Using Scientific Evidence To Refute 'Climate Change'
Open your history books folks, it is about to get interesting
Before we can start, firstly we need to establish some basic data points.
Currently, CO2 levels are approximately 0.04% of Earth’s atmosphere, or 422ppm [parts per million] according to NASA as of July 2023.
For simplicity sake, even though governments are untrustworthy, the values will be taken at ‘face value’.
Notice their dataset doesn’t go any earlier than 1958, and we’re about to see why:
You’ve likely had the narrative, both by scientifically illiterate media, and scientifically illiterate ideologues in politics, shoved down your throat declaring CO2 is at some sort of critically fatal level. Why, look at that graph, it’s higher than 1958!
What if I told you this is actually one of the lowest CO2 periods? And Earth has easily survived — and thrived — in far higher? Must be a Big Oil shill, right? (Just don’t mention the part how a Big Oil tycoon coined global warming).
Well, in this ‘pro-climate change’ paper titled “Atmospheric CO2 over the Past 66 Million Years from Marine Archives” (which is a little longer than just 1958), it declares that Earth had ~1,500ppm of CO2 in the Eocene period, and ~500ppm (far higher than now) in the Miocene:
Obviously, the planet didn’t die during this period, and neither did mammals (the animal species of which humans are associated).
In another paper, titled “Middle Miocene long-term continental temperature change in and out of pace with marine climate records”, Miocene was ranged between 350ppm to 650ppm.
650ppm is of course much higher than 422ppm. The world didn’t end. Maybe some of you are thinking maybe it was just always 350ppm (even though it clearly says variable), but we can address that theory too.
For the Pleistocene period, the paper “Low CO2 levels of the entire Pleistocene epoch”, it reports the Pleistocene period had 300ppm of CO2.
Now, some of you might go ‘Aha! 300ppm is less than 422ppm, we can go lower!’. Nope.
At 300ppm, the Pleistocene was an ice age. Not just any ice age, either, but the Great Ice Age:
That is to say, you don’t actually want to drop your CO2 levels lower. Unless you enjoy Great Ice Ages.
These CO2 ppm figures from millions of years ago are actually a big problem for government funded agencies like NASA to ‘explain away’ (why would NASA contradict a government that wants more power and supplies their funding?).
Notice on this graph where NASA try to normalise the hype in the slight increase, that their data conveniently only goes back 800,000 years (less than 1 million) and not 66 million years? (And again with the 1950s data!).
Notice, for some reason, they call 800,000 years — with their dotted line — a “millennia”? A millennia is plural of millennium, which means ‘1,000 years’, but they don’t say how many millennia. What a way to obfuscate the facts by omitting timeline measurements!
And the graph only goes up to 480ppm! It doesn’t even go up to 1500ppm! Masterclass in truncating and cherry picking datasets to sell a narrative!
However, this all assumes you subscribe to ‘CO2 drives climate’ narrative.
It Doesn’t Drive Climate
One thing you will not find in abundance in searches is any studies discussing how many ppm CO2 concentrations were during the Medieval Warm Period.
It is a black zone, an area of non-discussion, because to discuss both the low CO2 levels and the high heat would destroy the narrative that CO2 drives climate. We had to drag out a paper from 2007.
In the paper titled “Climate Change Reexamined” from 2007, Joel Kauffman discusses various points. One crucial point is the claim by the IPCC that CO2 levels were at a ‘steady’ 290ppm during the Medieval Warm Period (and the Little Ice Age, to boot):
The IPCC is the ‘pro-climate change’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. And their declaration the medieval times (considered to range roughly from 5th century to 15th century [year 401 - 1401] depending on who you ask) at 290ppm comes from the horse’s mouth.
Not even NASA’s fanciful, truncated graph contradicts the 290ppm claim (the dotted line is at 300ppm; notice the Medieval period is below that line):
And yet as the paper “Pacific Ocean Heat Content During the Past 10,000 Years” declares, water masses were ~0.9C warmer compared to ~0.65C now:
‘Pro-climate change’ shill outlets try to justify the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age’s occurrance as being caused by, get this…
…solar activity and volcanism (we kid you not, check it out). A true own-goal. ‘Yeah, we gottim, we admitted it was solar activity and volcanoes, and not CO2 as the main driver!’.
Their argument is (somehow) ‘but this time it’s different’:
Apparently the sun and volcanoes magically disappeared and should be totally ignored. Even as we occupy one of the lower ends of the CO2 ppm spectrum.
But Wait, There’s More!
Back in 2016 NASA were forced to quietly publish this study where they found actually, CO2 levels help green Earth.
As you all know, plants consume carbon dixoide and produce oxygen. Yet more ‘pro-climate change’ agenda outlets shrieked ‘this isn’t a reason to give up on the climate change agenda’. But it absolutely is. They falsely claimed climate change was destructive.
There is a limit in how much CO2 a plant can use, but that limit is much higher than you would think.
In the paper titled “The optimal atmospheric CO2 concentration for the growth of winter wheat (Triticum aestivum)” (which, note, may not represent optimal levels for all plants; but there are very few studies on this topic)…
…it found a range between 889ppm to 967ppm for winter wheat plants was ideal, depending on conditions. That is to say, plants appear to be intended to process way more than a meagre 422ppm of CO2. We did have CO2 at 1500ppm, so why not?
But What If It Is Something Else™?
Once you provably decouple CO2 from temperature controls, or any sort of impending threat, authoritarian seeking governments and their lackeys will start throwing out anything and everything as a possible ‘greenhouse gas’.
It can only be described as a ‘God of the Gaps’ fallacy (if it isn’t under this ball cup, maybe it is under one of the many others?!).
So far they’ve accused:
Ethane (despite only lasting months)
Water vapour (even though evaporation is a part of the natural solar cycle)
Nitrogen (in the form of Nitrous Oxide. Nitrogen makes up 80% of Earth’s atmosphere… for quite a while now)
Halogens in general (for destroying Ozone)
Ozone (O3) (yes, that is a contradiction)
Notice how every chemical they accuse of conspiring to act like a ‘greenhouse gas’ is always the worst or second-worst out of an infinitely long list of always guilty suspects (even as they insist CO2 is also the worst) which all happen to be conveniently every type of atmospheric particle?
Water vapour and nitrogen. Two of the most harmless, ‘been here forever substances’ are on these globalists’ guilty list like the mad power tripping tyrants that they are. Imagine declaring a tax over rain, or Ozone! It’d be like saying trees cause climate change!
Why is this so important to disprove?
Globalists Want To Take Away Your Basic Freedoms
As noted in “the future of urban consumption in a 1.5C world”…
They want you to not own cars (destroying your economic mobility):
To only eat the foods they, the poison shot pushers, approve of:
For you, the impoverished, to take far fewer flights (that you largely couldn’t already afford)…
…even as the rich who wish to steal power from you, point blank refuse to do so:
The Daily Beagle noted numerous hypocrisies by the rich demanding they seize your economic assets and tax you into oblivion whilst they go free with yachts, private jets, and multiple homes.
They even want the few simple clothes off your back. Never mind the fact clothing manufacturing can be domestically sourced, they just want to outright steal your clothes ‘just because’:
And this all involves the lie of ‘climate change’ and ‘CO2’ emissions:
One the power-theiving rich don’t believe in themselves (reminder: Al Gore purchased beachfront properties. You know, the ones he doomed-and-gloomed would be underwater by now. Crash the property price, buy it selfishly for yourself. Nice Al, nice).
Summary
NASA and cohorts cherry pick truncated data from narrow timescales to give the artificial impression CO2 ppm levels are spiking at 422ppm, when in reality Earth has dealt with ~1500ppm levels, and winter wheat plants are optimised for 889-967ppm depending on conditions. The last Great Ice Age was at ~300ppm.
NASA are forced to admit CO2 levels has led to greening of Earth, and the pro-climate change IPCC have confirmed indirectly, along with NASA, that the Medieval Warm Period (warmer than now) and the Little Ice Age (colder than now) was ~290ppm CO2, which is lower CO2 levels than currently. Pro-climate change shill websites admit that was driven by solar and volcanic activity, but insist 'this time it is different!'.
Failing to link CO2 to variable rates of solar driven change, climate changists have also blamed numerous chemicals, including Methane, Ethane, water vapour(!), halogens (that destroy Ozone), oxygen in the form of Ozone(!), and refrigerants, in a desperate attempt to sell their scam.
Those hocking the agenda want to control your diet, take your cars, and steal the clothes from your back, whilst they fly around in incredibly polluting private jets granting themselves exemptions, all whilst they destroy the working classes' economic mobility and cripple small businesses. These insane policies need to be opposed.These tyrants are absolutely insane. Do not believe them. What do you think dear reader?
Poll
Found this informative? Receive more for free!
Raise awareness?
What do you think, dear reader?
And before anyone pro-climate change can invoke a personal attack as a reason to ignore the evidence:
I'm what you'd call a classical environmentalist, long before the CO2 scapegoat of nonsense was introduced to distract from things like pesticide run-offs, GMO Roundup harming the environment and oil spills in the Gulf of Mexico. I despise Shell's actions in Nigeria where oil spills destroy the local ecology.
I'm even critical of nuclear power (here's why: https://thedailybeagle.substack.com/p/is-nuclear-power-really-the-solution) and the chemical toxicity of solar panels from mining [admittedly paid, but I write this as someone who uses solar panels and this is entirely transparent] (see: https://thedailybeagle.substack.com/p/hired-to-investigate-solar-panels).
I actually support renewable energy (did so long before 'climate change' reared its ugly head) - in the context of decentralised power sources on people's homes (not those giant farms that cover beautiful green fields). I despise the use of cobalt from child slave mining in electronics, and purchase second hand and repurpose old tech where I can.
In terms of oil usage, I essentially forged hybrid-remote working in 2019 as a viable means, given most people waste up to 4 hours a day commuting (meaning, even if your employee slacked off at home for 2 hours a day, they were still more productive). Being stuck in traffic is not fun.
That said, vehicles are very, very important for working class' people's economic mobility. It permits them to travel further afield to find new work and jobs, and allows them to arrive at times and hours bus and train services don't run or don't go to. I tried to use public transport but in economic deadbeat areas it is wholly unviable (due to how time consuming, slow and unreliable it is) and *very expensive* (given the number of trips involved).
A train season ticket, considered "cheap" goes for ~£4,000 in the UK. You can operate a car for less than ~£1,000 (no, the answer isn't to make cars more expensive). You could compensate for an entire countries' car fuel usage by taking private jets out of service, and compensate for entire continents' worth of cars by dealing with large ships and optimising those. The majority of CO2 emissions (if you still buy into that lie) are created by the 0.1%. Prohibiting clothes is utter nonsense.
If I was rich I would convert a home to off-grid, entirely renewable living solely so I could be independent of the government. Any pro-working class, pro-environmentalist would find this acceptable. But the government doesn't want that; they want to take your food, your clothes and your car, like the Terminator.
This is very well done, providing plenty of sources if the critic is interested to read (they won’t be, because they’re very afraid that you’re telling the truth).
If you show the person caught in the narrative that they’ve been lied to, their world will collapse.
Everything they thought they knew is a lie. Those they trusted are murderous crooks and psychopaths. Few people can handle this transition from believing the comforting lies to realising that we don’t know much for sure at all.