Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 40 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
The Climate Hoax
The Climate Hoax, I argue, is the greatest “scientific” hoax in the history of the planet.
How does one know that?
First, by the level of hysteria evinced in promoting the hoax. No calm assessment with reasonable plans to implement the changes. Just screaming. And curtailing fossil fuel use wily nily. The more the better.
Second, by the fact that the climate alarmists know perfectly well that whatever they do to prevent climate change, they have no idea whether it will work. Ask, precisely how much CO2 can be released into the atmosphere by Anthropos without causing climate change? There is no answer. There never has been an answer. There never will be an answer. To what extent must we curtail our usage of fossil fuels? No one has any idea. Any wild guess can be completely offset by the next major volcanic eruption, after which we will need to frantically burn fossil fuels to stave off another ice age, as far as we know. What level of CO2 in the atmosphere is optimal? No one knows. What level of methane is optimal? No one knows.
A few years ago there was a Nova program on global warming. It was a nice little presentation that went as follows:
Look at this glass box. In it we have oxygen at 20%, nitrogen at 80%, CO2 at 400 ppm, traces of methane and a few other gases. The nitrogen and the oxygen don’t absorb much heat, and here is Linus Pauling to explain why (there follows a clip of Pauling explaining the degrees of vibrational freedom of the molecules, demonstrating how the linear molecules of O2 and N2 don’t have sufficient degrees of vibrational freedom to absorb heat, but CO2 does — as does H20). So, see, if we add light to the gases in the box, the temperature doesn’t rise. But if we add CO2 and add light or heat, the temperature in the box rises. And if the temperature in the box rises, then the air in the box can hold more water as vapor, amplifying the heat rise. Viola! Global warming.
What is the problem? The box is a closed system. The Earth’s atmosphere is an open system, with an infinite heat sink all around it (outer space).
In an open system, heat can dissipate. In fact, Dr. Linzer, decades ago, suggested that there may be a lensing effect at the equator that, paradoxically, results in more radiation of heat into space from Earth as CO2 levels in the atmosphere rise. And less water vapor in the air. He even showed via experimental data from high-altitude weather balloons that as CO2 levels rise, the amount of heat radiated into space also rises. This results in a sort of damping effect of rising CO2 levels that act, not as an accelerator of climate change, but as a damper of climate change. One might expect a similar result if CO2, as a volatile molecule, is acting in a convection current sort of a way to dampen global warming. His results were examined ferociously, and couldn’t be confirmed or disproved. So they were then stentoriously ignored.
Further, climate scientists know full well that they cannot assess the effects of H2O on global warming. Does the albedo effect (reflective effects) of clouds lower warming more than does the heat absorbing capacity of water vapor exacerbate warming? Not known. So if there is warming, which creates a situation in which more water vapor can be contained in air, will that increase or decrease warming? Not known.
Then you have immensely complex atmospheric currents, rivers of air, whose activities and effects are hardly recognized, let alone understood.
And into all of this, climate scientists are claiming to know exactly how to regulate CO2 production to fine-tune the climate? As Biden would say, give me a break, man.
A couple of decades ago (I believe it was that long ago), a study came out in Science that purported to show that CO2 absorption from the atmosphere across the continental United States was greater than the emission of CO2 into the atmosphere in the continental United States, e.g., that even at the turn of the century the net across the US was the removal of CO2 from the atmosphere. That piece of data got buried. If it was even accurate. Who knows. It was certainly politically incorrect, as it would undermine the efforts to limit gas-guzzling cars and trucks in favor of electric vehicles, and undermine those EV mandates that are destroying Detroit.
And then, the models are failing. They just don’t work. The predictions do not pan out.
Next, the claims of the purveyors of global warming hysteria not only stretch credulity but include outright lies. All the talk about more severe hurricanes, worse weather patterns, etc., etc. is incorrect to the point of absurdity. But no one is allowed to say that.
Finally, if the climate alarmists were really serious about halting climate change, they would have embraced nuclear long since. Rather than embrace it (Microsoft, Amazon and others are starting to increase calls for nuclear energy so they can increase computational power to implement AI–which is a mixed blessing in itself) they drag their feet while claiming to be championing nuclear. Sort of like backing Ukraine to the hilt, only not so much that Russia is actually defeated. That would be dangerous. So, half measures at best. Note the FERC decision to hamstring Talen, which was seeking to increase electricity output from its 3-mile island plant to 4.5 megawatts at the request of tech giants.
So if the issue is not really climate change, what is the issue?
The issue is the immiseration of humans, their curtailment, culling, and the elimination of the undesirables (the Deplorables, the Garbage, the superfluous humans in Nietzsche’s formulation, the bitter clingers, etc.). In favor of “the ones we have been waiting for.” The Homo Deus of Yuval Harari. The Ubermenschen of Nietzsche.
Michael Crichton, late in his life, lectured on climate “Science.” He unfavorably compared the “Science” of the later 20th century and early 21st century to the foremost “Science” of the late 19th and early 20th centuries: Eugenics. Both, he asserted, are pseudosciences with utterly grandiose and impossible goals. This comparison of course incurred the wrath of the climate alarmists. Crichton didn’t take the comparison further. He could and should have.
The aim of both is the curtailment of ordinary humans. The sterilization of the “unfit” or the elimination or impoverization of the deplorables by denying them access to fossil fuels, besieging them with windmills and solar panels which everyone knows cannot provide reliable energy to replace even a small fraction of the need without creating a massive environmental catastrophe. They both evince the Erlichean view, fearing the population bomb and the end of resources, scarcity for the elites if there are too many superfluous people. This was manifested by Obama’s science advisor, who had advocated sterilizing the masses in India to curtail population growth. Of course the goal was noble, to prevent starvation and poverty. Just like the aim of eugenicists was to reduce the burden on society of the “unfit.” So, too, today Bill Gates is interested in a vaccine to prevent pregnancy, with rumors that he has tested such a vaccine (unsuccessfully so far, apparently) in Africa (yes, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr, provides documentation of that endeavor in his book). Hopefully he will not be turned loose with a fleet of jumbo jets to seed the atmosphere with sulfur particles to prevent global warming. As if he knew the precise formula for just the right amount to give us an air-conditioned planet with a perfect year-round temperature. If you want that, move to Recife.
The underlying premise of both is a hatred of humans. Both are anti-human “sciences.” Both have captured the elites everywhere (of course–they are the ones perpetrating these crimes against humanity–talk about self-serving and “privilege”–what greater privilege than to get to decide who lives, who dies, who gets born, who does not. Read the memo of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development: “Every child healthy and wanted.” That was imposed by Alan Guttmacher, nephew of Alan F. Guttmacher, one-time official of the American Eugenics Society, later an official with Planned Parenthood, and instigator of the Guttmacher Institute to promote abortion; Alan Guttmacher, the nephew, was the second in command of the Human Genome Project, a lifelong devotee of Francis Galton–imagine that, an avid Eugenicist running the Human Genome Project. Plus ca change…).
The aim remains the same: Galton’s (the father of Eugenics) vision of the human population as “…a flock of prized sheep on a well-tended moor.” With the elites, of course, playing the role of the “good shepherd.” Blasphemous in my book.
Dystopia, here we come. Qualifying who is “we” of course. You and me. The elites, the Hyperboreans, are headed for the sunny uplands–with genetically engineered immortality according to Yuval Harari–foreseen by Nietzsche.
Published in General
Start with a couple of grifters, add a money launderer or three or a dozen, seduce a naturalist or seven, nod to a sprinkling of politicians and what do you have? The biggest transfer of wealth in the history of mankind.
For that matter, ask them for the optimum average global temperature. This question must be answered before any of your other questions even have a basis for analysis. No one knows.
Outstanding post.
Also, these are the same people who preach evolution. I usually ask them, “What makes You think We will not evolve to living in a hotter climate?”
I might argue that it’s the “greatest” just because “climate” overall covers millennia/eons, vs all the other hoaxes that are pretty short by comparison.
And, “it’s been much hotter in the past, how are we still alive now?”
Indeed. The Dems have created the world’s more lucrative self-licking ice-cream cone. Doomsday climate warnings are showered with tax payer money that is used to produce ever more warnings. The global energy industry is about $10Trillion/year and that is a lot of reasons to use government to manipulate the market. Of course, the commies just want another way to control industry/society.
I saw an article recently, where scientists were able to estimate cloud cover changes over the last few hundred years. The changes in cloud cover completely explain the observed warming. That is the kind of science we *should* be funding.
Along side of: What’s the right % of income each individual should pay in income tax?
Yes, it is all about money – that is the issue.
Neck and neck with Power. Compared with $ and Power sex comes distant 3rd.
CAGW does look like the biggest ever definable grift, measured by money and impact. One would have to expand the field to things like “socialism” to find anything bigger.
10,000 years ago, people lived everywhere from the equator to the artic. Since then our technology to cope has improved a bit.
I vote power #1. With power the money and sex come easy
Boy are you true science-types ever picky.
So the experiment regarding how CO2 causes a massive heat spike was done in a closed system while the earth’s atmosphere is an open one. Like that should matter!
<sarcasm on>
Remember, you are the carbon they want to reduce.
zero %.
Money can be converted to power and power can be converted to money. Look at George Soros. He has a lot of money. He uses that to put Leftist prosecutors into office. They increase the crime rate and Soros makes money selling private security and buying up real estate cheap.
I agree with Dr. Bastiat. Outstanding Post!!
@eodmom
From a file I created early in October:
The Insanity On Carbon Neutral Explodes
Source of my thinking on the topic is this preposterous information about a “carbon-sinking” business firm, Equatic:
https://hakaimagazine.com/news/marine-carbon-dioxide-removal-is-about-to-go-big/
“Equatic said it is working with Montreal-based carbon removal developer Deep Sky. Equatic says it chose Quebec for its plant because building there would offer access to renewable electricity and because of the province’s decarbonization plans. Yet whether at the still-in-development Quebec plant, which Equatic hopes will get under construction soon and become operational in 2027, or at its existing test facilities, the company’s process for capturing carbon works the same way.
“How so? It begins by pumping seawater into a tank and then using an electrical current to electrolyze the water. That splits the water molecules into oxygen and hydrogen gases and extracts an alkaline slurry. This solution is then reacted with the air, which pulls carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere and chemically transforms it into two byproducts. One, calcium carbonate, is a white powder used in agricultural lime. The other is a slurry of bicarbonates that gets dumped back into the ocean. Previous research suggests carbon stashed away like this should be stable for millennia and would no longer contribute to global warming.
“What sets the proposed Quebec plant apart is its scale. Equatic’s Singaporean pilot facility has 10 electrolyzers and can process 4,000 tonnes of carbon each year. The planned Quebec facility, meanwhile, will house 300 electrolyzers capable of churning through 110,000 tonnes annually—about as much carbon as is emitted by 24,000 cars.”
Full article is at link above.
My comment: I found it interesting that the article is willing to point to the IPCC and other Climate-Concerned NG’s the various reports and summaries that fully discuss how the top people in the
carbon neutral movement have outlined the project and the approaches deemed necessary. One topic they focus on is the investment opportunities that are ongoing, as long as governments across the globe are controlled by the WEF as well as other NG’s. For instance, here is the IPCC opining on said opportunities:
Citation: text below is lifted from this webpage: https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/
“Limiting warming to 1.5°C requires a marked shift in investment patterns (medium confidence). Additional annual average energy-related investments for the period 2016 to 2050 in pathways limiting warming to 1.5°C compared to pathways without new climate policies beyond those in place today (i.e., baseline) are estimated to be around 830 billion USD2010 (range of 150 billion to 1700 billion USD2010 across six models). Total energy-related investments increase by about 12% (range of 3% to 24%) in 1.5°C pathways relative to 2°C pathways. Average annual investment in low-carbon energy technologies and energy efficiency are upscaled by roughly a factor of six (range of factor of 4 to 10) by 2050 compared to 2015, overtaking fossil investments globally by around 2025 (medium confidence). Uncertainties and strategic mitigation portfolio choices affect the magnitude and focus of required investments. {2.5.2}”
My comment: People here on Ricochet might debate if the overall goal of limiting the earth to 1.4 degrees of a rise by 2099 is ridiculous or not. And certainly very few here like “carbon neutral.” So I suspect that 95% of us agree these philosophies and policies are a crock.
However it is a given that NG’s are the ones promoting and seeing to it that they control the narrative, including the media, as well as having monies to donate to both small and big time political candidates. It is going to take a lot of work and time to change the course that has now been set in rapidly solidifying cement.
The NG’s including The WHO and the WEF, all have the monies to achieve semi-global domination because Western societies all have WEF people in positions of power. Then those people see to it that the taxes raised on the backs of the middle class as well as by business interests not involved in Climate-Concerns are then sent to the NG’s. The NG’s then see to it that their puppets are then offered the ability to run our governing bodies, from the lowliest school district right up to the US Congress and Britain and Canada’s Parliaments.
Lather Rinse Repeat
####
Read the current article (Nov 4) in City Journal by Mark P. Mills about the Inflation Reduction Act climate spending ( A Looming Political Earthquake) for some comments on the vast spending and lack of accountability for that spending. Frightening.
The “issue” is never the issue. The issue is always the revolution.
Here is a joke that explains how “stimulus” plans work.
The carbon capture scam is perfect for government. Unlimited tax dollars can be spent shoving air in a hole without impact on the weather.
Great citation – and what a shame that few will read the article.
As it is stated clearly and frighteningly reported in the article, regardless if you accept the various ideas behind “The Climate Crisis” or not, the fact that there is no oversight on what will end up being TRILLIONS of dollars of government spending on this alleged crisis should alarm everyone.
We all hear constantly about the coming Social Security funds implosion. But that sad reality is dwarfed by what is occurring inside MediCare & Big Insurers with the 3 trillion buck a year “Ozempic-for-everyone” promotions, and now these fabulously extravagant “extra” trillions for the climate crisis programs.
Most people have no concept of how huge a trillion dollars happens to be. As a young adult who often argued with my dad the accountant about the Vietnam War, one of the only times I could win an argument would be when I pointed to how some aspect of that war cost our government billions. Now if we spend some dozen billions on a war, it will only make those in power think that they should be spending more.
Bill Clinton’s go-to figure for success was one hundred billion dollars of tax payer monies. The police needed support? Write out a check for one hundred billion.
Now you’d have to multiply that amount by ten. I wish there was a law that we had to write the term out as a million millions. Rather than the simple term “trillion.”
,
Let me point out that a billion seconds is 32 years. A trillion is a thousand billion, so 32,000 years for a trillion seconds.
Also, all their “solutions” are pushing unreliable, expensive and not very green forms of energy. If they really believed it, they would scrap all of the windmills and solar panels for Nuclear Powerplants. They provide reliable energy with a least carbon footprint (using their criteria).
Don’t forget the source of a substantial % of that money -yours, your friends and family and my tax shake down offerings.
Plants act like in buffer in that they create a negative feedback loop that mitigates any increase in CO2 . . .
I recall seeing a study recently (sorry, I don’t have a reference) indicating that the effects of additional CO2 in the atmosphere don’t increase linearly, but plateau at a certain level. Freeman Dyson was saying this years ago.
I’ve seen reports that CO2 is a lagging indicator and not a driver. The thought is water vapor is a big driver and is hard to model.