Climate Change Fears of Teen Activist Are Empirically Baseless
June 3, 2023
A new video from Just Facts:
Contrary to forecasts of doom, crystal-clear science shows that a broad range of outcomes related to climate change have stayed level or improved for the past 30 years.
Rigorous documentation of every fact in this video is available at https://www.justfactsdaily.com/climate-change-fears-of-teen-activist-are-empirically-baseless/
28 Comments
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
Every fact in the attached document is verifiable.
Regards
John Hollaway
On 03/06/2023, NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW TH
All of us on Paul’s site know this, just how do we get the sheepies (new word for me, thanks TCW, people who just follow the propaganda) to gain the brain power to reject the global warming crap. We have got doctors,vicars in the just stop oil twats, who maybe educated, so why are they so stupid?
Trouble is they suffer from Severe Climate Reporting And Propaganda Is Everywhere…a.k.a. SCRAPIE.
Idau: Interesting that scrapie is indigenous to sheep – and maybe sheeple. I found this on the Wales website:
“You can use genotype testing to identify scrapie resistant sheep. Breeding those animals can be a good preventative method. There is currently no treatment for scrapie. You should cull animals suspected of disease, with APHA’s help.20 Nov 2018”
Emperors new clothes!
I despair, I really do at the seemingly intelligent people who fall for this. Even if they don’t make the effort to find out how much man made carbon dioxide is in the atmosphere, surely they must wonder how the earth warmed up after the ice age without the help of cars, planes, etc.
The “science is proven” meme originates with the Arrhenius paper in 1898 which was modified by Hansen to get Al Gore’s support. Hansen calculated an effective isothermal global temperature that was 255K (- 12 C) then (following Arrhenius) hypothesised that this low temperature showed that the earth was protected by a “greenhouse”. What it really did was show that the isothermal planet model was incorrect (the earth would need infinite conductivity for this to occur). Arrhenius’ model was opposed by a number of eminent physicists at the time and the model went no further: unfortunately for the world, Hansen was not properly challenged in the 1980s.
It is incredible that the belief that CO2 suddenly led temperature became established when history had always showed the opposite effect! Consensus is a very dangerous form of “science”.
Arrhenius updated his own work in 1908, downgrading the importance of CO2 as a GHG somewhat on the basis of refined experiments. Often forgotten. He also acknowledged the paleological evidence of both higher and lower CO2 levels, and thus effectively that there is no runaway built in to the earth’s evolution – at least until the sun becomes a red giant..
In his 1896 paper, Arrhenius misinterpreted the findings of Eunice Footes 1856 experiments … this is the paper everyone quotes (even though most have never read it ).
It was highly criticized by the likes of Angstrom; so Arrhenius amended his view of how increased carbon dioxide would affect climate in his 1906 paper ( that almost everyone ignores ).
Click to access Arrhenius%201906,%20final.pdf
Thanks for the very useful comments. I had made the common mistake of reading the summaries rather than the original: I’ll certainly follow up your references now. I was setting out to examine the basis of the theory that was later used to form the basis for the CO2 scam-science. If one assumes that the earth is isothermal one gets a silly temperature (255K) on heat balance. The idea that the error was caused by greenhouse effect was a classical case of applying a fiddle factor to an incorrect (i.e. isothermal) model to cover up the dubious basis of the assumptions.
Thanks again.
Rowan Atkinson “feels duped by Electric cars….” Link to his article.
https://uk.yahoo.com/style/rowan-atkinson-says-feels-duped-165545490.html
Yes – and one interesting paragraph set the Guardian greenies in a tizzy:
“Electric motoring is, in theory, a subject about which I should know something. My first university degree was in electrical and electronic engineering, with a subsequent master’s in control systems. Combine this, perhaps surprising, academic pathway with a lifelong passion for the motorcar, and you can see why I was drawn into an early adoption of electric vehicles. ”
What? Blackadder with two serious degrees? Who knew?
Anyway the Guardian closed its comments section after a couple of hours.
He knows more than pretty much all journalists.
The documentation I can read (and is a useful information source). The video regrettably appears to have been banned by the French government which has taken exception to Rumble.
You may find a VPN service useful – it allows your internet link to be viewed as if you were in a different country.
Yes Mike, I live in France and it’s very frustrating. Do you know if one of those VPN(?) things would make a difference?
Guys, I’ve just seen this (excellent) video in France using a VPN.
Kelland, it might help but some organisations can detect a VPN [Virtual Personal Network] if they dedicate enough money / time / effort and will continue to block but this is uncommon. Some countries also block websites they do not like but getting around that is easy. Just relocate to another server.
More fear porn from WHO, this time about PM2.5
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-12144455/Worlds-polluted-countries-REVEALED-worst-surprise-you.html
I checked out their 2005/6 pollution standards as well as those they pushed in 2021. In the original they had trouble seeing an effect below 13μg/m^3, so they set their target at 10μg/m^3. For 2021, they excluded studies that showed limited effects of lower levels in order to bias the results and they failed to conduct the proper statistical analysis. They say that there was evidence that the marginal effect of low doses was much greater than a straight line assumption. To my mind, that is consistent with a floor level with no effect at all. I guess their motivation is to set the standard bar so tightly that they can claim a right to intervene everywhere. Just as with their pandemic treaty.
Meanwhile the article seems to fail to notice that sandy deserts seem to produce a lot of PM2.5, and carefully steers around the real reasons why Nepal has high levels.
‘Contrary to forecasts of doom, crystal-clear science shows that a broad range of outcomes related to climate change have stayed level or improved for the past 30 years.’
Then WTF is ‘climate change??????????????????’
The writer is correct. Nothing is changing. So WTF does he still call it ‘climate change?’ STOP PLAYING THEIR DAMN GAME!
“Control the language and you control the debate.”
Petr Beckmann constantly taught that; hardly anybody listened. His “Golem Press” was aptly named. In a recent remake of The Golem, coercive Christians invade and bully a peaceful Jewish village out of ignorant superstition. The Golem was reprisal. The surprise ending is unlike the original version.
Although I couldn’t find the video, the data contained in this site is of immense value in smashing down the alarmist case that we are all doomed. So very many thanks!
BBC identifies a problem with Solar PV.
Solar panels – an eco-disaster waiting to happen?
While they are being promoted around the world as a crucial weapon in reducing carbon emissions, solar panels only have a lifespan of up to 25 years.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-65602519
As I see it, there are four groups who need to be considered in the man-made global warming issue:
1) the vested interests, from global corporations to the IPCC the many lookalikes to the slimy Gummer. They won’t back down for the obvious reasons.
2) the gullible masses, swallowing whole and unquestioning the modelling, pseudo-science and propaganda. They want to believe the doomsayers and are reluctant and/or unable to question the output. I include governments in this group.
3) the Leninists, anarchists and green nutters who want to destroy economies and lifestyles for their own political views.
4) the professional protesters who require to signal their virtue daily by screwing life up for the vast majority.
If anyone has any ideas how we break the hold of these groups, I’m all ears.
You left out people who have had the violence of law directed against them by superstitious gullible fanatics and are thrilled at the chance to respond in kind. The officious and ignorant are quickest to coerce, then bleat loudest when the tables are turned. After 46 years of this I see the worst enemies of nuclear energy on both sides are advocates of the initiation of violence, whether they imagine they are helping or hindering, their effect is the same.
Paul, do have a link to the video?
From Tony Heller’s site Greta gave us up to 21st June to sort the problem.
https://realclimatescience.com/2023/06/the-worst-crisis-ever/
Lot of other predictions included
I’ve been battling to decriminalize nuclear energy since 1977. Before then I battled to stop directing the violence of law against Grateful Dead drugs. The lies invented to demonize both are basically the same fearmongering, mutations mutandis. Substance prohibitionists are ignorant of drugs and energy prohibitionists are clueless of the definition of energy and the work-energy theorem. For every initiation of fraud there is unequal yet apposite reprisal fraud. It’s what we are seeing.
It’s worse than you think. It’s indecent.
Consider the 18th Amendment to the US Constitution. Federal prohibition of alcohol.
The U.S. government knew it had no damn authority to regulate alcohol. So, per constitutional guidelines, it did the decent thing to authorize their ban. It was stupid bad, but it was decent.
Now consider federal regulation and bans on drugs. IT’S NONE OF THEIR FUCKING BUSINESS.
Create an amendment to give yourselves authority. Until then, you are Nazis. Enforcing laws you have no authority to make. The FDA and DEA are outlaw agencies.