Climate Change or Climate Alarmism? A Rational Discussion

Environment is the most pivotal to human survival, no doubt. Without water and a healthy soil, we will have no food… no matter how technology is advanced; and we cannot be healthy without clean air. Rapid urbanization in developing nations is causing serious problems like depletion of groundwater and dangerous pollution; deforestation and human encroachment are impacting biodiversity and leading to extinction of many animals, birds, insects and plants; and toxic chemicals from industries can destroy lives in lakes and rivers. There is no doubt that these challenges need to be addressed urgently.

However, the solution will entail a holistic approach that truly understands nature — not the current “climate change” ideology that simplifies the complex issue to ridiculous slogans, creates a fear-campaign-driven ideological fervor that shuts down rational debates, and misdirects the efforts of scientists.

Climate is chaos theory to the power million. There is no formula and there is no supercomputer that can predict the climate. All the climate models are computer programs written by humans based. These models are laughably simplistic, relative to the earth’s ecosystem.

Let’s not forget that trillions of dollars are at stake with the climate change campaign. Nothing corrupts science more than money. We have already seen that with Big Pharma and Big Food. Those who fund studies predetermine the conclusions. Of course, scientists are humans and they can find global warming or cooling based on confirmation bias or cherry-picking data. Plus, people who against the dogma are severely punished. Eventually scientists, media and politicians jump on the bandwagon, creating mass psychosis.

Let me add that renewable energy movement is excellent for two reasons: Reduction of pollution and Economics (making use of free energy). If we use just 10% of the solar energy that reaches the earth, we can produce all the electricity we need! However, how we think about and talk about science is very important. We cannot engage in “justifiable lies” and fear-porn to achieve some commendable goals.

While an entire book can be written on climate scam, I will try to summarize the key points in this blog. The four major areas that will be addressed here are:

  • Why phrases like “Climate change” and “Global warming” are unscientific and stupid
  • Discussion of “man-made” climate change and the obsession with CO2 (which makes up 0.04% of the atmosphere; while, as NASA admits, water vapor (!) is responsible for 75% of greenhouse gas effect). Modern farmers pump CO2 — “plant food” — into greenhouses to get better yield.
  • Why it’s hard (impossible) to measure the “global temperature” Really! You would be surprised.
    • Hence the debunking of the sensational charts that show the earth getting super hot, super fast
  • Data fudging and tampering
  • Cherry-picking data to spread fear
  • Modern science’s fundamental lack of understanding of nature

Hysteria and Ideology

Science has been turned into a battle of ideological screaming. And that is a sign of faulty science and/or fake claims.

This is very similar to the COVID vaccines, where people get banned on US social media for saying obviously things like “vaccines do not prevent transmission.” Similarly, fearful parents blindly vaccinating their children with mRNA vaccines is irrational, when you look at the infection fatality rate (IFR), which is 3 in 1 million for children aged 0-19.

The climate change cult is full of ridiculous ideas like eating less meat or how short people are better for the earth because they eat less — the latter is an actual op-ed in the NY Times! Consider that livestock is only 4% of the earth’s animal biomass and humans make up only 0.01% of all biomass. That fear-mongering NY Times article quotes globalist Yuval Hariri who claims that when long long time ago, an island got flooded due to global warming, the tall people died first because they needed more food! Sheer stupidity.

Interestingly, these people also reject ANY positive news. They just wallow in misery and exaggeration. For example, if you show the chart below, it would really upset the climate believers. This is the time series of snow extent in the earth’s entire Northern Hemisphere over the last 17 years (2006-2022). This is from the the US NOAA and as official as it gets. There is no climate emergency or global warming in this chart.

Unable to win logical debates, the globalists and their minions scream, “Trust the Science!” or “Science is settled!” Well, that kind of dogmatic attitude is appropriate for religious indoctrination. However, science is all about questioning and critical analyses.

When everything fails, these ideologues cry, “Climate denialism.” What the heck is that — supposed to sound like “Holocaust denialism”? These people are guilty of “logic denialism.”

One more: Here is the temperature in Antarctica, as measured by weather stations on the ground (thus very accurate) over the last thirty years: 1991-2021. Where’s the apocalypse, a.k.a global warming?

Corporate Hypocrisy

If these people are so worried about climate change which are allegedly caused by emissions, have you ever heard any corporation — say, Walmart, Apple or Amazon — say, “We will sell fewer products this year to combat climate change”? Of course, not!

Americans buy more than 3 SUVs and pickup trucks for every passenger car. How about banning those gas-guzzling vehicles?

Do politicians ever try to ban Pepsi and Coca Cola because these companies deplete the groundwater, generate enormous amount of plastic waste, and cause diabetes? That would be great for the environment and human health!

Does the US ever try to slash its military empire, which produces, per capita, 6x as much CO2 as China? War machines are terrible for the environment – for example, one F-35 fighter jet uses as much fuel as 500 cars (looking at fuel efficiency per mile). But imperialism is more important than climate change.

And the influential Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) published an article on how we must prepare for a nuclear war with Russia! What would that do to the earth’s climate and all lives?

And let’s not forget how all these elites fly in private jets everywhere, including to climate conferences. They live in huge mansions, waste more energy than you would ever spend in your entire life, and will tell you to eat fake meat and skip shower to save the world.

So, let’s be skeptical of these globalists and oligarchs who cry about the earth.

Constantly Wrong

The gloom-and-doom priests have been constantly wrong about the climate change for decades, but the propaganda continues unabated. In the 1960s and 70s, they raised alarm about catastrophic global cooling. Then from the 1980s through the 2000s, they warned us about global warming. When their predictions failed, they turned to a neutral “climate change,” which means the scientists will be always right.

For example, in 2007, scientists claimed that the Arctic Sea will be free of ice by 2013 due to global warming! Well, that didn’t happen. Worse, in 2014, down in the south pole, Antarctic Sea had a record amount of ice!

After that fiasco, they changed their predictions: “Arctic Sea will be ice-free by 2030″… and then by 2035… and then 2040… and now the latest is by 2050! This is worse than the “Jesus is coming” folks.

In 2015, NASA published an article admitting that, “Since 1979, the total annual Antarctic sea ice extent has increased about 1 percent per decade.” Wait, 1980 is supposed to be the year of the beginning of the end of the world! So, how come for 25 years after the fateful year, the ice extent in Antarctica kept growing?

Cherry-picking of Data by Doomsayers

“Look at the last 40 years! Clear trend that the world is falling off the cliff!” Well, about looking at data for hundred years? Between 1880 and 1980, the earth’s temperature remained flat! Those are hundred years of extraordinary industrialization, two world wars, and vast emissions of CO2. But the climate didn’t budge overall.

Thus, by cherry-picking data, climate believers turn into those religious fundamentalists who always see signs of the “end of the world”.

Why “Climate Change” is a Stupid Phrase

Climate change and global warming are illogical and unscientific phrases that terrorize the minds of people, who are led to believe that (1) Climate is supposed to be nice and constant, and (2) whatever we are witnessing is abnormal and unprecedented.

Okay, here is a chart of the temperature deviation over the last 800,000 years:

Wow. It’s up and down, all the time. Imagine that.

Of course, if the current climate alarmists lived through those years, the alarmists would have been hysterical about “global warming” and “global cooling” during each swing.

Let’s take a bigger view and look at the global temperature over the last 500 million years. It varied from 50-100 degree Celsius! More importantly, you can see that sometimes there was no ice in the north and south poles — represented by the red lines — and it went back and forth numerous times.

Before this — 600 to 700 million years ago — was the “Cryogenian” period, when the entire earth was pretty much covered in ice! There were no humans or even animals and plants. However, mysteriously, “global warming” happened and melted the ice, paving the way to rise of complex life!

The key to remember is that climate on earth is not linear or constant. There were many ice ages, followed up warming/melting. These are the immutable cycles of nature. For example, the last ice age lasted whopping 2 MILLION years and ended only 10,000 years ago! This is the Pleistocene Era.

During this time, much of North America and Europe were covered with several feet of ice! Only when the ice melted due to the wonderful global warming, did more people move in and agriculture became possible.

And below is chart of global temperature over the last 10,000 years — when human civilization really took off. Notice that several periods — including the medieval times — when the earth was warmer than today.

Of course, let’s not forget that a couple of billions of years ago, the earth was a freaking fireball, with a temperature of 3500 degrees!

So, you get the point. The climate has always changed and will continue to change. Global warming and global cooling will happen in cycles. We cannot control it much (more on that later).

Man-made Climate Change! Caused by CO2! Correlation is Causation!

If “climate change” is a meaningless phrase, “man-made climate change” is twice as dumb. This is just a narrative. There is no scientific proof for this. This is at best the commonly used logical fallacy of “correlation means causation.” Two things happening at the same time does not mean that one causes the other.

At worst, the propaganda of “man-made climate change” is a deliberate lie to sell something. For example, in the 1960s, the sugar industry paid off a couple of famous Harvard scientists to blame saturated fat for health problems and to exonerate sugar. Similarly, Big Pharma demonized cholesterol to sell statins. A third example is how psychiatrists came up with the fake “chemical imbalance” theory to sell anti-depressants that mess with serotonin and other neurotransmitters in the brain.

What happened to Global Cooling?

Let’s not forget that before “climate change” and “global warming,” scientists scared the hell out of people by talking about the “coming ice age” in the 1960s and 1970s. Mainstream media, scientists and top government organizations — National Academy of Sciences and NOAA — talked about the “coming new ice age.” The warnings and predictions were stunning: Ice age within 50-60 years; and the world running out of food by 1980!

There was an overwhelming consensus about global cooling at that time, even though now some people are trying to rewrite history.

Even CIA reports discussed extensively how the snow/ice cover of the earth had increased by 10% and global cooling was causing crop failures all over the world!

Documentaries warned that “within our life time,” we will enter a new ice age. Here’s a short clip from a 1978 mini-documentary on the coming ice age. It talks about how the brutal winters of Buffalo, NY, will be seen all over the U.S., glaciers will cover California, and an unprecedented hunger and death were on the way! Here is a compilation of some clips. Listen to all the scientists and their “proofs” for the coming ice age!

Climatologists published papers about the stunning 0.5 degree C cooling of the northern hemisphere in just 30 years (1940-1970). Basically, the temperature in 1980 was the same as 1880 — in other words, 100 years of industrialization did not cause any global warming!

And what was the reason? Of course, it was man! Thanks to industrialization, the earth was covered with pollution, which was blocking sunlight and causing global cooling.

You see, scientists can twist facts as much as a regular guy on social media.

Below are screenshots from a 1981 scientific paper by Hansen (the famous NASA climate expert who later became the priest of global warming) and Newsweek article from 1975, titled “Cooling World.”

CO2, the Villain

How did carbon dioxide, the food for all plants, become the new villain of global warming? There are many greenhouse gases that can trap heat — like methane, CO2, Nitric oxide, pollutant particles, carbon soot, aerosols, and even water vapor! In fact water vapor is 3x more effective than CO2 in trapping heat, and Nitrous oxide is 300x better than CO2. As pointed out earlier, water vapor is responsible for up to 75% of greenhouse gas effect, but scientists obviously don’t attack water vapor.

Also, note that CO2 is not a pollutant; it is also not what makes big cities like Delhi look dirty. Remember that CO2 is colorless. When Beijing or Delhi have terrible days, it’s because of fine particles described as PM2.5, PM10 etc. These are toxic substances — sulfate, nitrate, carbon soot, organic compounds like benzene, aerosols and so on.

Look at the photos of Beijing below. The city has vastly improved not by reducing CO2 but by reducing pollutants! In fact, China’s annual CO2 emissions have tripled over the last two decades, but China’s air everywhere has gotten infinitely better. Cities like Beijing and Shanghai now don’t even show up in the top 300 most polluted cities in the world!

Beijing: Before and Now. Don’t conflate pollution with CO2

As for CO2, how much is there in the atmosphere? You will be surprised.

The atmosphere is 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, and 1% other gases. Wait, where is CO2? It is in the 1% of other gases and… constitutes 0.04%. That’s 4 in 10,000. And that tiny CO2 is supposed to wreck the entire earth. Just baloney.

By the way, the mainstream narrative is that oxygen (O2) and nitrogen (N2) in the atmosphere have no “greenhouse gas effect,” because the bonds in the molecules are neutral and symmetric. However, that’s a big lie. Due to what is known as “collision-induced absorption,” both O2 and N2 can also absorb heat just like CO2. While the amount of heat absorbed by a single N2 molecule is much less than a CO2 molecule, the concentration of N2 is 2000 times larger than that of CO2! Thus, “even the weak infrared absorption of N2 (O2) can become radiatively important.”

Then there are natural activities that are beyond our control. For example, two months of forest fires in 2021 emitted 2.6 billion tons of CO2 — that’s almost the same as the annual emissions from all the cars in the world! That puts things in a perspective, doesn’t it?

Plus, here’s something that climate alarmists don’t consider: If CO2 increases, wouldn’t that cause plants and tress to grow more and faster? (Remember that CO2 is plant food — due to photosynthesis). And more plants and tress would eventually mean less CO2?

And it is not just a theory — modern farmers pump CO2 into greenhouses to increase yield! It is called “CO2 enrichment” or “CO2 fertilization”! As Canada’s Ministry of Agriculture says on its website: “The benefits of carbon dioxide supplementation on plant growth and production within the greenhouse environment have been well understood for many years. For the majority of greenhouse crops, net photosynthesis increases by 50% as CO2 levels increase from 340–1,000 ppm.” (Note that the current CO2 concentration on earth is only 420 ppm).

Here is a scientific paper on how increased CO2 in a greenhouse increased yield of tomatoes and made them bigger. The plants grew faster and bigger! Here’s an article on how CO2 increases photosynthesis — the positive relation works up to about 1200 ppm of CO2, which is 3x the current concentration on earth. And, not shockingly, warmer temperature equals faster growth for plants! Thus, CO2 and global warming are a great combo! LOL. Some charts and photos from the above links are shown below:

Here’s a paper titled, “CO2 enrichment in greenhouse production: Towards a sustainable approach.” And a screenshot of the benefits of CO2 from the paper:

Researchers have also done numerous experiments on open fields pumped with extra CO2. Known as FACE — Free Air CO2 Enrichment — experiments, these also show that increased CO2 concentration result in (1) Increased photosynthesis by 40% or more (2) Plants growing faster (3) Water conservation, since plants “breathe out” less water.

Finally, if we want to reduce CO2 for some reason, the simplest and most obvious solution would be to plant more trees! The developed countries, which are crying about CO2, can start a campaign to plant, say, 1 billion trees (and perhaps plants and even grass) every month around the world, especially in desert-like areas. Imagine a plan to turn the Middle East or Sahara Desert green. This will actually make the world more beautiful. But they won’t do anything that’s wholesome and sensible.

By the way, China has done a good job in this area by planting whopping 640,000 sq. km of artificial forests over the last few decades — that’s larger than the area of France!

Saihanba National Forest in China. Man-made, artificial forest.

Next: The entire narrative is based on an assumption that is deeply flawed. Can we even measure the earth’s temperature?

You Cannot Measure the Earth’s Temperature! Here’s Why!

What? How can you say that we cannot measure the earth’s temperature? Of course, we have thermometers! Low-tech and easy-peezee!

Okay, let’s take a simple experiment: You live in upstate New York and must accurately measure the temperature of your home for a whole day today (December 2022). Sounds easy? How will you do it? To make it simple, let’s say you have a hi-tech gadget that measures and records temperature constantly (so you don’t have to stay up all night).

First, you can’t just have one such gadget for the whole house, since the temperature varies from room to room. For example, the kitchen will be warmer when you cook. And even there, the temperature will be much warmer close to the stove than a few feet away! And, in the living room, the temperature will be much cooler by the window than in the middle of the room. How about the difference between the floor and ceiling? Or how about under the bed and inside the closets?

Okay, you get the point. To be scientific, you need dozens of thermometers inside your home and you need to measure constantly — perhaps every minute or second for the whole day.

Is that how we are measuring the earth’s temperature? Of course, not!

Let’s start with developing nations. In Africa, there is ONE weather station, on the average, for every 26,000 square kilometers! But that average is skewed by the high number of weather stations in large cities. Take those away and you will have hundreds of thousands of square kilometers of Africa with no measurements. Basically, all the weather data from Africa is an absurd guess.

And how big is Africa? 20% of world’s land area — or, 4 times the size of contiguous USA!

The same story is repeated in all developing nations. All the data are useless to figure out the “global temperature.”

Even in the largely populated areas US and Europe, the data is useless for the simple reason that it is simply impossible to measure the temperature everywhere. For example, look at this weather station in the US. It’s six feet above the ground. The temperature in the grass near it will be very different from what this device is measuring.

Now, think about mountains, national parks, forests, the Amazon jungle and so on. There are no measurements.

Measuring the Ocean’s Temperature

As for the oceans, the scientists only measure the temperature at the surface; and there are only 1300 buoys for the entire earth — that translates to 1 measurement per 120,000 sq km!

Moreover, the temperature of the ocean varies tremendously as you go down: 30 °C (86 °F) at the sea surface to −1 °C  at the sea bed! Thus, to talk about “earth’s temperature” or the “variations” without figuring out what’s happening in the oceans is fake science.

What we CAN meaningfully measure is variations in temperature of some fixed places. However, even that doesn’t say anything about the variation of the climate of the whole earth.

How about the Satellites to Measure Earth’s Temperature?

Satellites are only good for 700,000-metre perspectives, or worse! The closest satellites are 700 km away from the earth; and the geostationary satellites orbit at altitudes of staggering 35,000 km. Satellites do not provide direct measurements of atmospheric temperature: they are not thermometers in space.

Moreover, satellites are terrible for comprehensive space-time data. That is, you can’t get data 24 hours a day for every part of the earth.

The infrared satellites cannot survey the earth if there are clouds, and thus may take months to get the data for the entire earth. That means you are measuring the data once a week or month for most places. Useless for anyone who wants to measure the “global temperature.”

The microwave satellites can do a better job because microwaves can penetrate most clouds. However, the resolution is bad. So, the best satellite can look at only an area of 10 km x 10 km. Furthermore, they don’t get continuous data either — perhaps with multiple satellites, scientists can get data every 4-6 hours. Also, most of the time, these satellites only look at the microwaves from the atmosphere above earth — like, from troposphere, which is 5-10 miles away from the land surface. And the satellites cannot accurately tell where the radiations are coming from.

Finally, satellite data need tons of fudging! There is no simple way to match microwave data to temperature. For example, every satellite has different orbits, sensors, technology, instruments and calibrations. Thus, an American satellite will have different data from a European satellite; and a 2022 satellite will have different data when compared to a 1999 satellite! Then there are numerous problems with satellite — for example, “drift”, meaning that a satellite won’t be at the precise position above earth every time, leading to false data.

Thus, even when different groups take the same satellite data, they get quite different conclusions. The chart below shows different warming trends from the three most popular datasets: UAH, RSS and NOAA. So, what is the global warming per decade? It can vary from 0.06°C to 0.15°C per decade!

There have also been situations when the satellites actually showed that the earth’s atmosphere was cooling!

The above chart is for stratosphere and the scientists have some illogical explanation about how this is normal and is in fact caused by… global warming!

Data Fudging and Tampering

You will be surprised how easy it is for scientists to blatantly change all the past data to create a nice warming trend! For example, in 1999, there was a shocker: “US land temperature had not changed in the 20th century… and had in fact cooled a bit in the previous 50 years!” This was acknowledged by the famous NASA director James Hansen in a blog that was later deleted by NASA. But, thanks to the internet archive, you can find it here. In that 1999 paper, “Whither U.S. Climate?” the authors admitted that:

“In the U.S. there has been little temperature change in the past 50 years, the time of rapidly increasing greenhouse gases — in fact, there was a slight cooling throughout much of the country.”

What did the scientists do? Like religious ideologues, they went and “fixed” the data. Note that the US relatively has the best data collection. But NASA didn’t care. They applied a new smoothing function, “cooled” the past and “warmed” the recent past.

The scientists also literally changed the data for some years — for example, 1934 was made cooler. Why? To claim that 1998 was the “hottest year on record”! But the fact is that 1934 is the hottest year on record! (Notice the two circled dots in the chart below)

What was the result of all this scientific fraud? A nice steady climb of temperature from 1880 to 2000, especially after 1980. Here are the two charts below — original chart and the fudged chart:

The shocking rigging of data for dozens of years can be seen in the GIF below. Look how many rigged data — shifting dots — you can identify below:

Later on, there was another RSS (satellite) data showing that the global temperature had been flat or even cooling a bit over a period of almost 20 years — from 1997-2015!

LOL. Of course, the religious leaders of Church of Meteorology went to work, made more adjustments, and declared that the globe was indeed warming! There can be only one right answer! Interestingly, in the defense, the scientists revealed all the shortcoming of satellite data:

  • Converting satellite’s measurements of microwaves into atmospheric temperature has “substantial uncertainties.”
  • Satellite measurements are made by over many different satellites, most of which experience orbital decay and orbital drift.
  • Adjustments for satellite measurements are large, and involve many subjective decisions.

Historical Temperatures are Fictitious

Okay, so, if we cannot measure the true global temperature in year 2022, why would you believe anything from 1960 or 1880? In the late 19th century, perhaps 100 people around the world were kinda/sorta keeping track of temperature on a regular basis. And even they usually measured the temperature only 2-3 times a day with crude thermometers.

Whatever claims scientists make about the past are all within the margin of error. Meaning that if they say, “The earth’s temperature in 1900 was 15 °C, they are lying confidently. It could have been anywhere from 14-16°C or worse, making it a pointless discussion about if the earth has warmed 0.5°C.

Non-Linear Cycles

Scientists and media freak out repeatedly over small trends when it suits their purpose. For example, the Arctic Sea ice extent kept shrinking for about a decade.

Then, everyone screamed that the entire north pole was going to melt away and we are all going to die. Well, guess what, the Arctic Sea ice bounced back and grew 50%, thanks to no humans! So, people need to calm down.

Whatever scary chart they show you, remember two things:

  1. The data is rigged and man-made (Remember the section about measuring earth’s temperature)
  2. The timeline is insignificant (40 years or 100 years in an earth that’s 4 billion years old. That’s like a second in your life)

So, go ahead and laugh at NASA’s famous chart below:

The fake scientists also simplify things. For example, they claim that oxygen and nitrogen play no role in climate change. Because that would make things very complicated — after all, O2 and N2 make up 99% of the gases, and thus they cannot be the villain!

Ignoring Oxygen and Nitrogen

The climate dogma is that O2 and N2 are not greenhouse gases since they don’t trap heat. That itself is technically a false statement, since all molecules can absorb and emit energy (Planck’s Law). Yes, because of the symmetric nature of O2 and N2, they have fewer ways to vibrate than, say, CO2, and thus absorb less heat. But it’s not zero. Molecular oxygen (O2) has absorption bands throughout the spectrum from the infrared (IR) to the ultraviolet.

However, more importantly, O2 and N2 molecules are affected by solar radiations — including ultraviolet (UV) rays and subatomic particles like electrons and protons (which emanate from sun).

The beautiful aurora borealis is caused by electrons from sun ionizing O2 and N2 molecules and causing the latter to emit lights. “The green we see in the aurora is characteristic of oxygen, while hints of purple, blue or pink are caused by nitrogen.”

Similarly, the less spectacular “airglow” is caused by sun’s UV rays splitting atmospheric O2 molecules into O and O.

Radiation by the oxygen molecules in the atmosphere is how most weather satellites work! These satellites measure the microwaves emitted by O2 and water vapor molecules in the air!

Furthermore, due to the interaction of O2 and N2 molecules with solar radiation, all kinds of excited and ionized atoms and molecules are created in the atmosphere (including ozone). These reactive substances have great ability to absorb infrared radiations, since they are asymmetric and can vibrate in many ways. However, climate scientists conveniently ignore these to keep the narrative simple.

Ignoring oxygen and nitrogen, which make up 99% of the atmosphere, is how the politicized climate science creates simple narratives.

People Believe in Narratives, Not Science

Most people are terrible in math and science. Thus, they believe in narratives and authorities. Everything that goes against their beliefs will be rejected. For example, the “hockey stick” of temperature in the famous chart (above) scares the climate change believers.

However, do this experiment. Show the chart below of COVID deaths in the USA and Haiti to the same people

Now tell them, “Look, here is a proof that vaccination kills people. The US has a vaccination rate of 81% and Haiti is under 4%. And look at the shocking number of deaths in the US compared to Haiti. It’s obvious that mRNA vaccines kill.”

Of course, such charts won’t change most people’s minds. They will have some explanation or call you an “anti-vaxxer.”

Ideology always beats facts, charts and science!

The narrative that “greenhouse gases trap heat” itself is misleading and a straw man argument. Why?

  1. Because only a fraction of the earth’s heat gets absorbed by CO2 and other gases. Remember that 99% of the atmosphere is O2 and N2. The rest of the heat escapes into space.
  2. The greenhouse gases (GHG) also do not absorb all the infrared waves. Each gas a preference for certain radiations at certain frequency (or wavelength). Thus, CO2’s absorption is the best only for radiations at 15 micron (μm) wavelength. All other wavelengths are practically ignored.
  3. And what happens when greenhouse gases (GHG) capture the heat? The molecules get excited and then release the heat after a while. The released heat goes everywhere and only a fraction returns to earth

Thus, you see, only a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of heat emanating from earth comes back.

There are No Formulas in Climate Science

When we think of science, we think of precision and formulas. Like Newton’s formula F=M*A or Einstein’s E=MC2 (“M C-squared”). But there are lots of natural sciences where there are no formulas. Climate scientists cannot give you a formula that links CO2 concentration to earth’s temperature.

When asked what will happen if CO2 doubles, scientists’ answers for the rise in global temperature vary from 1.5°C to 5.7°C. But climate science has become a cult, so people still treat these scientists like infallible high priests.

Climate scientists cannot tell you precisely what the weather or climate will be tomorrow, next week, next month, next year or next decade. It’s all done by modeling, which combines existing data and tons of assumptions. it’s all fungible and subjective. (Remember that the data itself is highly inaccurate).

In precise sciences, you can go back in time as well. For example, you can figure out exactly where the planet Venus was 75 years ago. However, ask a climate scientist what the weather/climate of San Francisco was yesterday, last month, last year, last decade or last century… he cannot tell you! There is no formula! And none of his great modeling tools and supercomputers can figure that out.

Climate Models Have Been Laughably Wrong

In 1988, the celebrity NASA guy James Hansen published an epochal paper that led to creation of IPCC and billions of dollars of funding for the doomsday cottage industry. In that paper, Hansen predicted a rise of 0.5°C per decade if CO2 emissions were high (he called it Scenario A or Business as Usual).

Guess what? The actual CO2 emissions over the next three decades were three times higher than Hansen’s worst-case scenario! However, the (official) global temperature rose only 1/4th as much as Hansen predicted — 0.13°C per decade!

NASA’s model was wrong by a terrible and embarrassing margin! But nobody cares because the goal of these scientists is to sell a narrative for a bigger agenda.

Models are Computer Programs — Highly Subjective and Variable

Many people treat models like an infallible. But they are just computer programs written by people who make tons of assumptions and guesses. The IPCC uses more than 100 different climate models! Why? Because every scientist or group makes their own assumptions. At the end, the IPCC usually just takes the average of all these models.

And these models have a wide range of outcomes and predictions. For example, how much hotter will the earth be in year 2100? The estimates vary from +1.7°C to +5.7°C!

This is not the “science” that people should blindly believe in. Of course, if a model predicts no warming, the scientist will quickly lose his job or the lucrative funding.

By the way, these climatologists are very similar to the epidemiologists at London’s Imperial College. Every time, there is a pandemic, these clowns come up with outrageous projections of death and misery. For example, in 2001, they said that 150,000 people could die from the foot-and-mouth disease; while in reality, 200 people died. However, based on the fear-mongering, 11 million sheep and cattle were slaughtered! In 2005, the lead guy, Neil Ferguson, said that 150 million people could die from bird flu — when only 300 people died.

These are not just innocent mistakes — there is a bigger agenda behind such scare tactics.

Feedback Mechanisms Ignored

There are also feedback loops that give self-healing properties to the earth’s ecosystem. For example, higher CO2 means more plants and trees which grow faster and bigger… which in turn absorb CO2.

And a warmer climate means more water vapor, which cause clouds, which cool the earth in two ways — by reflecting back sunlight and by causing rain.

Modern Scientists Don’t Understand Nature

Modern science is great at concrete things like computers, semiconductors and rockets, where a single input will always lead to a definitive output. However, nature is holistic, non-linear, statistical, and dynamic with hundreds of variables. This is why modern science sucks at nutrition, health, pharmaceuticals, climate etc.

In nutrition, scientists reduced food into carbohydrates, protein, fat and vitamins. And then they demonized first fat, then saturated fat and cholesterol. This grossly unscientific and reductionist approach is why we have a health crisis. Similarly, Big Pharma tries to make pills with one ingredient, while real healing requires hundreds of complex compounds found in food and nature. Thus, doctors are trained at hiding symptoms, while being unable to cure chronic diseases. Modern medical system is also fundamentally wrong about our human body, treating it like a machine made up of independent and unconnected organs. Hence we have “specialists” who don’t know the basic fact about how the body works in a holistic manner. Modern science has also been spectacularly wrong about our genetics by imagining that each DNA has one specific role. Nature is vastly more complex than these folks can ever imagine.

Climate science is like medical science of the earth, which is a dynamic, self-healing, living organism. The first mistake that scientists do is to treat the earth as an inert object. The earth is an immensely complex ecosystem; and is also greatly affected by small changes in the sun’s radiation.

How many unpredictable things can affect the earth’s climate? The sun, the wobbling of earth (Milankovitch cycles), the 1 million or so volcanoes under the ocean, earthquakes, hurricanes, floods, forest fires, ocean currents, bacteria, plankton, plants, animals and, yes, human activities. Most of all, these are often inter-related with feedback loops, making the entire ecosystem immensely complex.

If something as simple as CO2 were to be a major factor, then the logical solution would be to plant tens of billions of trees all over the earth. Scientists are also ignoring an inconvenient fact: “Experiments have unequivocally shown that plants can grow faster and larger in a CO2-enriched atmosphere.”

If lack of water or rising sea levels are major problems, it would be wise to spend lots of money on desalination — solve two problems at once! If soil erosion and depletion is a problem, we should encourage organic farming and invest in sustainable agriculture that can still have high yields.

The world spends about $2 trillion on military every year. Imagine if they spent half of that on improving nature. We can turn all the deserts of the world into beautiful green places. For example, over the last few decades, China has planted trees and created man-made forests that can cover entire France!


The earth and the humans need a solution that is holistic, sustainable, and scientific. For eons, humans respected nature. Science developed as a tool to study and understand nature. However, in the 20th century, scientists and elites became arrogant and started to demonize nature. Part of the reason was the corporations could make more money by substituting natural things with corporate products.

Now, the elites are moving beyond profits. Behind this climate change hysteria is a globalist agenda that involves taxing the masses up the wazoo and controlling everything from population to basic necessities like food, electricity, and fuel. All they have to say is “emissions,” and many people will oblige like sheep. The COVID period shows how the elites would use fear to impose extraordinary control over us. Don’t be a pawn for the Problem-Reaction-Solution strategy.

Over the decades, we have become far removed from nature. Thus, we have simplistic views of food, our body, health, medicine, nature and, of course, climate. The solution is not going to come from the mainstream establishment. Each of us must become educated, think critically, and embrace the new paradigm.

— Chris Kanthan, Dec 2022


  1. This is a super good article! I’ve wanted to write something similar for a long time. The current climate change mindset is way wrong. They have dumbed it down to temperature vs. CO2, which has no scientific bearing. I agree with everything in this article. The climate models are also horrible at predicting the future climate. Our schools need to teach people how to think and reason; critical thinking and logic. There is no way to measure progress on climate change. What is the ideal temperature target? Even if humans could change the Earth to have a certain average temperature, it wouldn’t stay at that temperature. When you breakdown the science, I don’t know how many real scientist could agree with the majority opinion on the climate. I’m going to reblog and frequently reference this logical evaluation of the climate change hysteria. It will be reblogged at Rocky Mountain Adventures & Insights. Thank you so much for writing this.

    Liked by 2 people

Leave a Reply

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

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s