I have been studying Climate Change since the 90s. I set out to shut the critics up. Once I got into it the data was really not there. Cherry picking locations you can say what you want but random or uniform data points show the temperature stable on a human time scale. People think of the earth as static. Go back 18000 years ago and you could almost walk from the Bahamas to Florida to Cuba to the Yucatan. 30000 years ago almost all of Florida and the coastal US was under water.
Its solar output, orbit eccentricity, rotational inclination, distance from the sun, albedo variability, Greenhouse gasses are WAAAAAYYYYY down the list of effects.
We are at the end of an interglacial period. the earth is going to heat up by another 2 to 4 degrees and the seas will rise another 50 to 100 feet over the next 5000 years or so, unless we are going into an orbital eccentricity cycle which is possible. that would trigger the next ice age sooner than normal. its called the Milankovitch cycle.
Also CO2 is not one of the stronger green house gasses. Its not even in the top 10. Water vapor is the single most effective green house gas, that sucks for the global warming nazis. Also methane, all your freons, halons hydrocarbons and some others are all significantly more effective. But CO2 can be used by the global socialism crowd to control the pleebs. No more, the adults in the room are waking up
If you ever wonder why CO2 what is the target substance, look at their goal which is essentially One World Government, global socialism, the typical globalist agenda. What allows them to get it there the easiest way possible. Control people’s ability make their own decisions independent of the government. How do you do that you control them through how much gas they can afford. How much can they afford to heat a house. Everything that they are trying to regulate controls and major aspect of human life in the industrialized nations. And by controlling CO2 they control all of that. Think about it.
You’re trying to infer that CO2 really makes the difference. If you look at the heat-trapping capacity of the different materials and do mathematical models on them you will see that most of the others though far lower concentrations actually contribute far more to increasing the temperature than CO2 does because most of the others are at least 200 times as efficient. That means half of percent of that gas compared to the entire amount of CO2 cost is the same amount of warming. If it’s a 300% increase and a 1:100 the amount then that means that it is contributing three times as much. However the vast majority of them are in the one to 4% compared to CO2. Which means they are massively increasing the amount of heat trapped on the earth compared to the CO2. As I said read the information. It’s all verifiable. It’s probably stuff you’ve never seen before because it’s stuff that I actually had to dig up by educating myself in atmospheric chemistry. Unless you are educated atmospheric chemistry I very seriously doubt you’re going to easily find that information. But yet I’m making it available to you. And as I said it’s not that hard to verify.
Here is a list of the greenhouse warming potential are the various greenhouse gases some of them are over a thousand times more effective than CO2 meeting that if the ratio of CO2 to that gas is a thousand to one they have the same heating potential. these are the types of things that the left really does not want the general public to know. Simply because it means that we should be controlling a lot of other stuff long before we even think about CO2 levels. CO2 levels could triple and would have a minimal effect compared to some of the other greenhouse gases going up a percent or two. But yes keep eating the problem. I hear it’s good it makes you feel good anyway. And that way you don’t have to think for yourself. They tell you exactly what you need to think and when.
https://ghginstitute.org/…/what-is-a-global-warming…/…
The 97% came from looking over abstracts that were not even written by the authors. Often students and peers. They looked through the abstract and if global warming was mentioned it was considered a pro global warming paper unless it specifically stated otherwise.
There have been many “pro” scientists that said they were not, they were anti or on the fence. But they were never noved out of the pro camp in the study. I have done similar studies and the protocols to avoid irrelevant data are reasonably simple. the study set out with a pre determined goal and when the data was not there they made it up by violating protocol.
Basically the answer was not what they wanted so they divided by 0.
Here are some scientific analyses of the 97% lie:
https://www.econlib.org/…/02/david_friedman_14.html…
https://www.theguardian.com/…/97-consensus-global…
https://www.forbes.com/…/global-warming-alarmists…/…
https://drsircus.com/…/co2-levels-are-so-high…/…
https://www.nationalreview.com/…/climate-change-no…/…
https://web.archive.org/…/mini-ice-age-nasa-scientist…
https://www.heartland.org/…/peer-reviewed-survey-finds…
What is a Global Warming Potential? And which one do I use? – GHG and Carbon Accounting, Auditing, Management & Training | Greenhouse Gas Management Institute
Oh my credentials? Mathematical modeling, research, environmental engineering, having been involved in discussions with the paleontological community regarding a number of issues including paleoclimatology for several years.
If you enjoyed this article, then please REPOST or SHARE with others; encourage them to follow AFNN. If you’d like to become a citizen contributor for AFNN, contact us at managingeditor@afnn.us Help keep us ad-free by donating here.
Substack: American Free News Network Substack
Truth Social: @AFNN_USA
Facebook: https://m.facebook.com/afnnusa
Telegram: https://t.me/joinchat/2_-GAzcXmIRjODNh
Twitter: https://twitter.com/AfnnUsa
GETTR: https://gettr.com/user/AFNN_USA
CloutHub: @AFNN_USA
2 thoughts on “Climate Change Scam, by Kevin Clark”