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!
The IPCC
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.
The IPCC’s latest technical summary report [[6]],
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: [[7]], page 4. But some skeptics come out
with considerably lower numbers. See [[8]]
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. 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 [7]. 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: [[9]].
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: [[10]]. 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: [[11]].
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: [[12]]. And the weather isn’t getting
worse, as our accusers tell us it is. See [12],
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: [12],
section 2.6. Moreover, the USA has not seen any increase in landfalling
hurricanes since 1900: [12],
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): [[13]].
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: [[14]].
The IPCC cannot say whether flooding on a global level is increasing or
decreasing: [12],
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: [10].
The IPCC says: “there is low confidence in attributing changes in drought over
global land areas since the mid-20th century to human influence.” [12],
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 [12].)
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 [12],
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: [[15]].
There is no apparent trend in the rest of the data.
Are there more and more people dying from heatstroke?
Looking at [10], 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 [[16]]
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: [[17]].
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: [[18]].
(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: [[19]],
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: [[20]].
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): [[21]].
One polar bear expert has estimated 32,000 bears: [[22]],
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: [[23]].
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: [[24]].
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: [[25]].
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: [[26]].
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: [[27]].
For the entire continent, the winter (June to August) of 2021 was the
second-coldest on record: [[28]].
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: [[29]].
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: [[30]].
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: [[31]].
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: [[32]].
And coral reefs are a lot more resilient to changing conditions than they are
often given credit for: [[33]].
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
[[34]].
Meanwhile, more carbon dioxide in the air has had a beneficial effect of
“greening” the Earth: [[35]].
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: [[36]].
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.
