CO2 Ideology Does Not Drive the Climate

OPPS-28 This is a political post, despite the abundant empirical data presented here. Do not get your nose out of joint by the size of the images. My CSS-53 CO₂’s Moneyball Moment post has all these images (and more) on a full-page basis with links to the data and more detailed discussion. The data summary is below, with the political position to follow.

• Greenland Temperatures are driven by ocean cycles (not CO₂) and are set to drop.
• Antarctic Temperatures have been statistically flat since modern measurements began (i.e.: little to no CO₂ influence). The coldest 6-month period EVER recorded just happened in 2021.
• Humanity’s ability to generate Fossil Fuel CO₂ runs out centuries to millennia before CO₂ warming could ever melt the polar ice caps.
• Sea Levels and CO₂ concentrations literally do not correlate with one another. No correlation, no causation. That calls into question the relationship between CO₂ and temperature, since there is a direct relationship between Sea Levels and Temperature.

#climatechange #delaythegreen #globalwarming #showusthedata

• Contrary to the alarmist narrative (all CO₂, all the time), temperatures over the Holocene have fluctuated significantly and globally with little to no CO₂ influence. Those natural forcings (primarily solar, directly and indirectly) were still active over the Modern Temperature Record (MTR, 1850 to the present) and will be active in the future.
• Temperatures began rising out of the Little Ice Age (LIA) centuries before human activity could have played any measurable role. CO₂’s main influence had to have occurred post-1950 (where 86%+ of our emissions have occurred). But even over that short period, the ocean cycles (Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation (AMO) and the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO)) were adding significantly to (if not dominating) the warming. CO₂ does not act alone.
• Extreme weather events are also not co-operating with the alarmist narrative. Fire, drought, hurricanes, tornados, etc. are generally trending down or are statistically flat despite an ever-rising CO₂ concentration.

There are additional examples in the CSS-53 post showing how ineffective CO₂ really is, but as I said before this is a political post and that is where the discussion will be focused.

I have generally focused on the full climate science spectrum (i.e.: all the available empirical data (natural and anthropogenic)), not just the simplistic, ideological, politically driven alarmist narrative (i.e.: all CO₂, all the time). Unfortunately, despite the importance of science to the discussion, the narrative is dominated by political propaganda and politically directed research funding. Lies and omissions are commonly used to protect that narrative. And that narrative needs massive protection. The narrative depends almost entirely on computer models. Models that the modelers themselves have self-admitted run way too hot. Models that still use implausibly high emission scenarios the IPCC themselves claim to have a low likelihood of ever occurring. Actual emissions are tracking below the ssp2-4.5 scenarios, yet scenarios as high as the ssp5-8.5 are still routinely used to come up with their unscientific, “catastrophic” warming projections (pure propaganda).

More recently, the narrative has incorporated attribution studies (i.e.: attributing a percentage of an extreme weather event to “climate change”). There are a couple of major problems with that approach. First and foremost, global extreme weather event frequencies have been decreasing or have been statistically flat over the last several decades despite rising atmospheric CO₂ concentrations. Secondly, those attribution studies are still using those same models that run way too hot and are still using the same implausibly high emission scenarios. All the while, ignoring the very real solar forcings (over and above Total Solar Irradiance (TSI), a minor component) and the reality of CO₂ Climate Sensitivities. The Modern Temperature Record (MTR) can be modeled using just TSI (as a proxy) and sets the maximum possible CO₂ Climate Sensitivity at the low end of the very “unsettled” Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) range used by the IPCC models (1.8 to 5.6 °C). I wonder if the models run way too hot because they use unrealistically high climate sensitivities and continually ignore solar activity and the closely related ocean cycles? Actually, I do not wonder.

The empirical data (when considered as a whole) shows that the alarmist narrative has little to no merit. But unfortunately, the general public is still taking the “scientific” narrative at face value. Society’s hope lies in the realities of current energy, food, medical, environmental, monetary, etc. security (all of which have become crises). Those crises are in their infancy, have been brought on primarily by “climate change” policy and will be seriously exacerbated in the future by the continued unnecessary, unscientific, and frankly dangerous Green New Deals, ESG, NetZero, etc. “green” initiatives. These crises will be hard on our society, but that pain is waking up the average world citizen/taxpayer.

These “green” initiative outcomes are focused solely on CO₂ molecule accounting. Success will be judged based on how many CO₂ molecules are either kept out of or removed from the atmosphere. Unfortunately, those initiatives have extreme costs associated with them and require cost-benefit analysis that our current political “leaders” are generally ignoring. According to McKinsey & Company, “Capital spending on physical assets for energy and land-use systems in the net-zero transition between 2021 and 2050 would amount to about $275 trillion, or $9.2 trillion per year on average, an annual increase of as much as $3.5 trillion from today.” That is a lot of money the taxpayers will be responsible for.

So, what does the taxpayer receive for those expenditures? Not very much. According to Canada’s Parliamentary Budget Officer’s November 8^th, 2022, Report (Global Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Canadian GDP) we can expect “Under our benchmark global greenhouse gas emissions scenario in which countries across the world fully meet their climate commitments, we estimate that higher temperatures and precipitation will reduce Canada’s real GDP by 5.8 per cent in 2100”. A GDP improvement in 2100 of just 0.8% (roughly 17 billion dollars, based on a 2%/year growth in GDP) over the 6.6% drop expected with no GHG Emission Reduction Initiatives (consistent with IPCC estimates). He also threw in this little gem, “While the impact on Canadian GDP is from global GHG emissions, Canada’s own emissions are not large enough to materially impact climate change”. Does saving ±17 billion dollars 80 years from now by spending trillions of dollars really sound economically sound to you?

We also must ask the question, what benefit to the climate do these expenditures offer? Again, not very much. Using the IPCC “science” and as per the PBO above (the assumption that “countries across the world fully meet their climate commitments”), the temperature rise reduction in 2100 will be just 0.17 °C and last but a few years. Those numbers are also based on the implausibly high RCP8.5 scenario. A realistic emission scenario would show an even smaller improvement. As would models that do not run way too hot. In what reality does spending 10 to 20 trillion dollars for a temperature reduction of just 0.01 °C make any sense? Certainly not our reality. Ultimately, how can you trust any of the alarmist players? They (the IPCC, McKinsey et al) all still use the models that run way too hot and use implausibly high emission scenarios for their justifications/conclusions.

The alarmist community has no credibility left on the scientific, economic, technical, or even environmental rationale for their continued ideological push for CO₂ emission reduction. How many ecosystems are being destroyed by the excessive land use requirements of solar and wind installations? How many raptors, whales, bats, etc. are needlessly slaughtered on these green wind and solar religious altars? How many landscapes are yet to be ravaged to supply the rare earth minerals needed to meet the demand for EVs, solar photovoltaics, etc.? Can we even expect meaningful emission reductions? The trillions spent to date have not provided any. China, India, Russia, and others are continuing to increase their emissions. How can global emissions be reduced under that scenario? Obviously, they will not be reduced anytime soon.

So, what is driving this ideological (or more accurately, idiotological) push for CO₂ emission reduction? The same thing that has driven humanity throughout its existence; money, power, and control! The transfer of wealth (from the developed countries to undeveloped countries and from the middle class to the upper class) has been ongoing for decades with a major boost during the recent COVID-19 lockdowns. The next phase is the accelerated growth in the green fund accounts to move trillions of dollars to the third world and a move to greater population control (15-minute cities, CBDC’s, medical/carbon footprint passports, excessive regulation (ESG, DEI, Scope 1, 2, & 3 emissions), Climate Lockdowns, etc.). They are methodically marching us towards global totalitarian government and the citizens of this world have allowed that takeover to happen. However, recent elections in countries like Argentina, the Netherlands and a few others have voted out their UN/WEF representatives. That trend needs to continue with Canada being a good place to continue the process.

Those totalitarian threats are real, and they are being implemented now. You do not have to look any further than the current WHO Pandemic Treaty. Once enacted, every country that signs on will fall under the WHO’s direct totalitarian authority at the first sign of any health threat (viruses, climate change, etc.). And if you thought the COVID lockdowns were bad, you are not going to like what is coming. Not to be outdone, “Five IPCC report authors say scientists should be allowed to make policy prescriptions and potentially oversee implementation”. They (the globalist new world order) want their organizations (the WHO, IPCC, UN, WEF, etc.) and their puppets making all your decisions for you. And despite how many cabinets they may have penetrated around the world (over 50% of Canada’s cabinet according to Klaus Schwab), I did not vote for any of these unaccountable, ideologically driven globalist organizations. Their representatives need to be removed from our governing bodies (both at the bureaucratic and elected levels).

In closing, I will leave you with my more personal perspective laid out in prose and song (for those that do not believe in empirical data and prefer feelings). Climate Change (at least from warming) is not the future that our children and grandchildren need to fear. The real threat will come from the current unnecessary and dangerous CO₂ emission reduction ideology driving our unrealistic energy, financial, environmental, etc. policy directives. The colder temperatures over the next few decades (associated with cooling solar and ocean cycles) will just compound that threat.

Then THEY Came For Me

Interview Links (Audio and Visual)

Wake the Woke

Here are some additional articles/papers/posts that provide further context to this discussion.

McKinsey & Company – The Net-Zero Transition

the-net-zero-transition-executive-summary.pdf (mckinsey.com)

Click to access the-net-zero-transition-executive-summary.pdf

Why is WHO pushing so hard for a global pandemic treaty? – National Herald India

https://www.nationalheraldindia.com/health/why-is-world-health-organization-pushing-so-hard-for-a-global-pandemic-treaty

We need power to prescribe climate policy, IPCC scientists say – The Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/dec/07/we-need-power-to-prescribe-climate-policy-ipcc-scientists-say

Climate Short Story (CSS)

CSS-53 – CO₂’s Moneyball Moment

CO2’s Moneyball Moment

One Page Summary (OPS)

OPS-55 – The State of Climate Science

The State of Climate Science