The CO2 Climate Change Myth
by Chylene Ramsey
“…global warming is dressed up as science, but it’s not science—it’s propaganda.”
“You can’t say CO2 will drive climate. It certainly never did in the past.”
“’If the CO2 increases in the atmosphere, the temperature will go up.’ But the ice core records show exactly the opposite. So the fundamental assumption—the most fundamental assumption of the whole theory of climate change due to humans is shown to be wrong.”
The global warming-climate change debate is one that drives society to extreme ends. Any evidence to the contrary, no matter how reputable the science, is hotly denied.
However, there is no reputable scientific evidence that the climate is driven by carbon dioxide (CO2), and as for thee premise of ‘climate change’— the earth’s climate has always changed, there is nothing unusual about it.
There are a number of scientists who don’t agree with the basic principle of CO2 driven climate change, and their voices are getting louder every day. What’s more, they have plenty of data proving that temperature is not driven by CO2 levels—indeed, there are times in the past where there were 10 times the present level of CO2 in the atmosphere, even at times during earth’s intermittent ice ages.
In addition, ‘climate change’ is the driving force to stop development in third world countries, yet scientists who speak out against the popularized rhetoric about the theories of global warming face censure and ridicule from their colleagues. It seems global warming-climate change has been pushed from a media scare to practically a religion, and those who disagree are treated as heretics.
But again—earth’s climate has always changed. The present warming trend can be traced back to “The Little Ice Age” of the fourteenth century. During the coldest winters of this period, the Thames in England actually froze! Then during the medieval warm period, even earlier, temperatures were actually warmer than they are today—England had vineyards, even in the chilly north! This was far from a time of climate catastrophe, however. It was actually a time of great prosperity.
So what makes us think that the situation in any different today? The fault it’s said lie with our industrialized society…we enjoy a leisure and prosperity unmatched in earlier human history, but the question is. Does it drive ‘climate change’?
Since the mid-nineteenth century, the earth’s temperature has risen only half a degree Celsius, and most of the rise in temperature occurred before 1940—before the post-war economic boom that heralded a time of industrial development and technological advancement. During this time of a great increase in industrialization, the temperatures should have increased, that is, if the theory behind CO2 driven ‘climate change’ is correct. Instead, the temperature actually dropped, for four decades no less! This despite a great increase in CO2 levels. Obviously, the facts do not fit the theory.
How then did CO2 become the prime culprit in ‘climate change’? In fact, CO2 makes up such a small part of our atmosphere that it’s measures tens of parts per million, or ppm, and measures approximately 0.54%, and even a smaller part of that can be attributed to human development.
Greenhouse gases actually form a very small part of the earth’s atmosphere, and CO2 is an even lesser part of that. Water vapor actually forms 95% of greenhouse gases.
If it weren’t for greenhouse gases deflecting the sun’s rays from outer space, the world would soon become too hot to support life. If they did not trap the earth’s warmth as it rises, the planet would soon become too cold to live in. Therefore, greenhouse gases are actually beneficial.
The popular theory would indicate that if the temperature of the earth rises, the temperature of the upper atmosphere should rise also. The data, however, indicates that the upper atmosphere has actually dropped, and is not warming as quickly as the surface temperatures, a fact that perplexes scientists that buy into the theory that global warming is driven by greenhouse gases.
Looking at the ice core records, researchers have found a link between temperature and CO2, but not in the path expected. The temperature rises a few hundred years, then the CO2 levels rise following that trend. Therefore, CO2 couldn’t factor into the rise in temperature; it’s not a factor in climate change, it’s actually it’s product.
Carbon dioxide (CO2) is a natural gas, produced by all living things. It’s not a pollutant, no more than the oxygen and hydrogen in our atmosphere are pollutants.
Humans are not even the major source of carbon dioxide (CO2). Volcanoes produce more CO2 than all the factories and vehicles combined. More comes from animals and bacteria which produce 150 gigatons of CO2 each year, compared to a mere 6.5 gigatons produced by humans. Dying vegetation is yet another source of CO2. But the largest producer of CO2 comes from the oceans. Are they to be considered pollutants?
If CO2 doesn’t drive climate, then what does? The sun. More exactly, sunspots. Measuring sunspots produces more accurate results in predicting the weather than conventional means. Sunspots are intense magnetic fields, and astronomers in the past counted sunspots in that belief that the more sunspots there were, the warmer the weather would be. In fact, during earth’s “Little Ice Age”, there were hardly any sunspots at all. Researchers going back 400 years found sunspot activity significantly linked to temperature changes.
Clouds and the earth’s climate are also closely linked. Clouds are formed when cosmic rays from the sun meet water vapor rising from the oceans. Clouds are formed. climate is controlled by clouds, clouds are formed from cosmic rays, and cosmic rays come from the sun. The sun, then, drives climate change, and the effects of CO2 are insignificant.
Then, where did this myth of CO2 driven climate change come from? It’s a convenient theory to drive an anti-capitalistic, anti-development agenda. Socialism and communism were both great failures, and the left has to find a different agenda to drive their ideological spite. Global warming, driven by CO2 produced by industrialization became their focus.
The myth is propagated by the large amounts of money being poured into ‘climate change.’ It has become an economic driver with untold people’s livelihood depending on propagating the theory. Anyone who tried to go against the popular rhetoric soon finds themselves a subject of denouncement and ridicule.
The policies pushed by the popular consensus calls for a reduction of development and industrialization in both the developed and underdeveloped countries. This has, and will cause, a depressing effect on the world’s economies, but most disastrously to the poor in nations such as Africa.
With so much at stake, why does this myth continue to flourish? The ‘precautionary principle’ says that if there is even a small chance of global warming-climate change being correct, we should err on the side of caution. Another factor is human nature; we can’t do anything about cosmic rays or sunspots to control our environment, but we can work earnestly to reduce our ‘carbon footprint’. People receive gratification and even notoriety by succumbing to this public delusion.
CO2 driven climate change is not a fact, it’s more of an opinion, and it won’t be changed until enough voices are raised refuting it that this popular myth will be defeated.
Have any of these people who clamor for reduction of carbon and less fossil fuel use ever think about how their world and lifestyle would be significantly altered should fossil fuel use be significantly reduced? Could they even live in such a world, with no cars, no electricity, and none of the gadgets like cell-phones they take so much for granted now?
Wind and solar technologies cannot be depended upon, either. They are notoriously unreliable and expensive as well, which make them unaffordable to the world’s poor denizens.
The global warming alarm has become so prevalent, and the voices of dissent so effectively silenced, there may be irreparable damage done to our society before people finally accept the truth. By then it may well be too late. They will have caused the very catastrophe their convictions were trying to prevent.