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.