Show Me The Data That Proves CO2 causes global warming?
Another day, another dire warning about global warming. The press and its taskmasters could essentially Xerox a copy of what they printed for the public in the Washington Post in 1922, or a UN report in 1989.
As always, journalists just print and repeat these ever-ending reports to scare the public into submission with no questions asked.
For decades, journalists, educators, scientists, bureaucrats, and other Democrats have colluded to spread these dire warnings, (misinformation) without scientific evidence, to scare and control the public.
We are repeatedly have been told that we only have a few years left to solve the problem.
The end date always evolves. No matter how wrong these dire predictions are they just repeat them and say the science is settled to cut off debate. Why are people who are always so wrong considered experts?
Many CEOs, Republicans, and others repeat the same claims without evidence because it is so much more pleasant to go along instead of being called anti-science, or worse still, “deniers.”
In D.C., and throughout the country, politicians are using these dire forecasts to pass policies to destroy thousands of industries and millions of jobs.
Joe Biden and his administration have been in office for seven months and are working as fast as they can to remake and destroy America.
He has signed executive orders to stop a pipeline, stop drilling and force people to buy vehicles powered by the poisonous, very combustible, pollutant Lithium. These anti-oil policies greatly harm the poor, middle class, and small businesses with higher prices.
The Biden administration has rejoined the Paris climate accord where politicians and bureaucrats from around the world pretend they can control temperatures, sea levels, and storm activity if thousands of industries are destroyed and we hand them trillions of our hard-earned dollars.
Does anyone really believe that Iran, Russia, and other major oil-producing countries will give up oil? Isn’t it important that Biden let a pipeline proceed from Russia to Germany while stopping the pipeline from Canada to the United States?
Does anyone believe that China cares about its carbon footprint as it continues to build a large number of coal power plants? Here’s what’s going on in China:
Despite Pledges to Cut Emissions, China Goes on a Coal Spree
As the Biden administration works so hard to destroy industries, I have not seen one journalist as Biden, Harris, Kerry, Psaki, or anyone else in the administration who has been asked for evidence to support the claimed science that can justify what Biden is doing.
In a free society with independent journalists, we should see the reporters asking questions and doing research to see if what they are told is correct before they repeat talking points to the public. Sadly, in the United States, we have seen, for decades, almost all journalists have essentially become campaign workers to elect Democrats and lobbyists to sell the radical leftist policies to the public.
Media outlets, especially the social media giants, work very hard to stifle debate and silence anyone who disagrees by repeating the talking points that we are anti-science and climate change deniers who should not be listened to. It is an outright lie to call people who tell the truth that the climate has always changed cyclically and natural climate change deniers. I have never seen anyone deny that the climate changes.
Here are some simple scientific facts to report if journalists and others cared about facts instead of pushing an agenda:
The estimate of world population in 1900 was 1.654 billion. In 2000 it was 6.143 billion
The estimate of CO2 atmospheric content in 1900 was 291 Parts per million. In 2000, it was 370 PPM
Cars on road in the U.S in 1900: 8,000
Worldwide cars, trucks, and buses in 1968: 216 million
Worldwide cars, trucks and buses 1985: 484 million
Worldwide cars, trucks and buses 1996: 671 million
Now let’s look at historic temperatures:
Global temperature 1900s: 56.73 degrees (Fahrenheit).
Global temperature 1940s: 57.26 degrees
Global temperature 1970s: 57.20 degrees
Global temperature 1990s: 57.76 degrees
Therefore, in one hundred years, the world population rose around 271 percent, CO2 content rose around 27 percent and vehicles on the roads rose around 84,000 times or 8.4 million times, while temperatures only rose 1.81 percent.
UPDATE: Steve Campbell writes that the correct figure is actually lower:
This is a frequent error – done because we are accustomed to our accepted temperature scales of Fahrenheit or Celsius. Both have an arbitrary zero point – and different ones, at that.
For percentage rise, the change should properly be compared in degrees from Absolute Zero (about 255 Fahrenheit degrees below zero)The actual percentage rise in temperature would be about 2 tenths of one percent (0.20 percent)
This does not include planes, trains, boats, farm equipment, construction equipment, factories, computers, coal- and gas-fired power plants, gas grills, cows, and all the other things the people are told cause warming. Yet temperature only rose 1.03 degrees in 100 years.
Another important scientific fact is that the globe cooled enough in a thirty-year period from the 1940s to 1970s that on the first Earth Day in 1970 when we were warned of the threat of a coming ice age.
Another climate fact is that a 450-year global cooling period ended around 1860 and some warming is natural after a cooling period.
Where is the evidence that humans, CO2, and fossil fuels cause warming and climate change?
An additional fact is that life expectancy in the U.S in 1900 was around 52 and today it is around 80. Thank goodness fossil fuels have provided power plants, sewage, and water treatment plants, central air, central heat, mass production, combines, tractors, and other oil-derived products that have greatly improved our quality and length of life and increased productivity.
Thank goodness for the clear, innocuous, non-pollutant CO2 that allows plants to thrive and the world to be fed. Why would we bury CO2 while promoting the flammable pollutant Lithium?
Why doesn’t the media report the scientific fact that 15 times more people die of cold than a little warming? The answer is the truth doesn’t matter when those of a certain political leaning want more power.
Shouldn’t policies be based on scientific evidence instead of computer models before thousands of industries and millions of jobs are destroyed and everyone’s lifestyle is turned upside down?
Countries throughout history have collapsed because the governments got too powerful, not because the people had too much freedom. Sadly, most journalists are supporting the powerful government over the people.
See more here: americanthinker.com
Header image: The Right Track Magazine
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.
Lunatictoctarian
| #
What I don’t understand is that how people can’t figure out it’s simply about control, artificial scarcity, exploitation.
There’s only a tiny amount of co2, it happens to be quite important as a necessary/beneficial factor (though what causes it to result might not be, but that’s something of process to address, industrial methods, efficiency and perhaps greed or excess).
Less of something is easier to control. Homogenization (monolithic industry). PRS cycle.
So you engineer a supposed monopolized industrial/social “solution” (which requires even more control, scarcity, typically more associated damage, because it’s about exploitation) relating to something you want to dictate.
You make up a supposed problem, demonize something beneficial (co2 in that case) with engineered reactions, media projections, avoid fundamentals, to peddle that psychological engineering (for exploitative purposes).
Pretty sure you’ve NEVER seen that before, though.
AND NEVER do those people want to even consider EMF, radiofrequency research sites, or pollutants, toxins intentionally sprayed for geoengineering purposes.
Reply
Lunatictoctarian
| #
Btw, it’s also a good thing that not only co2 levels but temperatures are higher, as that overall relates to higher plant efficiency.
Reply
Lunatictoctarian
| #
Another thing, if there’s noticeable warming (not related to the sun) I’d bet a far better measure to look at would simply be overall energy use from materials.
Reply
Lunatictoctarian
| #
I’m quite certain you’ll find whatever warming is attributed to co2, is rather more attributable to energy GREED itself, industrial excess fundamentally…thanks to “science”.
Reply
Chris*
| #
Some basics. 71% of the Earth’s surface is ocean – average depth 4000meters
17% of the Earths surface is uninhabited eg hot deserts, cold deserts, uninhabited islands, mountain ranges etc. That leaves just 12% for humans to live on. The urban heat factor from large cities can now be measured 100’s of kilometers way from the city .
Another factor is geothermal heat. There is estimated to be a million volcanos under the oceans, particularly in the arctic and antarctic regions where active magma flows can melt glaciers from the bottom up and warm polar seas which results in loss of sea ice .
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Chris*,
Great comment!!! However, to your last sentence: “There is estimated to be a million volcanos under the oceans, particularly in the arctic and antarctic regions where active magma flows can melt glaciers from the bottom up and warm polar seas which results in loss of sea ice .” I add that the warm polar seas created the non-typical WEATHER SYSTEMS which CREATED THE GLACIERS which are observed to have covered the northern portions of the northern hemispheres continents that presently exist.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Lunatictoctarian
| #
Well Chris. I guess I forgot to specifically mention I’m referring to AGW related issues. I’m not addressing this post as like an offensive post at you, it’s a generalized view (and obviously, from my biased, limited perspective).
I mean I’d obviously suggest the sun is the main factor (just to remind people they shouldn’t demonize that which sustains or allows them).
Then you have the related earth processes.
Of course, human influences alter some of that.
So the thing is to try and understand what climate change is attributable to human activity, and in what way, through which processes.
Anyone saying it’s co2 (as a resultant product) can fuck right off, to begin with. Coz you need to go understand system dynamics a bit better and consider constituents and energy potentials.
Now, as you say, cities are markedly hotter. Near mining areas, perhaps certain kinds of agricultural industry areas you might find more specific “climate change”. And you don’t think beaming like a billion watts of energy into the atmosphere, specifically to fuck with it, while toxifying the skies could do anything, right?
But ubiquitous (anthropogenic) factors, far more pervasive and influencing than co2 are conveniently ignored so that you can focus on co2, because controlling co2 as I described, imo, is an anti-life greed measure for industrial, social control through artificial scarcity, basically.
So that leads to me to suggest, that any supposed AGW, is entirely attributable to mostly ignored factors, often factors peddled by those who try and say, demonize or ignore the sun, co2, have heavy energy use related involvements.
What can possibly, fundamentally, be more of an indicator than energy use itself?
Anyway…here’s a random energy related thing.
“The Nuclear Information and Resource Service notes that a typical once-through cooling system draws into each reactor unit more than one billion gallons (3.8 billion litres) of water daily, 500,000 gallons (1.9 million litres) per minute.[5]”
Constant toxic/damaging releases, btw. Totally ignored.
Reply
Lunatictoctarian
| #
Basically as a crude example, cities, industries are huge energy sinks. They are terribly inefficient and they disturb regulating mechanisms.
More energy used, more heat involved.
It’s like that time God joked and said “Oh sure, you can have dominion over the Earth”…and then proceeded to grow fuckloads of homogenized GMO popcorn as humans dug an ever deeper hole.
Well, maybe that wasn’t God, but who knows?
Lunatictoctarian
| #
It’s as if they’re surprised that when they dig deeper into the pits of hell driven by industry as slaves, it gets hotter.
Alan
| #
I’m pleased to see a reference to the Kelvin scale which puts the temperature changes into proper scientific perspective from a thermodynamics point of view. I cannot understand why it hardly gets mentioned. However, absolute zero is -459-67F and -273.15C.
Reply
Allan Shelton
| #
Alan…
Yes you are absolutely correct :^D
Reply
webtrekker
| #
Yes, I think the absolute zero figure in the article was misquoted and should indeed have been -459.67 F, which still gives the correct result at 0.2% (actually, 0.199% by my reckoning).
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Alan,
Thank you for pointing to the CRITICAL IMPORTANCE of the Kevin Temperature Scale. I add: Everybody should realize that there is not such thing as NEGATIVE TEMPERATURES!!!
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Alan,
Thank you for pointing to the CRITICAL IMPORTANCE of the Kevin Temperature Scale. I add: Everybody should realize that there is not such thing as NEGATIVE TEMPERATURES!!!
And to see this they should plot a graph of temperature versus an arbitrary volume scale of an ideal gas beginning with two points 100C and 0C and extrapolate the line defined by these to points to zero volume. Hope I stated this correctly.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi jerry,
One of the the problem with this is that your thermometer is calibrated using water where most of the energy becomes internal energy and does not register. It can take 640 calories to change 0 C water to 100 C water but the thermometer only registers 100 calories. It is also inaccurate because as you add energy to a gas it expands and there are fewer molecules transferring energy as momentum to the thermometer. The Kelvin scale is just as inaccurate as all the others because it relies on a thermometer that is inaccurately calibrated using water and unsuitable for use in a gas.
Herb
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb and other PSI Readers,
PSI Readers, Herb writes a bunch of nonsense as he ignores how long it have excepted by most people, including Nobel Prize Winning SCIENTISTS, that water melts (a visible observation) at 0C (32F) and boils (a visible observation) at 100C (212F) when the measured atmospheric pressure is 1atm. No reasonings nor arguments cannot change these observed (measured) facts. And a historical fact is Fahrenheit invented the laboratory mercury thermometer which I used and my students used to measure Celsius temperatures.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Tom Anderson
| #
That is an excellent point. I am happy to see it aired, and I’d urge and promote its wider use!
Reply
Bevan
| #
Here is data that shows that CO2 does not cause warming.
The Earth System Research Laboratories, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, collect atmospheric CO2 concentration data at the Barrow Atmospheric Baseline Observatory, latitude 71.323̊North, longitude 156.611̊West. The Observatory is at Utqiagvik (pronounced uut-kee-ah-vik) on the Northern-most point of Alaska, formally known as Barrow until 2016, at an elevation of 11 metres above sea level. The climate is classified as Arctic Tundra. Its extreme location means Utqiagvik receives 24-hour daylight between sunrise on May 12 (day 132) and sunset on August 2 (day 214) and is in darkness from November 19 (day 323) to January 22 (day 22) every year.
The detailed relationship between temperature and CO2 concentration may be seen in the daily CO2 concentration data for the period 01 January 2018 to 31 December 2019 taken from the file:
co2_brw_surface-insitu_1_ccgg_DailyData.txt
and the daily temperature data for that period was calculated as the mean of the hourly data from the files:
met_brw_insitu_1_obop_hour_2018.txt
and met_brw_insitu_1_obop_hour_2019.txt.
There is an obvious negative correlation between the temperature and the CO2 concentration which is the complete opposite to the claim by the UN IPCC that increased CO2 concentration causes an increase in atmospheric temperature. During the 83 days of 24 hour sunshine, the CO2 concentration falls rapidly to a minimum, attributed to photosynthesis, while the temperature rises to a maximum. During the 149 days of no sunshine, the CO2 concentration rises gradually while the temperature approaches a minimum. The same cycle occurs every 24 hours in the lower latitudes across much of the Earth’s surface in phase with the more common 24 hour day-night cycle.
Reply
Tom Anderson
| #
“For percentage rise, the change should properly be compared in degrees from Absolute Zero (about 255 Fahrenheit degrees below zero”)
I was taken by the point we often miss that percentage temperature increase depends on the temperature scale but overlooked how the example is tangled in converting from Fahrenheit to Celsius to Kelvin. The zero starting point wouldn’t be 283 – 32 or 255. It would be 273 -17.78.
The 32 Fahrenheit degrees subtracted to correspond with an unadjusted bottom-to-top scale fails to compensate for the size difference of Fahrenheit degrees to Celsius degrees (17.78 of them) and Kelvins, which are equivalent. There are 1.8 °Fs per 1.0 °C. The easiest way to get a Kelvin temperature is to first convert 56.73°F and 57.56°F to their °C equivalents [(F-32)°×5/9)], or 13.74°C and 14.20°C, and state Kelvins by adding 273, for 286.73K and 287.20K. Then simply divide the difference 0.47K by the original temperature 286.73K for a percentage increase of .0.16%
Reply
Tom Anderson
| #
Typo: 273K, of course.
Reply
Koen Vogel
| #
The conclusion of man-made, CO2 related climate change is reached by the IPCC in their Chapter 10, “Detection and Attribution of Climate Change report “, which can be downloaded from their website (https://www.ipcc.ch/reports/). Their main basis for concluding anthropogenic climate change is that their computer simulations indicate that the cause of recent global warming is not variations in solar irradiation (I would agree) therefore it must be due to Radiative Forcing due to GHG (I don’t agree). Their analysis is highly-flawed junk science that does not follow the scientific method. Any computer simulation with a solid physical basis will cause the temperature increase due to RFGHG to rise in sync with the atmospheric CO2 curve (unless there is some magical CO2 tipping point around 330 ppm where RFGHG accelerates, for which there is no evidence). This CO2 curve (see for example NOAA’s data for the Mauna Loa observatory) typically shows a relatively monotonous increase since 1900, so the IPCC simulations typically show a roughly monotonously increasing temperature. These computer models therefore will never be able to predict the curve shown above: 0.5 C increase from 1900-1943, post-WW-2 decrease of 0.2 C until mid-60’s, relatively flat curve up to 1980, acceleration of warming post-1980. Their Optimal Fingerprint Analysis method over-accentuates the post 1980 data and basically throws away the pre-1950 data. In order to match the observations they must use 3 (!) scaling factors (fudge factors) that reach completely unrealistic values (negative scaling factors, factors larger than 10) to match reality. The IPCC models will therefore always over-predict temperature increases. Their models will never be able to explain how the world’s oceans lost about 40 ZJ (10^21 J) between 1958-1968 only to recover that lost energy in the following periods (Levitus et al. data on NOAA). This energy was radiated to space, despite increasing CO2. This argument is just one of many against the IPCC’s conclusions
Reply