Why I remain a climate sceptic in relation to human emissions of CO2
The IPCC’s case against human emissions of CO2 as the major factor in climate change is the greatest fraud ever perpetrated on human society
email contact: firstname.lastname@example.org
This paper supports the claim that the IPCC’s case against human emissions as the major factor in climate change is the greatest fraud ever perpetrated on human society. For most of its supporters, the IPCC’s case has achieved the status of a religion.
- First, it is shown that the IPCC reports involve frauds and misrepresentations, in that the published results are based on the agendas of climate activists rather than the scientists who wrote the original chapters.
- Second, it is shown that the current warming phase is the latest cycle of previous worldwide cycles of warming and cooling, and pointed out that that it is scarcely credible that the previous sources involving natural variability have suddenly stopped their action, and been replaced by human activities.
- Third, I show that the climate models claimed to support placing the blame on human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are fatally flawed and in no way represent “true science”.
- Fourth, it is shown that when placed in the context of the earth’s total annual CO2 budget, human emissions are of negligible importance, and that the land-based measures of temperature change used by the IPCC are unreliable.
- Fifth, a major decline in CO2 emissions during the Great Depression had no impact on either CO2 levels or temperature.
- Sixth, by a careful analysis of the data on human emissions, the overwhelmingly important greenhouse gas is water vapour.
- Seventh, evidence from ice cores going back millions of years, which first were claimed to support the IPCC’s case, on closer examination show that rises in levels of CO2 were a consequence of warming, and not its cause.
- Eighth, correlations between CO2, Total Solar Irradiance and changes in the major Ocean currents, and U.S.temperature show that the correlation between CO2 and temperature at 0.02 are abysmal, while the correlation between temperature and the other factors in excellent at 0.83. Finally, the contempt shown by climate modellers for any influence from the sun, is shown to be totally misguided.
First I should explain exactly what I am sceptical about. I accept that the climate has warmed by about 0.7 °C since the end of the Little Ice Age. Thus although I know that those who believe that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) will cause disaster will attack me as a “climate change denier”, since they apply this label to anyone who disagrees with any aspect of the IPCC’s claims, this is not true of myself. Second, I accept that human CO2 emissions have made some small contribution to that warming. But what I remain sceptical about is the claim that human emissions are by far the major factor in that warming and that unless drastic cuts are made to those emissions, disaster will result. Because the supporters of cuts to human emissions habitually respond to criticism with ad hominem abuse, let me also say that I have never received a cent from any oil company or other CO2 “villain”. I also wish to state that I am concerned about the environment. I am a birdwatcher and since my retirement my life has been devoted to putting information about the status of every species on the web. see my website http://worldbirdinfo.net. But I can not stand falsehoods masquerading as genuine science.
It is illuminating that the IPCC operates in close relationship with the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change which defines climate change as “a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.” (cited Carter 2010: 194) In other words, the process begins by specifying that only human-induced climate change counts as climate change. Note that this involves a corruption of English. In other words, if you criticise the IPCC’s view of climate change, their redefinition of that term means that you can be labelled a “climate change denier”. Whereas only a fool would deny that the earth’s climate is dynamic and constantly changing. And as will be seen below, major fluctuations of climate that have occurred just over the last 11,000 years, when human emissions can have played no part whatsoever, the attempt of the committee cited above to change the meaning of English words is absurd. And in fact, since the IPCC and its supporters appear to imagine that climate was stable, until evil industrial societies began to contaminate it with their wicked carbon dioxide emissions, if any group should legitimately be called “climate change deniers: it is the IPCC and their supporters!
Below I have listed the topics discussed in separate posts. These can be accessed by clicking on each title. To come back to this document, just click the Back arrow.
In conclusion, I believe I have provided ample evidence in the many posts on this subject to justify my scepticism about the case that carbon dioxide is a dangerous pollutant. Without CO2 , which is the basis of all plant life and hence of all animal life, the earth would be a bare and barren place. It is unbelievably stupid, on the basis of the IPCC’s flawed case, to cause major upheavals in, and significant damage to, the world’s economy and Australia’s.