Defending CO2: Astro-Climatology, Climategate and Common Sense

According to such modern climate experts as Bill Gates, Greta Thunberg, Michael Bloomberg, Mark Carney, Al Gore, Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, Prince Charles and Klaus Schwab, carbon dioxide must be stopped at all cost. Images of submerged cities, drowning polar bears and burning deserts taking over civilization flash before our eyes repeatedly in schools, mainstream media and films.

The Paris Climate Accords demand that all nations reduce their emissions to pre-industrial levels and the upcoming COP27 Summit in the UK will certainly demand that these reductions be made legally binding and enforceable by new global governance mechanisms.

But is CO2 really the existential threat it is being made out to be?

I would like to take a few moments to entertain the hypothesis that we may be drinking some poisonous Kool-Aid in a modern-day Jonestown cult and we are just minutes away from a hearty “bottoms up”.

While some of the questions and facts you are about to read are considered heretical in certain quarters, I think that history has shown that it is only by permitting the mind to question sacred cows at the risk of being denounced as “heretical” that any creative progress can made. With this thought in mind, I will venture the risk and only ask that you accompany me for this thought experiment with an open mind.

A Preface on Climategate

Back in November 17, 2009, a major scandal erupted when the 61 Mb of emails internally circulated among the directors and researchers at East Anglia University’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) were made public. To this day, it has not been verified if the scandal occurred via an internal leak or a hack, but what was verified throughout the hundreds of emails between director Phil Jones and the teams of climatologists staffing the CRU, was that vast scales of fraud were occurring. Jones himself was caught red handed[1] demanding that data sets be ignored and massaged in order to justify the climate models that had all been used to sell the idea that CO2 was driving startling rates of warming.

East Anglia’s CRU is the world’s foremost center of data set centralization and climate model generation which feed directly into the UN’s Independent Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and which in turn feeds into every major NGO, school, corporation and government. The other central control point of data selection and model generation (for both climate change and covid-19 data sets) is an Oxford-based operation called “Our World In Data”, funded in large measure by the UK government and Bill Gates[2].

Climategate couldn’t have come at a worse time, as the COP15 Climate Summit was scheduled for December 2009 where the world’s first legally binding carbon reduction treaties were expected to finalize an end to sovereign nation states. The terrible publicity of climategate essentially caused the event to become a big goose egg, as Chinese and Indian delegates refused to play along, and ensured that all teeth were removed from any binding carbon caps[1].

In December 2009, former chief economic advisor to Putin, Dr. Andrei Illarionov stated that Russia had sent data to East Anglia’s CRU from 476 meteorological stations covering over 20% of the globe’s surface hosting a wide range of data from as far back as 1865 to 2005.

Dr. Illarionov explained[2] that he was dismayed to see that Phil Jones and the CRU entirely ignored the data from all but 121 stations, and from those stations they did use, they artificially cherry-picked data that gave off the false result that temperatures between 1860-1965 were 0.67 degrees colder than they truly were while temperatures from 1965-2005 were made artificially high.

After being suspended for a few months, a UK review panel absolved Jones from his transgressions and re-installed him into his old position of carbon data gatekeeper at the CRU.

Development Greens the Earth

Many people were taken aback by the findings published by a team of scientists analyzing the results of Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) instruments on NASA’s Terra and Aqua satellites. NASA’s website[3] described the findings (published on February 11, 2019[4]) in the following way: “The research team found that global green leaf area has increased by 5 percent since the early 2000s, an area equivalent to all of the Amazon rainforests. At least 25 percent of that gain came in China.”

Up until this study’s publication, scientists were not certain what role human economic activity played in this anomalous greening of the earth.

The NASA study demonstrated that this dramatic rate of greening between 2000-2017 was being driven largely by China and India’s combined efforts at eradicating poverty which involves both reforestation, desert greening efforts (see China’s Move South Water North megaproject[1]), agricultural innovation and also, general industrial growth policies. T

he later policies represent genuine efforts by Asian nations to wipe out poverty by investments into large scale infrastructure… a practice once used in the west before the days of “post-industrialism” induced a collective insanity of consumerism in the early 1970s.

A perplexed reader might now be heard to ask: but how can industrial growth have anything to do with greening of the planet?

One simple answer is: carbon dioxide.

CO2: An Innocent Victim Framed for Genocide

As children, we are taught that CO2 is an integral part of our ecosystem and that plants love it.

The processes of photosynthesis which evolved over long spans of time with the advent of the chlorophyll molecule eons ago requires constant infusions of carbon dioxide that are broken down along with H2O, releasing oxygen back into the biosphere. Over time, free oxygen slowly formed the earth’s ozone layer and fueled the rise of ever higher life forms that relied on this “plant waste” for life.

Today, large amounts of carbon dioxide is regularly generated by biotic and abiotic activity from living animals, decaying biomass as well as volcanos which constantly emit CO2 and other greenhouse gases. A surprisingly small portion of that naturally occurring CO2 is caused by human economic activity.

Taking the entire composition of so-called ‘greenhouse gases’ together, water vapour makes up 95 percent of the bulk, carbon dioxide makes up 3.6 percent, nitrous oxide (0.9 percent), methane (0.3 percent), and aerosols about 0.07 percent.

Of the sum total of the 3.6 percent carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere, approximately 0.9 percent is caused by human activity. To restate this statistic: Human CO2 makes up less than 1 percent of the 3.6 percent of the total ‘greenhouse gases’.

During the mid-20th century, a belief began to emerge among some fringe climate scientists that the 400 parts per million (PPM) average carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is the “natural and ideal amount”, such that any upset of this mathematical average would supposedly result in destruction of biodiversity.

These same mathematicians also presumed that the biosphere could be defined as closed systems such that rules of entropy were the natural organizing principles- ignoring the obvious fact that ecosystems are OPEN, connected to oceans of active cosmic radiations from other stars, galaxies, supernova and more while being mediated by nested arrays of electromagnetic fields.

As film maker Adam Curtis demonstrated in his All Watched Over By Machines of Love and Grace (2011)[1], this belief slowly moved from the fringe into mainstream thinking despite the fact that it is simply wrong.

Beyond the facts already presented above, another persuasive piece of evidence can be found in carbon dioxide generators which are commonly purchased by anyone managing a greenhouse[2]. These widely-used generators increase CO2 to amounts as high as 1,500 PPM. What is the effect of such increases? Healthier, happier, greener plants and vegetables.

Temperature and CO2: Who Leads in this Dance?

Amidst the frantic alarms sounding daily over the impending climate emergency threatening the world, we often forget to ask if anyone ever actually proved the claim that CO2 drives the climate?

To begin to answer this question, let’s start with a graph showcasing the rise of human industrial CO2 from 1751-2015 broken down into various regions of the earth. What we can see is consistent increase from the mid 19th century until 1950, when a vast spike of emission rate increases can be viewed. This increase obviously accompanies world population growth and the correlated agro-industrial output.

Next, let us look at the global mean temperature changes from 1880-present.

Here several anomalies strike the thinking mind.

For starters, absolutely no warming accompanies the period of intensive industrial growth of 1940-1977. In fact during this period, many climate scientists were ringing the alarm over an impending ice age![1]

Another anomaly: Since carbon dioxide emissions have increased continuously over the past 20 years, one would expect to see a correlated spike in warming trends. However, this expected correlation is entirely absent between the year 1998 and 2012 when warming tappers off to a near standstill sometimes called “the global warming pause” of 1998-2012[2].

This has been an embarrassment for all modellers whose scare-mongering predictions have fallen to pieces to the point that they can only pretend this pause doesn’t exist. Again, the question must be asked: why would this anomaly appear if CO2 drove temperature?

Let’s take one more anomaly from our temperature records before digging into the hard proof that CO2 does not cause temperature changes: The medieval warming period [see graph].

While certain proven fraudsters like Michael Mann[1] have attempted to erase this warming period from existence with things like the famous “hockey stick” model crafted with the help of East Anglia’s Phil Jones, the fact remains that from 1000-1350 A.D. global mean temperatures were significantly warmer than anything we are currently living through. The Vikings in Greenland had no coal plants or SUVs, and yet mean temperatures were still warmer than today by a long shot. Why?

Perhaps taking a wider look at the CO2:climate correlation might give us a better idea of what is actually happening.

Below we can see a chart taking 600,000 years of data into account. It is certainly the case that CO2 and temperature have a connection on these scales… but correlation is not causation, and as the author of How to Lie with Statistics[1] famously stated “a well-wrapped statistic is better than Hitler’s Big Lie; it misleads, yet it cannot be pinned on you.”

When a 70,000 year sampling is inspected, we find the slight of hand fully exposed by observing the peaks and troughs of temperature and CO2. If the later were truly the driving force as the Great Resetters of our day proclaim, then CO2 peaks and troughs would happen before temperature, but the evidence shows us the exact opposite. Let’s look at one more example of an 800 year CO2/temperature lag about 130,000 years ago…

Going back even further into the climate records, it has been revealed that during many of the past ice ages, carbon dioxide had risen up to 800% higher than our current levels, despite the fact that human activity played zero role[1].

A Brief Look at Space Weather

Technically, I could end right now and feel like any honest jury would conclude that CO2 has been falsely framed for murder. But I would like to introduce one more dramatic piece of evidence that gets us back on the path of a true science of climate change and ecosystems management: Astroclimatology.

The fact that the earth is but one of a multitude of spherical bodies in space speedily revolving around an incredibly active sun within the outskirts of a galaxy within a broader cluster of galaxies is often ignored by many computer modelling statisticians for a very simple reason. Anyone who has been conditioned to look at the universe through a filter of linear computer models is obsessed with control, and is incredibly uncomfortable with the unknown.

The amount of actual factors shaping the weather, ice ages, and volcanism are so complex, vast and mostly undiscovered that computer modellers would prefer to simply pretend they don’t exist… or if they do acknowledge such celestial phenomena to have any function in climate change, it is often dismissed as “negligible”.

Despite this culture of laziness and dishonesty, the question is worth asking: WHY does evidence of climate change occur across so many other planets and moons of our solar system? Ice caps on Mars melt periodically[2] and have been melting at faster rates in recent years. Why is this happening? Could the sun’s coronal mass ejections, solar wind, or electromagnetic field be affecting climate change within the solar system as one unifying process?

Often Venus with its atmosphere of 96.5 percent CO2 is used as a warning for people on the earth what sort of terrible oven we will create by producing more CO2. It is hot after all with temperatures averaging 467 degrees Celsius (872 degrees Fahrenheit). However, if CO2 were truly to blame for the heating, then why is Mars so cold with temperatures averaging minus 125 degrees Celsius (-195 degrees Fahrenheit) despite the fact that it’s atmosphere is 95 percent CO2?

Similarly, what role does cosmic radiation play in driving climate change? Based on the recent discoveries of Heinrich Svensmark and his team in Denmark, strong correlations were found linking cloud formation, climate and cosmic radiation flux over time.

Cosmic radiation flux into the earth is a continuous process mediated by the earth’s magnetic field as well as the oscillating magnetic field of the sun which shapes the entire solar system as we revolve around the galactic center of the Milky Way every 225-250 million years. Svensmark’s discovery was outlined beautifully in the 2011 documentary The Cloud Mystery.[1]

A Return to a True Science of Climate

The point to re-emphasize is that the weather is, and always has been, a complex process shaped by galactic forces that have driven a miraculous system of life on the earth over hundreds of millions of years.

During this time amounting to approximately two revolutions around the galactic center, living matter has transformed from relatively boring (high entropy) single celled organisms, through a continuous process of increased complexity, and increased power of self-direction (low entropy). Up until now, there is no actual evidence that this process is a closed system and as such, that any fixed state of no change/heat death is controlling its behavior.

While some might deny this claim, citing the redshifts of galaxies as proof that the universe is in fact dying (or inversely had a starting point “in time” 13.6 billion years ago before there was nothing), I refer you to the work of Halton Arp[1].

This process has been characterized by non-linear discontinuities of living matter emerging where only nonliving matter previously existed, followed later by conscious life having appeared where only non-conscious life had been found and most recently self-conscious life endowed with creative reason appearing onto the scene. While this process has been punctuated by sometimes violent mass-extinction cycles, the overall direction of life has not been shaped by randomness, chance or chaos, but rather improvement, perfectibility and harmony.

When humanity appeared onto the scene, a new phenomenon began expressing itself in a form which the great Russian academician Vladimir Vernadsky (1863-1945) described as the Noosphere (as opposed to the lithosphere and biosphere). Vernadsky understood this new geological force to be driven by human creative reason, and devoted his life to teaching the world that the law of humanity must accord with the law of nature stating:

“The noösphere is a new geological phenomenon on our planet. In it, for the first time, man becomes a large-scale geological force. He can, and must, rebuild the province of his life by his work and thought, rebuild it radically in comparison with the past. Wider and wider creative possibilities open before him. It may be that the generation of our grandchildren will approach their blossoming”.[1]

In Vernadsky’s mind, neither the noosphere, nor the biosphere obeyed a law of mathematical equilibrium or statis, but was rather governed by an asymmetrical harmony and progress from lower to higher states of organization. It was only by coming to understand the principles of nature that mankind became morally and intellectually fit to improve upon nature by turning deserts green, harnessing the power of the atom or applying scientific progress to health and agriculture.

Some of his most important insights were published in his Scientific Thought as a Planetary Phenomena (1938), Evolution of Species and Living Matter (1928) Some Words About the Noosphere (1943), and The Transition of the Biosphere to the Noosphere (1938).[2]

Despite the lasting contributions made by Vernadsky to human knowledge, here we sit, 76 years after the end of WW2 tolerating an unscientific policy of mass decarbonization which threatens to radically undermine civilization for countless generations.

Is this change being forced upon humanity? Unlike the forces of fascism and imperialism of the past, today’s terrible self-implosion of civilization is occurring via the consent of those intended to perish under a Great Reset via the collective guilt for the crime of simply being human. It has become the norm for the majority of today’s children to think of themselves as belonging not to a beautiful species made in the image of a Creator, but rather to a parasitic race guilty for the crime of sinning against nature.

So let’s take this opportunity to re-introduce truth back into climate science, and let the social engineers drooling over a Great Reset scream and whine as nations choose a new open system paradigm of life and anti-entropy rather than a closed system world of decay and heat death.

This positive new paradigm of cooperation, scientific and technological progress, and cultural optimism is getting stronger by the day led by Russia, China and other nations joining the international New Silk Road. Most importantly, let’s finally absolve CO2 of its accused sins, and celebrate this wonderful little molecule as our friend and ally.

About ther author: Matthew Ehret is the Editor-in-Chief of the Canadian Patriot Review , a BRI Expert on Tactical talk, and Senior Fellow at the American University in Moscow. He is author of the‘Untold History of Canada’ book series, and Clash of the Two Americas. In 2019 he co-founded the Montreal-based Rising Tide Foundation .

Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method

PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX. 

Trackback from your site.

Comments (16)

  • Avatar

    Andy

    |

    Excellent piece of writing Matthew!

    Reply

    • Avatar

      MattH

      |

      And a great header photo which could be observed suspiciously.

      Reply

      • Avatar

        Andy

        |

        That was one I’d saved some time ago, and I thought it was appropriate to use here 🙂

        Reply

  • Avatar

    Ken Warren

    |

    Superbly insightful. I look forward now to following up on the links. Thank you!

    Reply

  • Avatar

    tom0mason

    |

    Very nice piece of writing Matthew Ehret.

    I note you say “The research team found that global green leaf area has increased by 5 percent since the early 2000s, an area equivalent to all of the Amazon rainforests. And of course according to the ‘basics physix’ of the IPCC this costs NO change in the energy balance of the planet! Not that they know anyway, they only guess [estimate] at it, and assume that energy leaving the planet must equal energy arriving at the planet — IMHO that’s pure hokum.
    The Greening of the desert and frozen tundra regions will cause changes in the albedo for those areas and affect other subsequent changes after, some of which impact how climate change proceeds. All perfectly normal and natural.
    There is NO static ‘energy balance’ for this planet, as natural systems continues to play catch-up with the environmental changes that occur on the planet, doing it’s best to sequester energy and resources as they occur.

    Humans are not apart from nature but are a part of nature!

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Michaael Wood

    |

    An excellent and comprehensive analysis. Have passed it to a colleague who may be able to inform others.

    However, as you may know, the current ‘climate change’ was ‘invented’ in the late 1980s early 1990s at the 1992 UN Rio Earth Summit. This was a huge event with most major countries attending. Over 45,000 were in attendance and guarded by thousands of soldiers and police. The Secretary General of that huge conference was Maurice Strong and the intention was to introduce ‘Agenda 21’. An important issue was to distribute world wealth more evenly. The Brundtland Report gave details of planned changes (including the introduction of the simplistic term ‘sustainable development’). That report placed huge responsibilities on people to change their ways. It is believed that the Club of Rome suggested that if the necessity to support the Report was linked to the threat of Climate Change it might work. There was a belief that when fossil fuels were burned it created CO2 and, misunderstanding the science, they thought that this would cause ‘Global Warming’. The UN also tried to confirm that the CO2 produced by industrialised countries would be responsible for driving global warming – and they set up the UNFCCC to commit the world to follow this route.
    Of course the science was wrong as the warming effect is now fully saturated and no matter how much CO2 is now added to the atmosphere, virtually no more warming will tale place.

    There is much more (which I have been researching for 30 years) but Perhaps this is enough!! Maurice Strong was believed to have said that this CO2 procedure should ‘de-indistrialised’ the wealthy countries – and it looks as if he is getting his way!

    Reply

  • Avatar

    NecktopPC

    |

    I wonder when the warmist [IPCC] will try to change the criteria that constitutes International Standard Atmosphere?
    Have they not realized that 15°C or 52°F is still being used after 63 years?

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Alan

    |

    It is COP26 in Glasgow. COP27 is expected to be held in Africa next year.

    I have often seen references to the increased levels of CO2 in greenhouses, but nobody follows this through to talk about whether the temperatures are higher. Prof Wood’s experiments with model greenhouses showed there would be no increase in temperature.

    Michael Mann claimed his past temperature records which did not show any warm or cold period which happened in Europe were more representative of world temperatures and that Europe was a local effect. I have never seen it pointed out that Mann used north American tree ring data, so how could that be representative of the world.

    It is pity that the discussion about Venus and Mars does not explain the reasons. It is the difference in the density of the atmospheres and nothing to do with CO2. Gravity compresses the atmosphere as it does on Earth and the surface temperature increases. It is the effect of the natural gas law. A compressed gas increase in temperature. We can see this effect when pumping up a tyre – the pump temperature increases. The reverse happens when a compressed gas is allowed to expand. I also think it is relevant to look at the temperatures on the Moon. They show that the sun is capable of heating the Earth’s surface to much higher temperatures and I can only conclude that the atmosphere keeps the Earth cool. Why don’t we hear more of this?

    Nir Shaviv is also doing work on cosmic rays. One of the tragedies of the CO2 nonsense is that research funding is wasted and should be diverted to investigate other aspects.

    I thought the comment about modelling and obsession with control and fear of the unknown says more about the prevailing views on climate than anything else. I especially liked the concluding paragraphs.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Andrew Pilkington

    |

    An excellent read and very interesting, thank you, Matthew.

    Forgive my ignorance, but Carbon Dioxide is a Heavy Gas, used in Fire Extinguishers to put out fires. It is therefore down at ground level, is it not, and not high in the Earth’s atmosphere?
    Therefore, if there was too much Carbon Dioxide, wouldn’t We and Smaller Mammals be having trouble breathing, if there was so much?
    Plants would be Partying 🙂 Flourishing, which would restore the balance?
    Whereas now, they have adopted their Carbon Zero policies and are destroying Forests to make way for Solar Panel Farms (ref: UK Column News – Fri. 23th August 2021) and Suffocating Humans and Cyborgs Worldwide, with our own Carbon Dioxide, by our complying with wearing “Heavily Contaminated” (ref: My 3rd Mask Analysis uploaded to my “Roo63” video platform channels and Facebook’s “Worldwide Awakening, just over an hour ago) “Free” Face Masks?
    Any wonder that last year’s Carbon Emissions for 2020 for the USA and Britain, were both said to have fallen by about 10%, respectively? And so, the Suffocation program continues at a deadlier pace in 2021.
    There is an online report, by the “House of Commons Science and Technology…” dated 2009 entitled “The Regulation of Geoengineering” (a link to which, I share in the Description box below my Chemtrail videos, should you have difficulty finding it?), in which they require Spraying the Sky to commence asap, in order to reduce Carbon And, Carbon Dioxide.
    “Carbon” = “Us” and “Carbon Dioxide” = “Plant Food”. No “Plants” = ” No “Us” = Mass Depopulation = UN Agenda 21/2030 and their Great Reset etc.?
    Eitherway, their “Global Cooling” (1970’s/80’s) / “Global Warming” / “Climate Change” Agenda’s are just as Fraudulent as their “COVID-19” SCAMdemic and, Centuries earlier, their “Globe”, the BIGGEST Sin which goes Directly against “Creation” itself.

    The main point being, Ask Questions, and Lots of them, because virtually Everything they have taught us, is utter BS?
    They are even taking the piss now, by forever swapping and changing their Covid narratives and most people Still, don’t get it?

    Bloody Crazy World!

    Thank you 🙂

    Reply

  • Franchising Strategy

    |

    Franchising Strategy

    Defending CO2: Astro-Climatology, Climategate and Common Sense | Principia Scientific Intl.

    Reply

  • how to start franchise business

    |

    how to start franchise business

    Defending CO2: Astro-Climatology, Climategate and Common Sense | Principia Scientific Intl.

    Reply

  • hotshot Hauling company

    |

    hotshot Hauling company

    Defending CO2: Astro-Climatology, Climategate and Common Sense | Principia Scientific Intl.

    Reply

  • Best hotshot trucking

    |

    Best hotshot trucking

    Defending CO2: Astro-Climatology, Climategate and Common Sense | Principia Scientific Intl.

    Reply

Leave a comment

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.
Share via