… let’s clarify why the scientific community generally concludes that recent climate change cannot be explained by natural variation alone.
no one is arguing definitively that human activity has no impact upon climate whatsoever - beyond industry, weather manipulation has been taking place since at least the Vietnam era and this has ramped up steeply since then - what effect this has upon climate is, to my knowledge, unknown, but i think it’s safe to assume it might have some effect
what is the purpose of these aerosols?
are they reflecting, or retaining heat?
if you’re not aware of the particulate aerosol programs taking place throughout much of the world, or at least the NATO countries, look into how these particulates, including aluminum, barium and strontium, may affect climate - i can’t post links, so you’ll have to find these resources yourself…
- IPCC warns not to stop chemtrails, aka ‘solar radiation management’ | radyananda 09 Nov 013
- Pilots, Doctors, & Scientists Tell The Truth About Chemtrails/Geo-Engineering | November 1, 2014 by Arjun Walia
- Climate Scientist Blows Whistle on Jet Aerosol Dumps - Chemtrails | Harold Saive, December 27, 2014
weather manipulation aside, in the context of anthropomorphic warming, the relevant question is whether or not human activity is having a substantial impact (“substantial” because that’s what they say) and the creditable data, unlike the garbage you’re relying upon, obviously suggests it does not - even if we relax the criteria and ask whether human activity is having any impact, the jury is decidedly out - the only “consensus” is the manufactured one foisted upon the public mind which is based entirely upon politics and how you or anyone can possibly fail to recognize this is beyond me
again, since you apparently never bothered to read my rebuttal to this childish nonsense…
“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill.” – Club of Rome, The First Global Revolution (1991), p.115
“If congress is willing to pay you to find evidence of global warming, by golly, as a scientist, we’re gonna go find evidence of it because that’s what we’re being paid to do. And guess what, if you don’t find evidence, or say the evidence suggests it’s not a problem, your funding ends. This totally corrupts the way we look at the science.” – Dr. Roy Spencer, U.S. Science Team leader, NASA’s Aqua Satellite
the evidence you’re putting forth relies largely upon sources which have been debunked totally or partially in the articles on my website or those i linked to, yet you don’t seem to possess the courtesy to read before repeating the same nonsense - nevertheless, i guess i’ll play your little science game a wee bit longer
… it is true that in ancient ice-age cycles, temperature changes sometimes preceded CO₂ increases.
well at least you admit that much - does that also mean that industrial age CO2 may not cause an increase in temperature??? (hint: Vostok)
You are correct that CO₂ is not a toxic pollutant in the traditional sense.
whew! for minute there…
without CO2, we die, and yes, too much, we again die - so is there too much? and what have the levels been doing over time, as in hundreds and thousands of years? you opine they’ve been steadily increasing, but over what time period and how is the current trend in any way outside of norms according to the Vostok data?
The heat-absorbing behavior of CO₂, methane, and other greenhouse gases is a directly measured physical property, not a modeling assumption.
did i argue otherwise? - you made this point twice and twice it’s irrelevant
Atmospheric CO₂ has risen from about 280 ppm pre-industrial to over 420 ppm today, measured directly and continuously.
sure, when you cherry-pick the data - i already addressed this in my article you didn’t read, so again…
The Vostok Ice Core: Temperature, CO2 and CH4 | December 12, 2014, Euan Mearns
the whole article is relevant
The Vostok Ice Core and the 14,000 Year CO2 Time Lag | June 14, 2017 by Euan Mearns
see the “data” section
furthermore, so what? ideal CO2 levels that support a green earth are between 300-1000 so where’s the problem?
and as i stated before regarding temperature changes preceding CO2 levels…
180 YEARS OF ATMOSPHERIC CO 2 GAS ANALYSIS BY CHEMICAL METHODS
Ernst-Georg Beck
Dipl. Biol. Ernst-Georg Beck, 31 Rue du Giessen, F-68600 Biesheim, France
E-mail: egbeck@biokurs.de; 2/2007
ABSTRACT
More than 90,000 accurate chemical analyses of CO2 in air since 1812 are summarised. The historic chemical data reveal that changes in CO2 track changes in temperature, and therefore climate in contrast to the simple, monotonically increasing CO2 trend depicted in the post-1990 literature on climate-change. Since 1812, the CO2 concentration in northern hemispheric air has fluctuated exhibiting three high level maxima around 1825, 1857 and 1942 the latter showing more than 400 ppm.
Between 1857 and 1958, the Pettenkofer process was the standard analytical method for determining atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, and usually achieved an accuracy better than 3%. These determinations were made by several scientists of Nobel Prize level distinction. Following Callendar (1938), modern climatologists have generally ignored the historic determinations of CO2, despite the techniques being standard text book procedures in several different disciplines. Chemical methods were discredited as unreliable choosing only few which fit the assumption of a climate CO2 connection.
again: “changes in CO2 track changes in temperature”
from the same paper…
The close relationship between temperature change and CO2 level exhibited by these results is consistent with a cause-effect relationship, but does not of itself indicate which of the two parameters is the cause and which the effect. The greenhouse hypothesis of IPCC argues for CO2 being the cause (through radiative feedback) of the temperature rise. My results are equally if not more consistent with temperature being the forcing that controls the level of CO2 in the atmospheric system. In support of this causality, ice-core data consistently shows that over climatic time scales, changes in temperature precede their parallel changes in carbon dioxide by several hundred to more than a thousand years [91].
Quaternary Science Reviews Volume 20, Issue 4, February 2001, Pages 583-589, The phase relations among atmospheric CO2 content, temperature and global ice volume over the past 420 ka
Over the full 420 ka of the Vostok record, CO2 variations lag behind atmospheric temperature changes in the Southern Hemisphere by 1.3±1.0ka, and lead over global ice-volume variations by 2.7±1.3ka.
there’s plenty more studies like these to be found if you bother to look
kinda kills the whole man-made global warming BS, doesn’t it? but let’s not stop there…
Climate Hysteria and Climate reality: is a 1.1C rise/century unusual?
Les Hatton*
Climatology and social forces
Cybershed
23-Apr-2025
Much has been made in the past of the original hockey-stick curve of Mann and collaborators and various attempts to either support or denigrate this work. Here, I do neither. Multiple proxied data reaching back only 1,000 years ago is a poor substitute for the fact that we have 800,000 years of consistent measurement data in the Vostok Ice Cores. Here, I look at the claim that the modern 40% rise in CO2 levels in the last 100 years is a factor in the increasing temperature and how significant a factor it might be. I then go on to compare the interglacial onset of the current interglacial and the last interglacial as they marched out of their preceding Ice Ages. The data presented is taken straight from the Vostok Ice Cores and has not been processed in any way other than to perform conventional statistical analyses.
Perhaps the most important conclusion which I hope people will take time to verify is that the 1.1C rise in the last 100 years is not unusual in this interglacial, although it may have been in previous interglacials.
RESISTING CLIMATE HYSTERIA
A CASE AGAINST PRECIPITOUS CLIMATE ACTION
by Richard S. Lindzen
uly 27, 2009
The notion of a static, unchanging climate is foreign to the history of the earth or any other planet with a fluid envelope. The fact that the developed world went into hysterics over changes in global mean temperature anomaly of a few tenths of a degree will astound future generations. Such hysteria simply represents the scientific illiteracy of much of the public, the susceptibility of the public to the substitution of repetition for truth, and the exploitation of these weaknesses by politicians, environmental promoters, and, after 20 years of media drum beating, many others as well. Climate is always changing.
CO2: The Greatest Scientific Scandal Of Our Time
by Zbigniew Jaworowski, M.D., Ph.D., D.Sc.
Introduction
On Feb. 2, 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) again uttered its mantra of catastrophe about man-made global warming. After weeks of noisy propaganda, a 21-page “Summary for Policymakers” of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, 2007, was presented in grandiose style in Paris to a crowd of politicians and media, accom- panied by a blackout of the Eiffel Tower to show that electric energy is bad. The event induced a tsunami of hysteria that ran around the world. This was probably the main aim of this clearly political paper, prepared by governmental and United Nations bureaucrats, and published more than three months before the IPCC’s 1,600-page scien- tific report, which is to be released in May. In the words of the IPCC, this delay is needed for adjust- ment of the main text, so that “Changes . . . [could be] made to ensure consistency with the ‘Summary for Policymakers.’ ” Not a single word in these 1,600 pages is to be in conflict with what politicians said beforehand in the summary!
look, the only thing climate does is change and in no way whatsoever are CO2 levels outside the norms of the historical data, nor is the current trend, and feeding people cherry-picked, hokey-stick data is nothing but disingenuous
gee, those darned “scientific” climate/rising sea/doomsday predictions just never quite seem to hit the target … guess we’ll kick the can down the road, yet again…
How hot will Earth get by 2100?
