Top 10 Climate Change Lies Exposed — Video Sources

One of my YouTube videos currently has more than 70,000 views. Not much in the big scheme of things, but it’s a start. A few people have asked for sources of the facts mentioned in the video. I’ve included the video with those sources.

The Video: Top 10 Climate Change Lies Exposed

Sources:

There are 12 points mentioned in the video (10 original and 2 bonuses).

For Lie #1: “Global Warming is Bad”
Global Waming: Map of Earth, population density by latitude
This graph shows how much people like Global Warming by their choice of living conditions. More people live where it’s warmer, all other things being equal. Copyright © 2016 by Rod Martin, Jr. Click on the map to view full size (169 KB).

No claim was made in this segment, but to help you understand the implications, try these:
Svalbard population density: 0.044 people per sq.km (calculated)
Florida population density: 121.0 people per sq.km
Source: Wikipedia

Brazil biodiversity:
https://worldwildlife.org/places/amazon
Palmerlee, Danny (2007). South America on a Shoestring. Lonely Planet Publications. p. 275.

Antarctica biodiversity:
http://units.miamioh.edu/cryolab/education/antarcticbestiary_terrestrial.htm#Belgica
http://datazone.birdlife.org/species/factsheet/22697885
https://web.archive.org/web/20050214015049/http://knet.co.za/antarctica/fauna_and_flora.htm

For the purists, please note: The comparison is between the two locations; not between these and others not mentioned. This should be obvious, but some people need a little help understanding this. One clever reader suggested that a better comparison would be between Antarctica and the Sahara—but they missed the intent. Both Antarctica and Sahara are deserts. Not much contrast, except temperature. Life needs warmth, water and nutrients like CO2. The tropics are a more complete opposite to the polar regions.

For Lie #2: “Manmade CO2 is the Cause of Global Warming”
Patterns in Climate Change: GISP2 temperature chart for last 10,700 years
Temperature and CO2 levels for last 10,700 years. The patterns in climate change reveal a 1000-year temperature cycle. Click on chart to view full size.

Holocene timeline (with 10 green warm periods; modified)
Professor Ole Humlum, Oslo University
Climate Chart: GISP2 Temperatures Since 10,700 BP with CO2 from EPICA Dome C (modified)

The Modern Warm Period doesn’t show up on ice core temperature proxies, but we know that the Vikings could grow crops in Greenland for hundreds of years. This suggests that the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than our Modern Warm Period.
http://sciencenordic.com/vikings-grew-barley-greenland
http://sciencemag.org/news/2016/11/why-did-greenland-s-vikings-disappear

And we know that the Brits could grow wine grapes in Northern England.
http://geotimes.org/aug04/feature_wineclime.html
http://myweb.wwu.edu/dbunny/pdfs/CO2_past-climate-chg-lessons.pdf

Too cold to do either of those today.

Some who watched the video pointed out that the chart with the green bars is for Greenland only, and not a true representation of the globe as a whole. That’s exactly right. But of any location on the planet, Greenland is perhaps best suited to represent the planet as a whole. How? First of all, the southern hemisphere has a larger percentage of water, so it’s climate is more stable, buffered by all that water. The northern hemisphere has a larger percentage of land, so it remains more sensitive to swings in temperature. This is comparable to the daily swings in the desert, as opposed to coastal locations. Inland hot deserts may reach 50°C during the day, and plummet to below freezing during the night. Coastal cities don’t usually suffer such large temperature swings, because the nearby water won’t let it. Also, Greenland is right in the middle of the region of increased glaciation during glacial periods of our current Ice Age. Like Al Gore said, Greenland is like the “canary in the coal mine.” And for once, he said something with which I still agree.

So, our Modern Warm Period shows up right on schedule, by nature, and is the coldest of the 10 warm periods. Humans contributed how much? These facts suggest that human contribution was very low and perhaps very close to zero. Because CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the contribution cannot have been exactly zero, but these suggest that carbon dioxide is not the 800 pound gorilla some people make it out to be.

For Lie #3: “Global Warming Causes Extreme Weather Like Hurricanes & Tornadoes”

Tropical Cyclones:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/climatic-phenomena-pages/tropical-cyclone/

Tornadoes:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/climatic-phenomena-pages/tornado/

Wind from Temperature Differences:
http://weatherwizkids.com/weather-wind.htm
http://stlouis.madscience.org/news/What-Causes-the-Wind-to-Blow-1720.aspx
https://scijinks.gov/wind/

Slow Surface Winds on Venus:
https://universetoday.com/36816/winds-on-venus/
DK Space Encyclopedia: Atmosphere of Venus p 58

Thermal gradient controls storms:
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-015-7692-5_34
http://ens9004.mza.infd.edu.ar/sitio/upload/08-%20LAMB,%20H.H.%20-%20LIBRO%20-%20Climate,%20History%20and%20the.pdf

For Lie #4: “Global Warming Causes Droughts”

How Land Ever Gets Water:
http://kidzone.ws/water/
https://water.usgs.gov/edu/watercycle.html
https://water.usgs.gov/edu/watercyclesummary.html
https://pmm.nasa.gov/education/water-cycle

For Lie #5: “Our Current Warmth is Unusual”

https://britannica.com/science/Holocene-Epoch
http://stratigraphy.org/GSSP/Holocene.pdf
https://ncdc.noaa.gov/abrupt-climate-change/Glacial-Interglacial%20Cycles

Geological Timescale:
http://biocab.org/Geological_Timescale.jpg

For Lie #6: “Our Current Level of CO2 is Unusual”

NASA SMAC (CO2):
https://nasa.gov/centers/johnson/pdf/485930main_SMACsGuidelines.pdf

NRC Recommended value for naval submarines:
https://cdc.gov/niosh/docket/archive/pdfs/NIOSH-125/125-NationalAcademyofSciences2007.pdf

Other CO2 Data:
https://nap.edu/read/11170/chapter/5
https://cdc.gov/niosh/idlh/124389.html
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2010.03441.x/pdf

Paleoclimatic Record:
http://geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image277.gif

Evolution of C4 from CO2 Depletion:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3248710/
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2004.00974.x/full
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/nph.13033/pdf

For Lie #7: “The Rate of Warming is Dangerous”

Los Angeles daily variation:
http://w2.weather.gov/climate/xmacis.php?wfo=lox

3°C Scare:
http://climatecodered.org/2010/09/what-would-3-degrees-mean.html
https://ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-projections-of.html

Temperature change with latitude:
http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap16/geo_clim.html
Rate of cooling: 0.85°C per degree latitude (avg)
Earth meridional circumference taken as 40,007.86 km, so, 111.13 km/deg. lat.

Turtle walking speed (wood turtle 0.09 m/s = 0.324 km/hour):
https://hypertextbook.com/facts/1999/RachelShweky.shtml

A turtle starting at 40°N will have to walk about 3.53 degrees latitude (392km) to get to a 3°C cooling. But this is assuming that a 3°C of warming is evenly spread across the planet. It won’t be. Most of the warming goes to the poles! Even so, the turtle could walk 392 km in about 1,210 hours. If the turtle walked 8 hours per day, that would take about 150 days. That leaves the turtle 99 years to rest. So, the rate of warming for the turtle is decidedly non-scary.

For Lie #8: “The Science is Settled”

Satellite temperature data:
http://drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/

Oceans ate global warming:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/05/03/the-ocean-ate-my-global-warming/

For Lie #9: “There is a Consensus”

Legates:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11191-013-9647-9
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/03/cooks-97-consensus-disproven-by-a-new-paper-showing-major-math-errors/

Others on consensus:
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048001
http://nationalreview.com/article/425232/97-percent-solution-ian-tuttle

For Lie #10: “That Science is Ever Done by Consensus”

Consensus = majority of opinion (which is the antithesis of science)
http://dictionary.com/browse/consensus

Einstein’s Disdain for Consensus:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_theory_of_relativity#A_Hundred_Authors_Against_Einstein
https://ia601200.us.archive.org/30/items/ABriefHistoryOfTimeByStephenHawking/A%20Brief%20History%20Of%20Time%20by%20Stephen%20Hawking.pdf

When a consensus book was published against Einstein’s work, the scientist replied: “If I were wrong, then one would have been enough!” (Hawking, chapter 12) In other words, consensus was meaningless. Any consensus should be treated as a minor curiosity. Otherwise, all thinking stops.

Another quote attributed to Einstein, but for which I could not find corroboration is worth repeating here: Albert Einstein supposedly said, “that genius abhors consensus because when consensus is reached, thinking stops.”

http://web.archive.org/web/20150801012641/http://www.lakelandtimes.com/main.asp?SectionID=11&SubSectionID=11&ArticleID=20332

For Lie #11: “Climate Change is Dangerous and Must Be Stopped”

First of all, climate has always changed. As long as a planet like Earth has an atmosphere and oceans, climate cannot help but change. So, we’ve lived on a planet that has been constantly “dangerous” for 4.5 billion years? So, was there never a safe period in the history of Earth with all that constant climate change?

The second point of common sense on this lie is that changing climate can no more be “stopped” than you can stop the solar system from orbiting the galactic hub, or stopping a volcano from erupting, or stopping an earthquake from shaking the ground. It’s like the little Dutch boy hoping he can stop a tidal wave by sticking out his thumb and pretending there’s a dike attached to it. The level of delusion in the meme “stop climate change” is one that underscores the lack of understanding of the very definitions of the words being used. We may be able to modify the change, but stopping it is entirely nonsense.

For a better overview of the nature of “climate change” as a political phenomenon, see James Corbett’s work:

The IPCC Exposed

Maurice Strong is Dead

The Technocratic Agenda: Sustainable Development and Climate Eugenics

How Big Oil Conquered the World

Orwell’s Nightmare: Temperature Adjustments and Climate Change

 

For Lie #12: “Global Warming Makes the Oceans More Acidic”

Click the following link for more information on the pH scale (acid, neutral, basic) (courtesy Elmhurst College, Illinois).

And click the following link for information on the pH of sea water (courtesy of the University of Hawaii). Note page 6 where it states that ocean pH varies between 7.5 and 8.4—a range which is entirely in the alkaline side of the scale.

Claims that more CO2 is destroying the oceanic ecosystem are simply not well founded. We do not yet know what all is causing changes within the ecosystem, but carbon dioxide is not the only factor, and may not be the most noteworthy. The following link gives a broad range of information which counters the mainstream view: Ocean Acidification on Watts Up With That.

Global warming actually improves ocean pH and slows down or reverses the change in ocean alkalinity.

The onscreen quote from Michael Wallace, hydrologist, can be found in an article he wrote:

Ocean pH Accuracy Arguments Challenged with 80 Years of Instrumental Data

The notion that temperature drives CO2 should not be that hard to understand. Big swings in CO2 simply have not happened in the past, except when temperature forced the gas into or out of the oceans. Throughout most of history, nothing created huge quantities of carbon dioxide. The ocean already has vast stores of the dissolved gas. Changing temperatures determine how much of the gas can stay dissolved. Consider, for instance, the fizz in a can of cold soda and in a can of warm soda. The warm soda loses its fizz (carbon dioxide) much more quickly than does the cold soda.

I also have a big objection to the language: “ocean acidification.” Why? I had thought it would be obvious, but one Warming Alarmist online pointed out that lower pH is heading toward the acidic range just as a person south of the equator can still be heading north, even though they remain in the southern hemisphere. The word “north” does not have any intrinsically negative connotations. But mention “acid” to anyone and they will immediately conjure up images of destruction and decay. This is dishonest, especially when oceans have remained wholly alkaline. We are not merely talking about accurate language; we are also talking about perception and manipulation of the public-at-large.

Rise in temperatures and CO2 follow each other closely in climate change (courtesy University of Copenhagen, Denmark).

Should you have any questions or constructive comments, please don’t be shy. Leave a message, below.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s