming since 2015 (UAH data). In the US, people have no idea the average temperature has declined since 2015 (NOAA’s USCRN).

There is a huge gap between wrong predictions of climate doom and actual pleasant global warming that most people did not even notice. I noticed here in Michigan USA — our winters are not as cold as in the 1970s and there is much less snow. In colder states, and colder nations, global warming is good news. People do not have to know any climate science to know that.

William Howard
Reply to  Richard Greene
March 15, 2023 12:56 pm

nor do they know that there was a mini-ice age that ended in 1860 or so and hello when an ice age ends the earth warms

Steve Case
Reply to  Richard Greene
March 15, 2023 9:25 am

 “People do not have to know any climate science to know that.”

Regarding the “not as cold” winters, you don’t even need a thermometer.

At least that’s true for those of us on the west shore of the lake(-:

Phillip Bratby
Reply to  Neil Lock
March 15, 2023 3:52 am

I agree. Over 40 years ago I heard an excellent after-dinner speech by Prof Hal Lewis, who said you have to talk to normal people, not to fanatics who will never change their opinions.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Neil Lock
March 15, 2023 5:24 am

“A very wise man once told me, “Don’t try to talk to your enemies. Talk about them.””

I like that. As a forester for 50 years, I’ve often tried talking to people who hate forestry and who want to lock up all the forests- which is now a big movement beginning in Wokachusetts- it’s called “proforestation”- the purpose of which is to “save the Earth and biodiversity”. I’ve been trying to talk to forestry haters all this 50 years with little success.

Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
March 15, 2023 10:03 am

 “save the Earth and biodiversity”
So many rocks could be thrown at the thought process behind those words.

Reply to  Neil Lock
March 15, 2023 7:02 am

My son in law is a transportation engineer and lectures on sustainable transport. Full credit to him for mostly practising what he preaches . However when I tell him that renewables don’t work when the sun doesn’t shine and the wind doesn’t blow he refuses to apply his engineering brain to the practicalities of achieving fossil free Net Zero.
on climatic affairs such as you have detailed above, I urge him to look at the data but he is just not interested ” I don’t need to look at the data myself. We have experts to do that and report in peer reviewed papers” That mindset probably is the province of the Engineer. I am a petroleum geologist and our mindset on starting a new project is ” whatever work was done on this basin was performed by idiots who were both dishonest and incompetent” Mostly that statement is not true but it is a good starting point for your own work until you can verify the work of your predecessors.
Getting through to even well educated and mainly rational people is difficult. Never mind those who dont have the analytical skills to evaluate “The Science” as they like to call the holy writ.
I guess we may have to borrow from XR’s playbook though I anticipate Thuggish brutality from Plod in response rather than dancing Macarenas

Reply to  alastairgray29yahoocom
March 16, 2023 7:26 am

It sounds like your son, is a theoretical engineer, not a practical one. Engineers, who’ve had practical experience at the “coalface” tend to be more pragmatic, and rely less on the theory.

Reply to  alastairgray29yahoocom
March 16, 2023 12:08 am

That mindset probably is the province of the Engineer.

I know we are talking about your own son here, so I will just mention that that is not the engineering mindset. As a matter of fact, we ridicule people who trust without verification. As you rightly said, everybody that touched the project before me, was a raving idjit, until my measurements (starting with an overview of all the available documentation) prove otherwise.
Real engineers laugh derisively when they hear nonsense like ” information overload”…but in a world where merit has been replaced by feelings, it seems the intellectually overloaded woke engineering talk show host is right at home….

William Howard
Reply to  alastairgray29yahoocom
March 15, 2023 12:58 pm

that’s why it is considered to be a religion

Reply to  alastairgray29yahoocom
March 15, 2023 10:07 am

Food, water shelter. He has bigger worries than 1C in 140 years

Reply to  alastairgray29yahoocom
March 15, 2023 8:40 am

Not a real engineer then, more of a town planner.

Reply to  Neil Lock
March 15, 2023 8:42 am

A useful summary of the subject. The IPCC is a global warming advocacy group and is only required to look for the human source of warming.

Reply to  gezza1298
March 15, 2023 11:38 pm

Yes, Fourty years and $20bn later and they still can’t do that properly either.

Reply to  gezza1298
March 15, 2023 10:13 am

The IPCC is a global warming advocacy group and is only required to look for the human source of warming.

If you think about it in those terms, what do you expect from someone who has developed AGW expertise for 20+ years and still has bills to pay? What a position they are in. Professors who “know better” should be leaning hard on tenure. Public/private employees subject to economic consequences of waking up on the wrong team? Ouch.

Steve Case
Reply to  gezza1298
March 15, 2023 9:36 am

Yep, Right there in the third reference above:

2. “Climate change” means a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods. 

Reply to  Neil Lock
March 15, 2023 12:23 pm

I have been doing that increasingly to show what they irrationally ignore and to expose their gross inability to answer the CONTENT of articles I post.

This is a benefit to fence sitters and people who spend little time on this topic to realize there is a class of people (Warmist/alarmists) who are not honest and refuses to address the contrary information at all which includes Willis Eschenbach’s great article WHERE IS THE CLIMATE EMERGENCY? that has sent them into total avoidance as if it is holy water not a single counterpoint to the CONTENT of the article has happened this after 900 plus posts in several FORUMS, I have posted it in.

Example: Where Is The “Climate Emergency”? | – Forum for US and Intl Politics

Last edited 11 days ago by Sunsettommy
Reply to  Neil Lock
March 15, 2023 4:11 pm

Thanks for the excellent article and summary. It pretty much touches on all the key trigger points.

Some people here seem to be critical that it won’t change the true believers, or that the greenhouse effect is not valid, so what’s the point of discussion?

I disagree with that premise. I am active on social media “the worlds town square” and the information and references here are valuable to all those debating in the square. A few more visuals would be good, but they are out there anyway with a quick search.

It is correct that most true believers won’t be changed, for many, it’s how they make their living. But that’s not the target audience. We need to focus on the people in the streets, the ones that are feeling the pinch from higher energy costs, increased government control, drop in lifestyle etc. People realise something is going on and they are not comfortable with it. They suspect the climate change alarmism is a scam, but have no background to prove it. Focussing on the real-world non-effects is a good place to start.

The strategy of focussing on “show me the emergency” is a good way to to keep the alarmists in their box, they can shout emergency all they like, but when pushed to document key facts & data, their house of cards is found wanting. This is were a lot of focus need to go in my opinion.

We need to keep pushing back on them, reminding them the burden of proof is on their side, not ours.

We can debate the science of cause and effect till the cows come home, but at the end of the day, if there are no documented real-world emergencies, then their science is wrong, and even a ten year old can debate a PhD on those rules of engagement.

Looking forward to part II

Neil Lock
Reply to  diggs
March 16, 2023 2:52 am

“The burden of proof is on their side, not ours.”

Absolutely right, Diggs. And they have gone to considerable (and very dishonest) lengths in their attempts to push the burden of proof on to our side. All that will be in Part Two.

Reply to  Tom Halla
March 15, 2023 6:21 am

This article needs graphs with temp scale from -20F to plus 120F for y-axis and 1900, about the year the industrial age took off to 2020 for x-axis.
If you want to use 1945, that is fine with me.

Those graphs would show the minuscule increase in temperature

Don’t use any graph that shows 0.1F.
Roy Spencer does show 0.1F graphs
They are totally meaningless.
No one can feel anything less than 2F

Last edited 12 days ago by wilpost
Reply to  wilpost
March 15, 2023 7:17 am

Here’s are three good historical temperature charts, that do not mislead, unlike the hysterical anomaly charts, in C. F. and K. degrees:

Honest Climate Science and Energy Blog: Global warming and CO2 levels with honest charts

Last edited 12 days ago by Richard Greene
Reply to  Richard Greene
March 15, 2023 7:46 pm

Richard Greene:

Is possible to comment on your blog?

I had attempted to post a comment, but was told that I was not authorized to comment.

Reply to  BurlHenry
March 15, 2023 8:36 pm

No comments allowed, but you can say something here.
My goal is to read short articles for four hours each morning and spend no more than an hour listing the best articles I’ve read on my blog. Once in a while I write a climate rap — I did today and posted it here.

Policing comments would be extra work, so I have not allowed them since I started blogging in 2008. I can imagine some leftists discovering my conservative blog and posting the usual leftist claptrap. … I’m retired since 2005, and am allergic to work — you can as the wife.

Honest Climate Science and Energy Blog

Reply to  Richard Greene
March 16, 2023 6:47 am

Richard Greene:

“no comments allowed, but you can say something here”

Yes, but you rarely respond to my comments. I wonder why.

See, for example, my comment of 8:23 pm, below. No response

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  wilpost
March 15, 2023 7:56 am

More to the point, most of the “instrument temperature record” was recorded using liquid in glass thermometers in FULL DEGREE increments. So showing temperature changes in tenths of a degree is nonsense, the data is not that “fine” to begin with.

Reply to  AGW is Not Science
March 15, 2023 8:39 pm

And not that many thermometers used in the 1800’s especially in the Southern Hemisphere.

And those buckets and thermometers used by sailors to measure ocean temperatures. That’s real precise ! I wonder if there is a temperature adjustment for the time spent by a sailor smoking a cigarette before he measured the water temperature?

Reply to  AGW is Not Science
March 15, 2023 10:21 am

Hits the biggest issue – how many super smart scientists would take how many years to reach a valid conclusion by looking at not enough data?
If there were really not enough data the answer is an infinite number of super smart scientists could spend infinite years guessing. Being super smart, they’d know it.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  wilpost
March 15, 2023 12:35 pm

No one can feel anything less than 2F

And then probably only if there is an abrupt change such as a wind gust or touching two surfaces made of the same material but at different temperatures.

When I get a chance I’ll look into the Just Noticeable Difference for temperature for humans. I suspect it will differ for different parts of the body. It will probably also vary with the rate of change.

Reply to  Tom Halla
March 15, 2023 11:29 pm

We are not really aiming at the ‘true believers’ but the general public and ignorant politicians who have foisted the climate mess on us all.Get the public to understand they have been conned then heaven help these politicians and public servants who still want to push this climate crap. They deserve punishment!

March 15, 2023 2:47 am

This is an excellent summary of the true nature of the Climate “Crisis”. Unfortunately, it won’t do much good as we are confronted with a modern millennial cult which is by its very nature utterly impervious to facts and evidence.

Reply to  Graemethecat
March 15, 2023 6:04 am

Is it impervious to novel forms of protest?

“By walking around inside the Ulez zone with the numberplate strapped to his back, Coban says it will be picked up by cameras and trigger a fine which upon review will have to be repealed.

“Why make their [those working on Ulez] lives easy when they are making my life hard?” he told MyLondon. “I’ve seen people talk about smashing the Ulez cameras but I don’t want to do anything illegal.

“But these changes are destroying my livelihood”

Reply to  strativarius
March 15, 2023 10:26 am

Is it right to do wrong things to defend a career? What if there’s no law against some wrong things? What if some wrong things are creative and amusing? What if some wrong things are plausibly beneficial?

Reply to  Graemethecat
March 15, 2023 11:47 pm

Yes, that’s why we have to hit them in their hip pocket. Then they may take notice.
Otherwise, it’s the hard way with energy blackouts, so their technology won’t work, their phones run out of charge and their EV’s stall.

March 15, 2023 3:09 am

This article is a good summary of what, I expect, all followers of this site already know. Preaching to the converted. Unfortunately, none of the people (be they clever, and intelligent) I know who, through laziness, accept the alarmist propaganda and who I try to convince otherwise would ever be bothered to invest the time to read it and check out the excellent references. They are a lost cause. I am looking forward to part II.

Reply to  Herrnwingert
March 15, 2023 7:41 am

Part II needs to understand that when you play defense you are playing on the opponents home field and you are always behind.

Ron Long
March 15, 2023 3:20 am

A good, organized, detailed collection of data into a report, by Neil Lock, and I thank him for that. I have some of the sense expressed by Tom Halla and Graemethecat, and think the issue is that “Climate Change” is just one example of a culture deteriorating into a dysfunctional state. For example, the surgical and chemical mutilation of children to effect “gender transition” is directly horrible, tragic, and medically unethical, but is supported by the same crowd as “Climate Change”. Good luck to rational persons, your views are not welcome in this culture.

March 15, 2023 3:39 am

This is a long-winded report that does cover the politics of climate change, which is very important. But there is little data, and the numbers are not explained well. My grade is an “F” for very ineffective communication. But it is easy for me to be critical. I will now do some actual work to show a better way of influencing ordinary people about climate change. This article inspired my climate rap. so that’s good.

Here’s what really needs to be said:

The prediction of rapid, dangerous manmade global warming began with the 1979 Charney Report. The prediction, called ECS, was for 200 to 400 years in the future. Almost everyone, however, assumes the prediction is for 50 to 100 years in the future. There is an alternative prediction for 70 years in the future: TCS. The TCS prediction is for about half the global warming as the ECS prediction. … No long-term climate prediction in history has ever been correct — these are just guesses for far in the future.

There was modest, harmless global warming from 1975 to 2015. It mainly affected colder nations in the Northern Hemisphere, mainly in the winter and mainly at night. Most people did not notice the warming because most people do not live in colder nations, and most people are sleeping at night when the warming was the greatest. Those who did notice observed slightly warmer winters.

There was no global warming from 2015 to 2023, in spite of the largest eight years of manmade CO2 emissions in history. That’s evidence CO2 emissions do not control the temperature of our planet.

There are many causes of climate change, both natural and manmade. Natural causes were the only causes of climate change for 4.5 billion years. Manmade causes were introduced about a century ago. No one knows exactly how much global warming from 1975 to 2015 had manmade causes.

Most climate science questions have the correct answer of “We don’t know that yet”. But a lot of people falsely claim they have all the answers. They want to blame humans for global warming and claim the warming is dangerous. Meanwhile the people living with warming — over seven billion people — barely noticed it.

The climate change advocates want to tell everyone how to live. Reality that climate change is nothing more than a prediction of climate doom that has been wrong since 1979. An invisible boogeyman abused by governments to seize more power and control over the private sector of the economy. Which means you.

Scary climate predictions, wrong for the past 42 years, are not climate reality. Climate reality is that the warming from 1975 to 2015 made the climate more comfortable in colder nations. The only disappointment for them is that the warming stopped eight years ago.

The plants on our planet are not disappointed — they grow better with more CO2 in the atmosphere, so our planet is greening. If we could ask plants questions, most would ask for at least double the current CO2 level. At a current level of 420ppm CO2, and rising 2.5ppm per year, that doubling of CO2 would take 168 years. And if we are lucky, in 168 years the colder nations might be a little warmer in the winter. And that would be more good news.

We should be celebrating climate change, not fearing it.

Last edited 12 days ago by Richard Greene
Reply to  Richard Greene
March 15, 2023 4:11 am

Manmade causes were introduced about a century ago.”

And your proof of that is what exactly?

Reply to  strativarius
March 15, 2023 5:34 am

AGW is:

Urbanization (UHI)

Land use changes

CO2 emissions

Air pollution

Adjustments to raw temperature data that increase warming

Nothing written will ever change your mind so that’s my limit.

Last edited 12 days ago by Richard Greene
Reply to  Richard Greene
March 15, 2023 6:00 am

“Manmade causes were introduced about a century ago.””

I had hoped you might realise your faux pas, but you doubled down, instead

AGW is:”

A figment of the imagination.

Reply to  strativarius
March 15, 2023 7:21 am

I own a Stradivarius violin
My violin teacher says it’s a fake
If it is, I’m out $99

Ben Vorlich
Reply to  Richard Greene
March 15, 2023 4:23 am

I was looking at this article on the BBC Website yesterday and my 13 year old grandson was reading over my shoulder. When he saw the chart on “How The World Makes Electricity is Changing” he said “that’s good” so I asked what was good. It was the rapid rise of solar.

With the aid of Germany’s Coming Green Energy “Economic Miracle” on WUWT I showed him that the BBC wasn’t telling him the full story

Reply to  Ben Vorlich
March 15, 2023 5:36 am

Next time say:

“Is that true, or did you read it on the BBC website?”

Tell your son the climate changed every year of his life and ask him if he noticed. Tell him the climate is always getting colder or warmer, for the past 4.5 billion years.

Ask him if he prefers warmer or colder — those are the only two choices. If you two are in the UK, I imagine the answer will be “warmer”. In my two visits to England, it didn’t seem very warm to me.

Last edited 12 days ago by Richard Greene
Reply to  Ben Vorlich
March 15, 2023 7:11 am

Watch out Mountain man. Your children may cancel your influence on the wee ones.
I fear to speak logic to mine lest my Guardianista children cancel me as a bad influence

Reply to  Richard Greene
March 15, 2023 7:08 am

I think you are unfair to Neill. However your points are all valid. Do you have a way of influencing either the masses or our political masters?

Reply to  alastairgray29yahoocom
March 15, 2023 7:32 am

Masses (mainly leftists) who believe in a coming climate change crisis did not develop those beliefs with facts, data and logic. So their beliefs can not be changed with facts, data and logic. That strategy HAS BEEN TRIED FOR 40 YEARS AND FAILED. Minds have to be changed with emotions. Ther appeal to government authority logical fallacy has to be attacked. Here’s how:

What people know is they have lived with climate change every year of their lives and probably didn’t notice.

What people don’t know is every prediction of environmental doom since the 1960s (and probably for centuries before that) has been WRONG

We have to show the difference between Climate Reality and always wrong predictions of climate doom. That should be easy, and does not require much science knowledge.

LIST about 50 wrong predictions of environmental doom since the 1960s, and exactly who said them (names and positions at the time of the statements).

Ridicule the scientists and professors who made the predictions. Avoid too many predictions by politicians like Al Bore because they can’t be expected to know science.

We own the actual climate

They own the always wrong predictions

Throw those wrong prediction in their faces.

Because climate change is nothing more than a prediction of climate doom that has been wrong since 1979.

CAGW does not exist
CAGW is only a consistently wrong prediction.

When I was young, my parents taught me that predictions are almost always wrong, So when I started reading climate science in 1997, after one hour I dismissed the 100 year climate predictions as climate astrology. Unfortunately, a lot of people believe predictions that follow the words “Scientists say” are correct.

Last edited 12 days ago by Richard Greene
Reply to  Richard Greene
March 15, 2023 12:30 pm

AGW conjecture is a failure as Hot Spot and Positive Feedback Loop doesn’t exist.

It has been over 30 years now and still the benchmark for the AGW conjecture never shows up.

Anyone still pimping it are in it for the $$$ and control.

Reply to  Sunsettommy
March 15, 2023 8:43 pm

AGW conjecture is a failure as Hot Spot and Positive Feedback Loop doesn’t exist.

Tough to explain to ordinary people.
Better to quote past climate predictions and show they were 100% wrong.

Reply to  Richard Greene
March 15, 2023 10:28 am

A very long response to “This is a long-winded report“.

Reply to  KevinM
March 15, 2023 8:45 pm

My climate rap was far shorter and easier to read than the article. I used bold font for the main points. Someone who wanted to skim through the comment could do so in one minute..

Last edited 11 days ago by Richard Greene
John Oliver
Reply to  Richard Greene
March 15, 2023 9:56 pm

I think Neil’s article is a good summary for skeptics (intellectually honest) people such as ourselves of a complex subject. But your approach is probably more effective by far in the real world of trying to stop the sheep from following each other off the cliff.

Reply to  Richard Greene
March 15, 2023 8:23 pm

Richard Greene:

If you haven’t noticed, California and adjacent areas have recently been subjected to repeated flooding and snowfalls attributed to “Atmospheric Rivers”

Atmospheric Rivers always follow droughts, which are caused by a reduction in the amount of SO2 aerosol moisture nucleation in the atmosphere, usually due to an absence of volcanic eruptions, but also due to current efforts to ban the burning of fossil fuels, with their SO2 aerosol emissions.

The cleaner our air becomes, the warmer it will get, and the wilder our climate will become. We are probably beyond the point of no return, so yes, we DO have a climate crisis.

See my article “The Cause of Atmospheric Rivers”:

Reply to  Richard Greene
March 15, 2023 11:57 pm

Richard, you are too harsh on Lock. Give him his time with phase 11 before laying into him, even though you support his thesis, or do you just want to write it for him?
The man is doing his best- which is all we can ask for- his heart and mind is in the right place, he wants to rid us of this dire climate cult, good for him!

Neil Lock
Reply to  bobclose
March 16, 2023 2:56 am

Thank you Bob, it is this kind of comment that makes all the work worth while.

March 15, 2023 3:56 am

“Regrettably, the material I had was too much and too detailed” That isn’t something you can accuse the alarmists of.

“all hang in the balance” Now, that is an illusion. We know where this is going. Parliament and the school houses (LibLabConEtc) are not going to buck the global[ist] trend. Quite the reverse, they’re wedded to doing it even faster – eg Jonathan Ashworth….

Outside my window? A bog standard chilly March day. It might make the indoctrinated anxious, but then that’s a modern education for you. Primarily its focus is on… the ‘Induction of Psycho-Neuroses by Conditioned Reflex under Stress’.

And isn’t it doing well.

“Climate anxiety: Survey for BBC Newsround shows children losing sleep over climate change and the environment”

You reap what you sow. And where school children are concerned, the climate is but one front to attack and confuse on.

Ben Vorlich
Reply to  strativarius
March 15, 2023 4:29 am

Who are these children who are losing sleep?. I see five grandchildren in various combinations several times a week. None seem to be losing sleep about anything.

Reply to  Ben Vorlich
March 15, 2023 4:49 am

The population is not homogeneous. Decades of propaganda from media and what is “taught” in schools have an impact on a proportion. I doubt you get the same level of indoctrination in Arundel as you do in Lambeth, but the direction of travel is the same.

Young people who feel “hopeless and paralysed” by fears about climate change need help and support, mental health experts have said.
Place2Be – a charity offering counselling in schools – said the issue was becoming “more and more prominent”. – BBC


Climate anxiety and dissatisfaction with government responses are widespread in children and young people in countries across the world and impact their daily functioning. A perceived failure by governments to respond to the climate crisis is associated with increased distress. There is an urgent need for further research into the emotional impact of climate change on children and young people and for governments to validate their distress by taking urgent action on climate change.

And there is an agenda against parents in many schools

 “As the Head Teacher of Goldfinch Primary in Streatham (Lambeth) said to me recently, “We are the calm in the chaos of home lives”.  – place2be

Count yourself lucky, Ben.

Last edited 12 days ago by strativarius
Neil Lock
Reply to  strativarius
March 15, 2023 5:34 am

Strativarius, the Lancet study you link to has already been covered here at WUWT, about 2 weeks ago if I remember right. That study was funded by AVAAZ, as one commenter pointed out on that thread. You need only look at their home page to see that AVAAZ is an extreme climate alarmist organization. The woman that crossed London during the height of lockdown to see Professor Neil Ferguson also worked for AVAAZ.

And if very many children really are suffering anguish due to what they are told about climate change, guess who is proselytizing climate alarmism to schoolchildren in the UK?–2. The linked policy paper is informative, too. All this looks more than a bit Orwellian – trying to get at the parents through the children.

Reply to  Neil Lock
March 15, 2023 6:02 am

They take their lesson from Goebbels – and he was pretty good at what he did.

Last edited 12 days ago by strativarius
Reply to  strativarius
March 16, 2023 12:30 am

Bernays. Stop attributing things to executed people who never had a chance to defend themselves, and look at those he quoted, but then got blamed for. Near every word ever written about Goebels was a commentary on the very effective international propaganda campaign run at the time, by Bernays et cie.
The entire Goebels/ Mengele/ hollowness is a perpetual freakshow looping over and over, so you never think to talk about the most dangerous threat to globalist enslavement ever devised, namely an economics policy that put the needs of society and the nation in general, above the greed of those who want to impoverish us to the point where we beg for the comforts of a slave.
They burned 40 million people, alive, to distract you from asking valid questions about the current economic model, which is various forms of monopolist usury culminating in communism and slavery.

Reply to  strativarius
March 15, 2023 10:35 am

Demonstrating that media and academia can’t be trusted makes media and academia problematic sources for supporting other arguments.

March 15, 2023 4:11 am

lol.. “Now, there’s a plausible scientific hypothesis that says that greenhouse gases, including CO2, do cause some warming.” — unless and until an analysis is done that realizes that the greenhouse gas theory is built on turn of the 20th century flawed science that is incompatabile with the physical reality of earth’s climate machine, then there is no further reason to offer counter-point arguments to the climate alarmists’ agenda since one has already bought into their flawed theory.

Reply to  vinceram
March 15, 2023 5:50 am

At least 99.9% of scientists, including almost every “skeptic” scientist, believe a greenhouse exists and CO2 is part of it. The only flaw is your beliefs, being in the 0.1% is being with science frauds like Ed Berry and Murray Salby. Grow up and learn some climate science. There is a greenhouse effect and CO2 is part of it. The greenhouse is beneficial and so is CO2 enrichment of the troposphere.

You will change no minds by claiming there’s no greenhouse effect, and that manmade CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. It’s time for conservative science deniers to wise up. We are seriously losing the climate scaremongering debate.

A small amount of AGW is good science with evidence. It is CAGW that is imaginary non-science, data-free scaremongering. Climate change is CAGW. I

If you deny any manmade effects on the climate (a few elements of AGW are listed in my earlier short comment) than you are not helping the cause of refuting CAGW.

It is reasonable to claim that CO2 above 400ppm is a weak greenhouse gas that will be harmless if the concentration increases. It is not reasonable to deny a greenhouse effect.

Last edited 12 days ago by Richard Greene
Richard M
Reply to  Richard Greene
March 15, 2023 7:46 am

Silly strawman. Learn some atmospheric physics. Your continued attacks on real skeptics is tiring.

Last edited 12 days ago by Richard M
Reply to  Richard M
March 15, 2023 10:23 am

Only stupid people claim there is no greenhouse effect and CO2 emissions are not a cause of any climate change. Why should I treat stupid people with respect?

If you are so smart, post your own alleged knowledge of atmospheric physics, assuming you have such knowledge, that refutes the greenhouse effect and refutes CO2 as one of many climate change variables.

Your generic character attack is a symptom of someone who has nothing of value to add. You imply having atmospheric physics knowledge. So prove it.

I sign my actual name to every comment If you don’t like my comments, then why read them?

In what way have you helped us win the public debate over the alleged coming climate crisis?

What have you done to refute CAGW?

Deny the greenhouse effect?
Deny that CO2 is a greenhouse gas?
How will that change minds?

Last edited 11 days ago by Richard Greene
Reply to  Richard Greene
March 15, 2023 7:54 am

I totally agree with you. In fact a few posts further down I used those thoughts to express a different approach to explaining why further growth in CO2 poses very limited danger.

Reply to  DWM
March 15, 2023 10:26 am

That’s what the best “skeptic” scientists say.
There is a greenhouse effect
CO2 is a greenhouse gas
CO2 above 400ppm is a weak greenhouse gas and harmless.

Reply to  Richard Greene
March 15, 2023 10:07 am

Dick says:”Ther appeal to government authority logical fallacy has to be attacked.“

You then start out your above reply with an appeal to authority logical fallacy with the 99.9% line.

Angstrom said CO2 couldn’t do any warming. He knew what he was talking about didn’t he?

Reply to  mkelly
March 15, 2023 10:35 am

Your problem is to assume a scientific consensus is always wrong if you don’t agree with it. Sometimes the consensus is right.

When I tell people who are not scientists that they are in a 0.1% minority on the most basic AGW climate science, I want them to realize how difficult it would be to change minds.
For AGW deniers It’s 999 to 1 against you.

The best CAGW survey I’ve seen (in 2022) showed 59% of scientists believed in CAGW. A lot different than 999 to 1
For CAGW deniers it’s 59 to 41 against us.

Which battle is the one with the best chance of winning?

Refute AGW?
999 to 1 ?


Refute CAGW?
59 to 41 ?

Last edited 11 days ago by Richard Greene
Reply to  Richard Greene
March 15, 2023 6:03 pm

Relax You take this stuff too seriously. The only part that CO2 plays in a greenhouse is as plant food.

100% of the ethical scientist will agree that the greenhouse gas “theory” is just that, a theory, and I guess you’ll say that you have models to prove it? lol. Better yet.. why don’t you point to the experiments by Arrhenius and Tyndall while you’re at it.. is the atmosphere like a glass jar? lol

The problem with your “consensus” is that it can sense us.. the skeptics, who use real world understanding of how complex machines work. And the earth and it’s climate is a complex machine. so stuff that into your IPCC report.

Reply to  vinceram
March 15, 2023 8:51 pm

100% of the ethical scientist will agree that the greenhouse gas “theory” is just that, a theory,

That is a false statement
Prove that it is true

Reply to  Richard Greene
March 16, 2023 1:04 am

That is a self-evident fact, my friend. Climate “science” is not a science, since the basic scientific method is not being applied — if it were, then “repeatability” of experimental results would be a central tenet of the field. Any scientist that denies this fact is not ethical.

I am not implying that certain gases do not absorb/emit LWIR, but that is not “proof” of the GHG theory.

Name a single actual physical experiment that demonstrates the greenhouse gas effect? I’m waiting…? Still waiting.. oh. oh… I have one: place an ice cube in a glass of water to see if the temperature of the water increases. lol

Reply to  Richard Greene
March 16, 2023 7:00 am

Richard Greene:

You insist that warming due to increased CO2 levels is a fact.

Outside the greenhouse, please give an example where our climate has CLEARLY warmed due to increased CO2 levels.

It is just an unproven hypothesis!

Richard M
Reply to  vinceram
March 15, 2023 7:41 am

Precisely. Climate skeptics continue to accept the false narrative that CO2 increases will lead to warming simply because CO2 absorbs energy. Not true. The energy absorbed by CO2 is used to drive the hydrologic cycle. There is no warming. This was described by Dr. William Gray long ago.

The increases in downward IR at the surface, which comes from the atmospheric boundary layer, lead to increased evaporation. After all, about 75-80% of the photons end up striking a molecule of H2O. Since water vapor is lighter than the vast majority of atmospheric molecules, these increases directly enhance convection. Basic atmospheric physics.

Enhanced convection drives upward air currents higher into the upper troposphere. Since it gets colder the higher up the air travels, this will extract more of the water vapor via condensation. This is the real purpose. You now get more clouds and more rain. However, there is another side effect.

You end up with less water vapor in the upper troposphere. This has been tracked by reductions in both 300 mb and 600 mb humidity levels. Since water vapor’s greenhouse effect is saturated low in the atmosphere, the only place the concentration matters is high in the troposphere. As a result the overall greenhouse effect from water vapor is reduced

This is why Miskolczi 2010 finds no change in the total opacity of the atmosphere. The increase in CO2 opacity is balanced by a decrease in water vapor opacity. As a result, no warming occurs.

Reply to  Richard M
March 15, 2023 8:38 am

You do know that Dr. Spencer has criticized Miskolczi’s report saying in part “If this statement was true, then IR radiative transfers cannot change the temperature of anything, and Earth’s natural greenhouse effect cannot exist.”

The statement is “for..two regions (or bodies) A and B, the rate of flow of radiation emitted by A and absorbed by B is equal to the rate of flow the other way, regardless of other forms of (energy) transport that may be occurring.”

Richard M
Reply to  DWM
March 15, 2023 2:51 pm

Dr. Spencer appeared to have misunderstood the paper. The quote he referred to is a definition. Miskolczi is claiming this is an equilibrium situation. The atmosphere will rarely be at equilibrium but is always trying to find it. Over time this becomes the average.

In fact, Kirchhoff’s Law of Radiation is why this holds and why the atmosphere is always trying to achieve equilibrium. Sorry you were led astray by Dr Spencer’s error.

Reply to  Richard M
March 15, 2023 8:09 pm

I read Miskolczi’s papers when they were published. He is a very smart atmospheric physicist who published a very plausible theory about the limits to the GHE. I, and no doubt like many others, wanted to accept his work even though I didn’t understand it very well. But over time the critics won the argument and his theory has been discarded.

Last edited 11 days ago by DWM
Reply to  Richard M
March 15, 2023 10:38 am

You have an unconventional explanation of the atmosphere
I believe it is claptrap.

Richard M
Reply to  Richard Greene
March 15, 2023 2:58 pm

Yes, my view is not what you’ve read. It’s still correct. Your error is believing all the “claptrap” being put out by those without any basic understanding of atmospheric science. Even climate scientists are starting to catch on. They’re still wrong, but they quit believing in magical downward IR fluxes.

Maybe you should quit pushing archaic nonsense. Miskolczi was right and Dr. Gray was mostly right. You are wrong.

Reply to  Richard M
March 15, 2023 8:54 pm

And I suppose
Dr. Spencer is wrong?
Dr, Lindzen is wrong?
William Happer is wrong?

And lab spectroscopy since the late 1800s discovered properties of CO2 that ONLY happen in a lab, but completely reverse themselves in the atmosphere?

Your theories are a claptrap.

Richard M
Reply to  Richard Greene
March 16, 2023 5:45 am

Well, let’s see. If you ask your first 3 questions to climate scientists they would probably all say “yes” . I thought you were into a consensus? Guess it’s only when a view supports your opinion.

I’ve accepted the general spectroscopy. However, you seem to be unaware that almost all the lab work disagrees with most other lab work. There’s really no consensus. Once again you fail to understand the basics.

It’s pretty obvious you haven’t come close to understanding the scientific facts I’ve stated. You just repeat your normal denial when it doesn’t match your guesses.

Reply to  Richard M
March 15, 2023 10:45 am

“This has been tracked by reductions in both 300 mb and 600 mb humidity levels.”
Need MANY centuries-long data series to say anything relevant.

Last edited 11 days ago by KevinM
Richard M
Reply to  KevinM
March 16, 2023 5:48 am

I don’t disagree with this statement. All I can say is data collected over the past 75 years does support the view I described. It also is support by some very basic physics. The issue is one of degree. For that more data is always a good thing.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Richard M
March 15, 2023 11:18 am

The feedbacks are negative, offsetting feedbacks. Which is EXACTLY what observations support. Atmospheric CO2 levels have NO discernable influence on the Earth’s temperature.

The “hypothetical bullshit” that indicates an “effect” is based on the foundational assumption “all other things held equal.” They are not, and there is therefore no reason to “accept” the AGW hypothesis as being factual.


Reply to  AGW is Not Science
March 15, 2023 8:55 pm

Another AGW and CO2 denier who will never change one mind about CAGW.

Richard M
Reply to  Richard Greene
March 16, 2023 5:50 am

You really should learn some science before defaulting to your normal name calling routine. You obviously could not refute anything that has been stated here. So, whose the real denier?

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Richard M
March 15, 2023 12:47 pm

The increases in downward IR at the surface, which comes from the atmospheric boundary layer, lead to increased evaporation.

Only a half-truth unless you can demonstrate that the two processes exactly balance, which I doubt.

Richard M
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
March 16, 2023 6:06 am

Have you read Dr. Gray’s paper?

He explains the process based on his 60 years of experience. His description matches very simple physics. However, I think he underestimates the amount of evaporation. The NOAA data shows no change in the opacity since 1948 as described by Miskolczi in his papers based on 60+ years of NOAA data. The data supports a constant greenhouse effect.

I realize others have claimed the NOAA data is suspect. That’s a really poor excuse and is based on nothing other than it doesn’t support greenhouse theory.

There’s yet one more factor. It makes logical sense for CO2 to drive the hydrologic cycle vs. produce warming. CO2 is all about producing the basis for plant life. Having CO2 increase precipitation as it increases seems like an obvious design goal. It’s the way an engineer would want it to work.

When you look at it this way you see the widening of the CO2 absorption band is actually a way to eliminate the natural cooling from enhancing the hydrologic cycle. It’s a “fix” so not surprising it comes out to an almost perfect match.

Reply to  vinceram
March 15, 2023 10:40 am

turn of the 20th century flawed science

on the shoulders of giants

nothing new under the sun

IF its all you have AND IF it seems to work sometimes THEN use it until you find something better.

March 15, 2023 4:41 am

I applaud the effort! I am amazed how many people have bought the climate crisis story despite the complete lack of supporting evidence. Oh well. I’m afraid that there is no convincing the climate crisis faithful that they are wrong by a reasoned argument as they didn’t reason their way into their belief.

March 15, 2023 5:20 am

There is no climate crisis, but there sure as hell is a banking crisis!….. again!

Reply to  Alpha
March 15, 2023 7:39 am

It’s Trump’s fault

ha ha

Reply to  Alpha
March 15, 2023 10:47 am

Philosophical point – whatever humans control will suffer repeated crises.

Reply to  KevinM
March 15, 2023 8:57 pm

And imaginary crises will be used by political and religious leaders to control people.

E. Schaffer
March 15, 2023 5:58 am

Interestingly, in the Third Assessment Report, the 1.46 degrees of forcing translated into an ECS for a doubling of CO2 of 1.5 to 4.5 degrees Celsius.

Could this be a mistake? I looked up the TAR and the 1.46 figure only appears as a CO2 forcing of 1.46W/m2 attained by then.

Neil Lock
Reply to  E. Schaffer
March 15, 2023 7:29 am

Yes, well spotted. I looked through the references in the TAR, and you are indeed correct. It looks as if they didn’t give any figure at all back then for the number I was looking for. Not sure how I mis-interpreted this number as being it. However, it doesn’t affect my main conclusion, which is based on AR6 versus Lindzen and Lewis.

That’s one of the great things about WUWT – instant peer review! (I call it “spear review.”)

E. Schaffer
Reply to  Neil Lock
March 15, 2023 12:23 pm

Don’t you worry! We have knowledge way ahead of IPCC/Lindzen/Lewis..

CO2 forcing is indeed only 2W/m2, or 0.54K. And that figure is barely going to move including feedbacks, at least not upwards. Plus we know exactly what went wrong with consensus estimates..

comment image

Steve Case
March 15, 2023 6:11 am

At 7000 words I can hardly wait for Part Two.
Simple verifiable truths should eventually win the day.

Really a warmer world is a crisis? Pull my other leg.

A good run down of the lies and exaggerations would be helpful.

Reply to  Steve Case
March 15, 2023 10:49 am

Eastern Russia.
Northern Canada
wake me up when I can afford Florida

Reply to  KevinM
March 15, 2023 9:00 pm

With sea level rise more homes in Florida will become oceanfront homes, and worth a lot more than they are now. The girls will wear smaller bikinis to beat the heat in Florida. What’s not to like about global warming?
This comment is serious,
not satire.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Steve Case
March 15, 2023 12:40 pm

The warmest period during the current epoch was called the “Holocene Climate OPTIMUM” for a reason.

Reply to  AGW is Not Science
March 15, 2023 8:58 pm

Very good point

March 15, 2023 7:07 am

This would be my message to the masses.

Over centuries as CO2 accumulated in the atmosphere the Earth warmed. By the time it reached its current value it contributed, through the greenhouse effect, 33 w/m2 to heat the Earth’s surface. That plus an even larger effect from water vapor has warmed the surface from about 0 degrees to a comfortable 60 degrees on average, providing an Earth easily inhabited by our species and many others. The CO2 concentration will continued to rise as we use the bounty of the planet to create and distribute wealth and comfort to a growing segment of the Earth’s population.

This further increase in CO2, however, is of no danger as its affect on future warming is capped due to the greenhouse effect being almost entirely saturated. There is but a single degree of possible warming still available from future additional CO2 in the atmosphere. This limited warming may be extracted over the next century or two. Contrary to the prevailing message we have nothing to fear from increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Reply to  DWM
March 15, 2023 7:41 am

That’s a great comment but I’d want to add how much more CO2 benefits C3 plants (85%) — many used for food by people and animals — and greens the planet.

Reply to  Richard Greene
March 15, 2023 8:43 am

Right acknowledge the benefits of CO2 and remove the fear. Change the message, go one the offence.

Reply to  DWM
March 15, 2023 10:42 am

There are over 3,000 studies on the benefits of CO2 enrichment
I have read about 300 of them since 1997 — about one a month.
That is my favorite climate related subject.

I also read about greenhouse owners and their CO2 enrichment.
I told my alternative energy Prius driving license plate “OilsGone” next door neighbor, who has a huge organic vegetable garden in his backyard, about CO2 enrichment in greenhouses. He had never heard of that.

Reply to  DWM
March 15, 2023 10:52 am

Over centuries as CO2 accumulated in the atmosphere the Earth warmed.”
Implies CO2 concentration has always increased.
“its affect on future warming”
“we have nothing to fear”

Reply to  KevinM
March 15, 2023 1:17 pm

Originally there was no CO2 in the atmosphere so I started then. The great benefit of CO2 is that it has allowed us to inhabit the planet. I was downplaying the man made part since it doesn’t matter where the CO2 comes from. Wherever it came from the GHE is saturated.

affect is correct, I think. CO2 has an affect.

We, everybody, the world’s population has very little to fear from CO2 increases.

I think if you explained CO2 that way to your kids or the kid next door they would want to believe it to be assured they weren’t going to die from climate change anytime soon. Being true helps.

Better than trying to disprove everything they are hearing in school and elsewhere.

Reply to  DWM
March 15, 2023 3:42 pm

Originally there was no CO2 in the atmosphere so I started then.
I think the standard historical (fiction?) has periods of very high CO2 concentrations, e.g. “Concentrations of CO 2 in the atmosphere were as high as 4,000 ppm during the Cambrian period about 500 million years ago,” I.O.W implying a steady increase in CO2 over Earth-scale timespan is an error (if it has been almost 10x today’s concentration). The answer does depend on whose version of history you believe.

Reply to  DWM
March 16, 2023 10:53 am

“Over centuries as CO2 accumulated in the atmosphere the Earth warmed.”

I am not sure what means ” over centuries” (over how many centuries?), but in geological terms CO2 levels both increased and dropped. Long term, they have been decreasing, not increasing. Particularly, during last glaciations they have reached record low levels that inhibit plant life causing global desertification.

During the same geological history, Earth has experienced multiple warmings and coolings including global snowball, never driven by CO2 levels. Any statements to the opposite are deliberately fabricated lies or mindless parroting of those lies. 

The well known correlation of CO2 and temperature in Vostok and Greenland ice cores only shows CO2 dependence on temperature.

Last edited 10 days ago by Someone
Reply to  Someone
March 16, 2023 7:49 pm

What I was trying to do was develop a message that would convince the panic stricken that CO2 has benefits for mankind and there is little danger because the effect is saturated. I didn’t see where details like you mentioned would add to that message.

March 15, 2023 7:19 am

This is an excellent article on this subject, well done, I just wish the likes of UK’s Rishi Sunak & his cabinet would read & even understand it instead of beating the non-Science ClimateDrumBeat, and steer us back from the EnergyDeadEnd race to the bottom we’re careering down; I’ll Cc them in a twitter post anyway.

Reply to  Stargrazzer
March 15, 2023 10:44 am

Scare people about something and get more power and control over them.
A leftist dream for the past century

March 15, 2023 8:17 am

“molecules of CO2 absorb photons of radiation, then re-emit them in directions that, on average, are more downwards than upwards”

May I ask why they prefer to emit downwards? Or do they?

Last edited 12 days ago by Someone
Reply to  Someone
March 15, 2023 8:37 am

Is it a better statement that on average they emit the same in all directions, but the difference is that without CO2 100% of outgoing LWIR radiation would make it out to space, but with CO2 a fraction of it is reemitted back to Earth?

And we assume that the interaction is elastic, i.e. molecules emit the same photon energy as they absorb.

Last edited 12 days ago by Someone
Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Someone
March 15, 2023 12:57 pm

If a molecule radiates in all directions, then because of the curvature of the surface of the Earth, slightly more will escape than will be intercepted by the surface. The fraction will vary with the altitude of the molecule, with more escaping with increasing altitude.

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
March 16, 2023 9:39 am

A molecule typically does not radiate isotropically in all directions, particularly a linear molecule like CO2. An ensemble of randomly oriented molecules may radiate isotropically in all directions, but this may depend on the time scale of emission relative to that of rotation.

Anyway, the Earth curvature explanation for the alleged downward LWIR flux is not convincing to me. We are talking about altitudes up to tropopause (last time I looked out of the plane window, the Earth looked pretty flat), what happens in the stratosphere and higher is fairly irrelevant.

Last edited 11 days ago by Someone
Reply to  Someone
March 15, 2023 8:58 am

Ill take a shot. First understand that there has to be a negative temperature gradient in order to have a greenhouse effect. Without a temperature gradient radiation from the TOA would equal the radiation from the surface so no GHE.

Second when a CO2 molecule absorbs a photon it actually passes that kinetic energy to the surrounding atmosphere because of collisions.

Now imagine a horizontal slice of atmosphere a 1000 ft thick in altitude. It is warmer at the bottom than at the top. The absorbed energy then radiates more energy from the warmer lower portion than from the top. This continues all the way to the surface creating a net downwelling.

Rick Wedel
Reply to  DWM
March 15, 2023 11:19 am

How does the energy absorbed by mainly nitrogen and oxygen molecules from collisions with CO2 molecules get transferred to the ocean? Convection? I’d appreciate a recommendation for an explanation written for the average old engineer. Thanks.

Reply to  Rick Wedel
March 15, 2023 12:57 pm

Nitrogen and oxygen molecules radiate thermal energy consistent with blackbody spectrums. That radiation either returns to the Earth heating the oceans and land, or travels out to space.

Reply to  DWM
March 16, 2023 9:32 am

Nitrogen and oxygen are nothing like blackbodies. They are molecules with very specific absorption and emission spectra.

Plus, there is still a problem with warming a warmer body (oceans and land) by a colder body (atmosphere, particularly upper troposphere).

Reply to  Someone
March 16, 2023 3:34 pm

O2 and N2 have specific absorption and emission spectra but they also radiate blackbody radiation. The blackbody radiation results from relaxation of low energy states created by collisions with other molecules.

Reply to  DWM
March 16, 2023 9:09 am

I am not convinced that a negative temperature gradient is a prerequisite to greenhouse effect. Suppose we put some CO2 in a cell and shine some LWIR on the cell. Will the temperature of the gas increase? If it does, we did not any negative temperature gradient. If it does not, it means that LWIR absorption was 100 % elastic.

So, I think a definite prerequisite to GHE is that absorption of LWIR is inelastic. If it is elastic, molecules will emit the same photon energy as they absorb, and the net result will be slowing down speed of light in the medium (changing refractive index of atmosphere in some LWIR band), but no net warming.

OK, in the mental experiment with CO2 in a cell we shined some LWIR light on the cell. The question is where these LWIR flux comes from outside the laboratory. One can argue that 100% of outgoing LWIR flux is due to the negative temperature gradient, and none is due to LWIR emission from Earth surface. Is it the case?

Regarding passing of the CO2 rotational excitation to N2 and O2, it needs to be proven that this process is effective in competition with emission by CO2 of the LWIR excitation. Because N2 and O2 do not absorb the specific LWIR bands, I would not be surprised if the cross-section for rotational energy transfer from CO2 to N2 and O2 would also be low. This will also depend on pressure.

I also think that the mechanism of “net downwelling” need is a little more clarification. One problem is that it colder up there than down here. How does a colder body transfer energy to a warmer body? For this to happen, somebody somewhere must do work. If not, I would not need to plug in my refrigerator.

Secondly, atmospheric pressure drops off with altitude. How does one molecule up there create enough downward LWIR flux to warm several molecules down here?

Last edited 11 days ago by Someone
Reply to  Someone
March 16, 2023 1:24 pm

I’ll start at the top. If you put a bottle of air containing CO2 on the kitchen table and leave it there will it warm up? It is receiving adequate IR of about the frequency as emitted from the Earth. Can you explain your answer?

The easy point to understand is that if all of the energy entering the atmosphere leaves the atmosphere which it would if the top of the atmosphere is at the same temperature as surface. But further if there is no temperature gradient in the atmosphere then all the energy flow would be equal in both directions.

I gotta run but I enjoy these conversations so I’ll be back.

Reply to  Someone
March 16, 2023 1:41 pm

A CO2 molecule excited by a photon typically takes about 5 micro seconds to re-emit the photon. Collisions happen in nanosecond time periods. So except at the TOA the CO2 modules don’t reradiate the original photon. Collisions can also excite CO2 states.

Reply to  Someone
March 16, 2023 7:44 pm

A radiating body can radiate in all directions even toward a hotter one. All that is required is that the net flow of of radiation is from the warmer to the colder. Since the surface is radiating 390 w/m2 any downwelling reaching the surface can be absorbed by the surface.

March 15, 2023 8:59 am

I am struggling with a simple message on emissions, based on the attached graph from ‘Our World in Data’. I ask anyone I send it to, do you notice the elephant in the room? If the planet is in danger, why are we not asking China to stop building coal-fired power stations? Why are all the products in the shops made in China? The only answer I have had so far is two fold: 1. you must look at per capita emissions – I respond that the planet doesn’t care, only the total; 2. the follow-up – well, we must all do our bit.

You can’t argue with fanaticism…

Steve Case
March 15, 2023 9:02 am

Skimming through the references there’s this from Dave Burton’s Sea Level Info page. Dave’s “Info” can be boiled down to 91 tide gauges with 100 years of data and a distribution of acceleration of sea level rise can be produced. It looks like this:

Dave Burton Acceleration Histogram.png
Neil Lock
Reply to  Steve Case
March 15, 2023 9:56 am

Nice catch, Steve. I’ve already got the info on the 1,269 tide gauges from Dave Burton’s site into Excel, so I should be able to filter it and re-produce your graph when I get a little time.

Neil Lock
Reply to  Neil Lock
March 15, 2023 10:23 am

Looking at the locations of the gauges established before 1922, though, they aren’t very well geographically spread. A large majority are in Europe, and there is an unusually large proportion in Finland and Sweden.

Dave’s data includes plus or minus 95% confidence levels on the acceleration for each gauge, which gave me the idea of plotting the accelerations, and the upper and lower bounds of the 95% confidence range. That might give a more global picture, and I’d guess it’s the last 10 or so years that determine the acceleration, rather than the length of the record, so including relatively new stations shouldn’t be the problem. I’ll see what I can do when I have a bit more time!

Steve Case
Reply to  Neil Lock
March 15, 2023 11:11 am

Well, 80% of the 100+ year population (not a sample) shows
0.01 mm/yr² or less acceleration.

Steve Case
Reply to  Neil Lock
March 15, 2023 10:30 am

Thanks the graphic omitted the fact that the 91 stations all had 100 years or more of data here’s a link to the correction.

I could send you my Excel file (-:

I use hot mail and I’m stacase.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Neil Lock
March 15, 2023 1:00 pm

Can I assume that these sites have not been corrected for land subsidence?

Neil Lock
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
March 15, 2023 4:04 pm

To be absolutely sure, you’d need to ask Dave Burton that; it’s his data and he knows far more about tide gauges than I do! But the data has columns labelled Peltier GIA, suggesting to me that it has been corrected for global isostatic adjustment. And land subsidence for other reasons, like groundwater extraction, ought to show up in the tide gauge readings.

Reply to  Steve Case
March 15, 2023 10:56 am

Data collection sites are random? Need a map beside the chart.

Steve Case
Reply to  KevinM
March 15, 2023 12:01 pm

A map of stations with 100+ years of data? There may be one on the net someplace. I know I’m not going to try to make one. The point here is that of ALL the 100+ year stations ALL show less acceleration than what the media leads us to believe. And 51% show zero acceleration or less.

March 15, 2023 9:54 am

Not only has no objective, unbiased cost-benefit analysis ever been done on the issue. But the UK government has taken steps, which I can only interpret as being intended to prevent such a cost-benefit analysis being done.

Who defined “biased”?

March 15, 2023 9:58 am

Global deaths from disasters such as droughts, floods and extreme weather have gone down dramatically in the last century or so

Global deaths from [any other thing except old age] have also gone down

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  KevinM
March 15, 2023 1:02 pm

Except opioid overdoses. Suicides seem to have an upward trend as well.

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
March 15, 2023 3:45 pm

The point is “other factors might matter more than climate” for death tolls.

March 15, 2023 10:31 am

Quite agree. We are being run by a global elite who are sorting things for themselves.
Many (not all) politicians are corrupt, selfish, stupid, greedy and power-mad (psychotic, narcissists) and they lie and cheat (trump and Johnson are good examples)
I do not like the idea that ‘the people should decide’. Half the population have an IQ below 100 and even the intelligent ones are ignorant on most matters. Far too easily swayed by propaganda and lies. We see that with Trump, Brexit and the election of the Tories. People power is very dangerous. Left to them to decide they’d probably have us at war with France next week.
Climate does change and has changed many times – but, particularly at this point in time, any change is bad. We need stability. Civilisation has been built around these conditions. The vast numbers of humans and the way we have organised require stability. Changes create disasters. We are not living in medieval times with low populations, agricultural needs and a resilient natural world.
Claim 1 – the world is definitely warming.
Claim 2 – That is not unprecedented. We’ve been through tropical and ice ages caused by solar and volcanic activity. All would now b disastrous in ways that they weren’t before.
Claim 3 – The Greenhouse effect may not be the only factor at work but – it is real. We know about it. We can do something about it. We probably can’t do anything about others.
Claim 4 – The warming is already having catastrophic effects on weather patterns, desertification, fires, floods, growing seasons etc.
Claim 5 – Mitigation is always better than mass disaster (just ask the people in the floods in Pakistan, the bushfires in Australia and California and those trying to survive with temperatures in the 50s.
Claim 6 – Yes – it is a crisis.
16 good points that show the effects of what is at the moment a moderate rise – plus evidence from animal and plant studies, fauna and flora population studies, global scientific monitoring, satellite data.
Yes there has been examples of global warming/cooling in the past attributed to volcanic and/or solar changes. There are other forces at work. But this is utterly irrelevant.
Any changes, with our massive global population, the reduction in resilience of nature, our agricultural needs, our sea-level cities, are deleterious and quite probably catastrophic. We can see huge impacts of fairly local events, such as the war in Ukraine, something on a global scale will be far, far greater.
Global warming or cooling in the past had little effect because we did not have the populations, cities and agricultural needs. We were much more flexible. We had much more room to move.
We do have a clue as to the cost of further rises in temperature. We have computer modelling. The effects could be devastating:
·        Changes in the Gulf Stream
·        El Niño
·        Desertification
·        Flooding (a la Pakistan and Bangladesh but even worse)
·        Rises in sea levels – low lying land – agriculture and cities
·        Mass migration
·        Effects on fauna and flora
Why would you want any of that?
Of course deaths from weather has gone down. We have better technology, better responses, better transport, better tools, better communication. A hundred years ago a disaster in Africa would take time to come through, getting support would be difficult. Now we know in seconds and can get support in hours.
The storm that is hitting Malawi right now is the first that has ever crossed that distance. Fed by heat it has not petered out. We have record temperatures all around the world. Do you think the fires and floods are normal? Pakistan, Australia, South America – all recording totally abnormal storms or events. Even in Britain – floods and heat. In the Antarctic – record temperatures and permafrost melting.
A climate refugee is someone who has had to move because their lifestyle cannot be maintained – if temperatures are too hot or dry for crops to grow or livestock to survive or their land is under water – they move. Millions are on the move.
Whatever is causing sea level rises is irrelevant. We know that heating and melting ice-caps plus expanding water is the cause. The only means we’re in control of is through the greenhouse effect.
The data I see is that low-lying islands are having increasing problems with rising waters. Different oceans are rising at different levels.
I don’t know where you get your data on ice-sheets. I’ve looked at glacier shrinkage and spoken to people in Iceland about it. It’s dramatic. The Antarctic has had record temperatures and ice melt.
Snorkelled on the Barrier Reef and observed the bleaching of coral. It’s real and a big worry for fishing apart from anything else.
It’s not green policies that are affecting crop yields. It is reduction in agricultural land due to deserts or heat or flood. With GM we can increase our yield and the extra CO2 promotes better growth and yield – but the population increase is massive and, as we see with Ukraine, any impact of local situations can have global impacts. If low-lying agricultural land is flooded and deserts increase in size or growing seasons aqre affected we could be in big big trouble with mass starvation.
Neil – the evidence is all around you. The species migrations show the extent. The weather changes and record temperatures, the sea level rises, the floods and droughts. It’s all there.
I cannot believe you really think there could be a conspiracy on this level, across all nations, when it is not in anybody’s interest.
Now that green technology is cheaper than polluting old technologies why do you oppose them? There is no longer a need for a green levy. The case is made on finance alone. Green is cheaper and better and better for our health and nature. Win win win win win.

Reply to  Opher
March 15, 2023 9:11 pm

The case is made on finance alone. Green is cheaper and better and better for our health and nature. Win win win win win.

You re delusional.
A trained parrot of climate alarmism.

Almost every statement you made is false, such as this one
“The Antarctic has had record temperatures and ice melt”.

The Antarctica continent has had no warming since the 1970s and is extremely cold now. CO2 emissions cause cooling of most of Antarctica. There is some local warming at the edges of the glacier from underseas volcanos — local warming that was not caused by CO2. You don’t know that because you are a climate science ignoramus.

Exceptionally low temperatures continue to grip the Antarctic continent.
Following Vostok’s bone-chilling -65.2C (-85.4F) –an incredibly rare reading for early March– the Antarctic station chilled even further during the early hours of Monday morning, March 7, to a historic -68.1C (-90.6F).

This is suspected as being the coldest temperature ever recorded on Antarctica this early into a season. For reference, -64.7C (-84.5F) is the lowest temperature ever recorded in the Southern Hemisphere in February (again at Vostok, Antartica)–although some books state -65.5C (-85.9F) as being the record Feb low.

March 15, 2023 10:52 am

50+ years of “Climate Emergency” = NO EMERGENCY

Reply to  rmitchell
March 15, 2023 9:15 pm

The climate emergency has been coming since 1979
We know that for sure because scientists say so.
They’s been saying so since 1979 to give us a warning.
I am building an ark here in Michigan to prevent sea level rise from putting our house underwater.

Rick Wedel
March 15, 2023 10:52 am

I look forward to reading the second essay in this series. Thanks for this first one.

Clyde Spencer
March 15, 2023 12:28 pm

CO2 is currently at 412 parts per million (ppm) compared to pre-industrial times …

Actually, it hasn’t been that low for several years. It is currently over 420.4 ppm with the annual peak to come in the month of May. It was over 421 ppm in May 2022.

William Howard
March 15, 2023 12:54 pm

just like leftists like to confuse legal & illegal immigration when accusing conservatives of being anti-immigration, they refuse to recognize that the total CO2 in the atmosphere consists of that which is naturally occurring (like breathing) and which we can’t do anything about, and that from man’s industrial and transportation activities. Since the vast majority of the CO2 in the atmosphere is naturally occurring the amount that could be possibly removed through green energy fantasies is miniscule and couldn’t possibly affect anything let alone the temperature or climate of the entire world. I wish this and other analyses would consistently point that out.

Reply to  William Howard
March 15, 2023 9:18 pm

CO2 is about 33% manmade (140ppm) and 67% natural (280ppm)
Total 420ppm

No one claims that CO2 levels will be reduced

The Net Zero claim is that CO2 levels will not increase after 2050. That’s nonsense, because over 7 billion people live in nations that could not care less about Nut Zero

Reply to  Richard Greene
March 16, 2023 10:10 am

CO2 is about 33% manmade (140ppm) and 67% natural (280ppm)
Total 420ppm

Richard, is there any proof that all of the CO2 above 280 ppm is manmade? Or, is it an assumption that after CO2 reached 280 ppm, its levels stopped to be affected by natural causes?

March 15, 2023 4:18 pm

Very nice written in plain language we can all understand. This needs wide distribution.

Pay no attention to those who feel this won’t move the true believers. We shouldn’t give a damn about the true believers they are liars and cheats. We need to educate the average guy, we need to show him that the true believers have lied to and cheated him for decades. We need more writing like this and we need to get it to the average guy.

Tom Abbott
March 15, 2023 6:28 pm

From the article: “So, on the question of whether recent warming is “unprecedented,” my verdict is the Scottish one: Not proven.”

For the United States it is proven. The United States is *not* experiencing unprecedented warming. It was just as warm in the 1930’s in the United States as it is today.

And that can be said for just about every unmodified, regional surface temperature chart from around the world. Their temperature profiles look very similar to the U.S. profile, and they don’t show unprecedented warming when comparing today with the temperatures in the Early Twentieth Century. Instead, they show it was just as warm in the Early Twentieth Century as it is today. No unprecedented warming in the written temperature record.

The U.S. surface temperature chart, Hansen 1999:

comment image

Reply to  Tom Abbott
March 15, 2023 9:20 pm

The numbers have since been “fixed” to show 1998 was warmer than 936.
Our NOAA are excellent number “fixers”.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Richard Greene
March 16, 2023 2:20 am

Yes, nobody is more aware of that than me.

Jim Karlock
March 15, 2023 8:23 pm

Here is my list of facts, ANY ONE of which TOTALLY disproves that man’s CO2 is the cause of serious global warming:
1. Our current climate started warming 200 years BEFORE man’s CO2 emissions started to rise . NOT before.
2. Previous Holocene warm periods were warmer than now.
3. Solar fits climate better than CO2
4. There is nothing unusual about today’s climate compared to before man emitted CO2.
5. Recent warming is a same rate as the late 1800s but now with much more of man’s CO2. (More of a cause should cause more effect.)
6. Man’s CO2 has never been proven to cause dangerous warming.
7. Man emits only 5% of annual CO2. Plus CO2 only causes 9-26% of greenhouse effect.

March 15, 2023 8:27 pm


“Over 40 years and more, successive UK governments have persistently lied to and misled us. And, in cahoots with the European Union, the United Nations and other internationalist organizations such as the World Economic Forum, they have imposed on us a torrent of bad laws and ever-increasing taxes.”

For no logical reason, the author starts with broad political conclusions that are not supported by the article.

Even worse, these conclusions will completely turn off the readers who most need to learn something about the climate.

The politics of climate change is important. But only after you convince people the climate is fins and the predictions of climate doom have been wrong for 42 years.

Once you make those main point, you can then explain the politics of creating climate fear, because readers may be puzzled about why climate scaremongering continues.

I can’t speak for the UK, but in the US over half the people trust the government, and more than half voted for climate warrior Biden.

So if you attack the government to start an article, you will significantly reduce the number of people who will continue reading.

This introduction is completely counterproductive, and stupid beyond belief, if the goal is to change minds of people who trust the government.

Also missing are charts and a few dozen wrong climate predictions to demonstrate that climate predictions have been consistently wrong

I gave this paper a grade of “F” only because that was the lowest grade possible.

Neil Lock
Reply to  Richard Greene
March 16, 2023 3:18 am


You say that over half of people in the US trust the government. That may still be true on your side of the pond (it certainly was when I lived there back in 1990), but it isn’t that way at all on this side.

It may well be that the US political classes have been more successful than the European ones in maintaining the deception that there is actually a difference between the main parties. Here in the UK, it’s becoming increasingly plain that there is only one party – the Tyranny Party – and all the existing “alternatives” are simply branches of it. Even people on the far left are becoming pissed off. Though the things they complain about, like loss of freedom of speech, are different from the climate issue, but their complaints are equally valid.

There is a total loss of trust between people and government, on both sides. So, I think your criticism misses the mark when applied to the UK, and indeed to most European countries. It’s also worth pointing out – as a few of the commenters have on this thread – that a lot of the issues around this subject are really political issues, not scientific ones.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights