Time To End The Climate Gravy Train
Svante Arrhenius (1859-1927) was a Swedish scientist who first claimed that the burning of hydrocarbons like coal, oil, gas, peat, and wood may cause global warming.
In 1895, he calculated (incorrectly) that a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration would lead to a 4-5o C rise in global temperature.
However, Arrhenius suggested that this increase could be beneficial, making the various climates on Earth “more equable” and stimulating plant growth and food production.
Then a showman/politician, Al Gore, gave life to the theory that extra carbon dioxide due to human activities will cause dangerous global warming.
But temperatures refused to obey the alarmist computer model forecasts. So they switched to the universal boogieman — climate-change, where every bit of bad weather was blamed on Western Industry.
But this did not scare enough people, so it morphed into climate emergency, which allows coal, oil, gas, cars, and cattle to be blamed for everything bad — floods and droughts, snowstorms and heatwaves, bushfires, coral bleaching, species extinction, and pollution anywhere.
But the carbon dioxide scare is proving false — it’s time for some climate sense.
Human activity can never control atmospheric CO2 or global temperature. Much bigger forces are at work — solar system cycles, earth orbital changes, volcanic activity (especially on the seafloor), El Nino episodes, declining magnetic field and magnetic pole reversals, variable cosmic rays and cloud cover, and absorption/expulsion of CO2 by the mighty oceans.
Geological records show that today’s CO2 levels are very low — so low that plants grow slower and need more water.
Moreover, the ice core records from Antarctica and Greenland show clearly that atmospheric temperature always rises before CO2 levels rise. So rising CO2 is the effect of rising temperature, not the cause.
Warming oceans are like warming beer — they both expel bubbles of CO2 into the atmosphere. When oceans cool, they take it back.
The dense plant and animal populations in equatorial regions show that humans need not fear global warming – in fact, the Russian president has welcomed the possibility of warming for his cold land.
We live in a natural warm interlude but we are past the warming peak. There will still be fluctuations and extreme weather events but the next big move will be global cooling — the 11th freeze-up in about a million years.
All it needs are oceans heated by submarine volcanoes, and skies made cold by volcanic ash that blocks incoming solar energy. This will trigger the evaporation of water from the oceans and heavy snowfalls on land.
Once the summer sun fails to melt all the winter snow, glaciers and ice sheets will advance again. The increased albedo from the snow and ice will cause further cooling.
Ice ages have been a periodic threat to much of life on Earth. As the ice sheets spread from the North Pole there will be massive depopulation and survivors will need to relearn hunter-gatherer skills or have access to reliable energy.
Wind turbines and solar panels will not work in snowy conditions and many hydro-energy supplies will also freeze up. Even the Great Niagara Falls froze in 1848 during the Little Ice Age.
But the UN climate bureaucracy will probably still collect climate taxes and organize well-fed conferences in places with a warm climate and reliable power.
Alarmism over climate is the great gravy train for academics, bureaucrats, speculators, globalists, and politicians seeking excuses for more power and more taxes.
“Climate emergency” is an exercise in global politics, not science. The plan is to scare us into transferring money and power from western nations to the UN — a fake answer to an invented problem.
Viv Forbes is a scientist with long experience in geologic history, cycles, computer modeling, industry economics and management of cattle and sheep on natural pastures.
Read more at American Thinker
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Trackback from your site.
Andy Rowlands
| #
Excellent article.
Reply
geran
| #
Arrhenius was wrong, but he fooled many.
He managed to get involved with the start of the Nobel Committee and maneuved himself into one of the first Nobel Prizes.
We now have a long list of charlatans.
Reply
JaKo
| #
To maneuver oneself is one thing, to deny his opponents access to the prize is yet more damning…
Anything new, even in history, in the realm of Climate Change personnel?
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Geran and JaKo,
I am curious. Does either one of you know for what achievement Svante Arrhenius won a Nobel Prize?
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
geran
| #
Jerry, Arrhenius maneuvered himself into the Nobel organization in about 1900. Then, in 1903, he was awarded the Nobel Prize “in recognition of the extraordinary services he has rendered to the advancement of chemistry by his electrolytic theory of dissociation”.
He remained on the Committee to help award his friends and deny his enemies. The Nobel organization has been corrupt since its establishment.
Curiosity killed the cat….
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Geran,
I am curious. Who had been Arrhenius’s enemies?
Have a good day, Jerry
geran
| #
Now Jerry, there you go again.
You’re not really curious. If you were, you would do the research to find out. What you are trying to do is avoid reality. For some unknown reason, you don’t want to face reality.
For example, you avoid admitting your mistake about Arrhenius and the “33”. Or do you deny that?
Have a great day.
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Geran,
What I know and what everyone who reads our comments knows. You did not answer my question.
Have a good day, Jerry
geran
| #
What I know Jerry, is that you are delusional. You can’t avoid reality. It will catch up to you every time.
https://principia-scientific.com/over-100-papers-assert-co2-has-little-or-no-climate-effect/#comment-29816
Have a great day.
James McGinn
| #
Geran:
What I know Jerry, is that you are delusional.
JMcG:
Geran, you think you’re not delusional? Guess again.
https://anchor.fm/james-mcginn
geran
| #
James, your futile efforts to provide mature comments are hilarious.
More please.
James McGinn
| #
Geran, you got nothing, you evasive piece of shit.
geran
| #
Wrong James. I’ve got both your incompetence and your immaturity well documemted.
More please.
James McGinn
| #
Real scientists pursuing truth embrace questions that challenge their scientific beliefs.
Condenscending twit
geran
| #
James, your futile efforts to provide mature comments are hilarious, as usual.
More please.
Zoe Phin
| #
Yeah, he was very wrong. So was Fourier.
Never let a mathematician and a chemist do physics.
https://phzoe.wordpress.com/2019/12/24/hot-plate-heat-lamp-and-gases-in-between/
Reply
ЯΞ√ΩLUT↑☼N
| #
From its inception, the IPCC’s mandate was to “find” AGW. Going by AR-1 (first report), they basically admitted they couldn’t amongst the natural noise. Realising their mistake and that they could all soon be out of jobs if they maintained that tune, the UN’s IPCC somehow managed to “find” AGW ever since through models that run hot and tampered thermometer data from NASA GISS and NOAA. Those are the only places where their “global warming” can be found, and a large proportion of the population are stupid enough to believe it out of hand and others are paid to parrot and troll this information to maintain the message in a Goebbels’ propaganda fashion.
Reply
Carbon Bigfoot
| #
I fear we are too late and have not prepared for the consequences.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Viv,
You wrote: “Human activity can never control atmospheric CO2 or global temperature. Much bigger forces are at work — solar system cycles, earth orbital changes, volcanic activity (especially on the seafloor), El Nino episodes, declining magnetic field and magnetic pole reversals, variable cosmic rays and cloud cover, and absorption/expulsion of CO2 by the mighty oceans.”
R. C. Sutcliffe (Weather & Climate, 1966, W.W. Norton & Company, Advancent of Science Series) wrote: “Clouds which do not give rain, which never even threaten to give rain but which dissolve again into vapor before the precipitation stage is ever reached, have a profound effect on our climate.”
You mention ‘cloud cover’ as one of the ten ‘much bigger forces’ than carbon dioxide which might influence the earth’s climate. However, you did not suggest that the cloud’s influence was any greater than the other other nine bigger forces.
I offer you and PSI readers some the radiation data which has been measured by NOAA’s SURFRAD projed (https://cbdakota.wordpress.com/2017/09/10/redux-what-downwelling-ir-radiation-why-condensation-nuclei-andor-cloud-how-tyndall-scattering-andor-downwelling-ir-emission/)
Have a good day, Jerry.
.
Reply
Richard
| #
Gosh. In 1895 Arrhenius got it wrong? Are you serious?
We have not yet doubled [CO2]. 1895, [CO2] was between approx 300 ppm.
In my maths that means we should wait for [CO2] of 600 ppm .. but better not.
In fact, he predicted pretty much everything we see today.
Not sure he predicted the increasing acidification and destruction of the oceans (and the Anthropocene Extinction Era) with the release of CH4 clathrates from deep-sea frozen storage, but I think we can give him a pass on that.
Reply
Andy Rowlands
| #
Yes Arhhenius got it wrong, and alarmists have been clinging to that mistaken belief ever since the idea was revived back in the 70s. Claiming Arrhenius got it right means that people back in 1895 knew more about atmospheric physics than we do today. Is that a credible argument?
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Andy,
“Claiming Arrhenius got it right means that people back in 1895 knew more about atmospheric physics than we do today.”
I ask: What do you know today that was not known in 1895?
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
geran
| #
Richard, Arrhenius got it wrong. His CO2 equation was a guess of his. The equation has no mathematical derivation or empirical documentation. Adding CO2 to the atmsophere does not create energy. The equation is pseudoscience.
Don’t be misled.
Reply