Does CO₂ control climate change?

26 April 2022
Climate change

A professor of mathematics and physics, one Christopher Essex, has criticised some aspects of the last IPCC Report [ on the Canadian blog of Donna Laframboise]. Apparently, in spite of the hype spouted by the media, and its friends, there has been as yet no proof that co2 is to blame for global warming, aka climate change. The alarmist idea that increasing greenhouse gases, in particular carbon dioxide, is a danger to public health and welfare. This ignores the fact that farmers pump co2 into their plastic greenhouses in order to increase the yield of cucumbers, tomatoes, and strawberries etc. Essex makes the point the IPCC is unable to produce any clear scientific facts that greenhouse gases cause climate change. In other words, it is a theory. Neither can the IPCC rationalise their predicted impacts of climate change based on anything except highly suspect models. These are limited and badly flawed he adds. They cannot produce a result that matches actual factual results in the real world, yet claim an ongoing warming prediction [even when it isn’t warming]. These deficiencies are down to fundamentally flawed mathematics. Further, they are also subject to repeated updates on the models. By rights, these updates should cancel out everything the models claimed previously – but the new models come out with more excessive levels of climate change, rather than an adjustment taking into account real world temperatures. There is no cancelling out of previous model theories, in spite of the changes indicating those models were flawed. Neither do the models take into account the 1998 super El Nino when indeed there was a spike in temperatures globally. It fell away after a couple of years as the El Nino subsided. El Ninos have nothing to do with greenhouse gases, of any description. It is all about the movement of warm and cold water in the Pacific and the transfer of warm water into the Indian Ocean and via the Antarctic Peninsular into the Atlantic, where it is eventually eroded by the Arctic Ocean, the warmth eventually returning to space from where it arrived. As Chiefio said many years ago, we live on a water planet and water dominates the surface and the atmosphere. Greenhouses gases such as c02 and methane play a minor role.

Atomic, molecular and optical physicist, Howard Hayden, is also quoted, and the evergreen Richard Feynman quote from the past. The Essex essay has the title, ‘Can Computer Models Predict Climate?’ He goes on to say the word model as used by climate scientists is quite different than the models created in other scientific disciplines. Here, models are formulated and then tested against empirical evidence. If the model appears to differ from real life it is discarded, or modified. In climate science, the model is the bees knees. If real world evidence contradicts the models and then it is the real world evidence that is faulty, or mistaken. Climate models, are in effect, oracular, quite able to prophesy the climate in years to come. Even though those self same models differ from climate in the here and now. Climate models are deemed beyond falsification. In terms of normal science this is pure fantasy. See for example https://therightclimatestuff.com … and https://www.sepp.org/science_papers.cfm

Over at … https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/04/24/renewable-subsidies-have-cost-78-billion-in-last-10-years/  … which is derived from Paul Homewood’s blog ‘Not a Lot of People Know That’ … and gives the low down on renewable energy subsidies in the UK. These are eye watering sums of money, gleaned from ordinary people via their gas and electricity bills. The scale of it is completely unknown to the average person who switches off at the mention of climate change and therefore does not try and make sense of what they are saying. You either believe the propaganda, the minority, or you don’t, the majority. Both sides fail to check the facts and figures or find out what is really going on.  Some people are doing very well out of climate change. Well to do with a big roof and a solar panel array for example. Most people live in more humdrum houses, or flats, yet they are having their wallets invaded by the renewables people. Is this why the government are reluctant to put climate change levies on general taxation rather than on energy bills. Would the little people suddenly realise what has been happening and what Net Zero has on offer in the future?

Skip to content