top of page

How Much Smaller Does This Need to be to Stop 'Global Warming' Exactly?


Don't ask the IPCC, they've no idea.


Climate alarmists say we need to reduce Co2 in the atmosphere to stop climate change but even stopping ALL industry, manufacturing, food and energy production worldwide tomorrow wouldn't be enough.


We're constantly bombarded with stories of global warming. Every hot summer's day is now "climate change", whilst every cold record is 'freak weather'. The records have been analysed and reanalysed, with those pesky data points disproving the theory removed for being 'unreliable'. (convenient). An arbitrary start date, a bit of data-cleansing, and some very questionable data collection methods and you're good to go.


The climate alarmists want us to forget that in 2009 scientists pushing the scam were caught manipulating data, colluding to cover-up what they'd done, and finding it all very amusing when they thought they were getting away with it. We should also not forget all the predictions that never came even close to coming true, because they'd rather we did.


Those giving the doomsday predictions are less than clear what level we need to get to, how we'd actually get there, or at what cost. In fact, they have no answers to any of it. The IPCC have no answers, Bill Gates has no answers; Al Gore has no answers; and Greta Thumberg definitely has no answers. Green Peace, Extinction Rebellion and Just Stop Oil have, between them, come up with zero answers either. They all simply chant the same mantras that we must stop modern living in order to overt an apocalypse.


They all tell us not to do something, that there's a red-line we must not cross, but nobody can tell us a) what a safe level of Co2 actually is, or b) How to get there.


There may well be a very obvious reason why they're so vague about the solutions.


What they don't tell you, or just don't know, is that wiping out all human activity on earth and killing all nine billion of us would STILL not reduce Co2 more than a fraction. If we all agreed to commit suicide resulting in all human activity ceasing the level of CO2 in the atmosphere would go from 450ppm to 436ppm.


Experts, politicians, celebrities, and eco-warriors all tell us that we must drastically, and rapidly, change the way we live to avert the apocalypse. We are, according to them, destroying the planet by living the way we do. By merely existing, we are stealing the future of their precious little angels. The OAP selfishly heating her one bedroom flat should sacrifice her life by freezing to death, so that hypothetical children 100 years from now might live on. l


Just Stop Oil; Extinction Rebellion; Green Peace; Greta Thumberg and the World Economic Forum all say that we must destroy modern life, completely; including all manufacturing, all farming and energy production, we must starve ourselves to death and let our old folk die in order to save the hypothetical people that will live a hundred years from now. Then, and only then, might we avert armageddon.


Ask for specifics, however, and those shouts quickly become a mumble. The science appears conspicuous by its absence. No IPCC report contains any actual science. There are bar charts and graphs, but closer inspection reveals that these are merely widget counts. In fact, no IPCC report explains how Carbon Dioxide actually causes the temperature rise. That is because there is no calculation, no repeatable experiment, and zero evidential data.


The current level of CO2 in the atmosphere is around 450ppm (parts per million) approximately 0.00045% of the overall total (not that anyone from extinction rebellion, Just Stop Oil, or Greta Thumberg have ever bothered to look-up that fact.)

But only 3% of that 450ppm is manmade; meaning that humans can only ever affect 0.0000135% of the atmosphere. Even if we did completely stop all manufacturing, food production and power generation we'd make no difference to the climate whatsoever.


Related:

Video: Senator Destroys Climate Change Con in Three Minutes

"There is a fundamental problem with climate change alarmism. In the two recessions of the last two decades where carbon emissions were hugely reduced, there was no difference to the CO2 in the air and temperature of the world."


58 views

Comments


bottom of page