Written by Peter Kirby
I have been studying climate change for twelve years by reading books on the subject (I have over thirty) and researching scientific papers available on the internet. There is much to say, but put as briefly as possible I have come to the following conclusions.
Climate change is a natural function principally caused by the sun and other factors which are terrestrial, galactic, and cosmic. These influences are very powerful. The climate has changed in the past, is changing now, and will change in the future. Those seeking to stop the changes are trying to stop the unstoppable. The policies which have been introduced to achieve this are very harmful to the economy, and the scary forecasts based on computer models are exaggerated. Models are not evidence and too much real evidence has been ignored by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which consists of politicians who write the Executive Summary for Decision Makers. Many of the panel’s own scientists have publicly disagreed with the summaries. They have been sacked or ignored.
I believe it is necessary for the Climate Change Act 2008 to be repealed so that an enquiry can establish what is likely to happen by examination of real historical evidence, and then embark on a programme of mitigation where the effects are likely to cause economic disbenefits, adaptation where necessary, and development when the effects are beneficial.
Much is made of the claim that ‘the science is settled’. This ignores the powerful forces referred to above. Science is never settled, it merely establishes hypotheses which stand until a future scientist proves them wrong. Science must be established on the principle of the scientific method using real evidence, not models, from which to draw conclusions taking account of the forces mentioned above. No laboratory experiment has ever proved that CO2 dangerously warms the atmosphere.
Those politicians and scientists who promote the hypothesis that carbon dioxide and methane emitted into the atmosphere are causing catastrophic global warming ignore the recent history of global temperature. From 1890 to 1916 the global temperature was falling slightly; from 1916 to 1940 it was rising slightly; from 1940 to 1975 it was falling slightly; from 1975 to1998 it was rising slightly; and from 1998 to 2020 there has been no statistically significant change.
Also two fundamental facts have been ignored. The first is that the capacity of those gases (carbon dioxide, and methane) to warm the atmosphere is logarithmically reducing. This means that as more and more CO2 gets into the atmosphere the extra gas has less and less effect and we are already at a point where additional CO2 will have only a very small effect. The second fact is that today CO2 forms only four molecules in every 10,000 molecules of atmosphere. In the last 70 years it has increased by one molecule in 10,000. Yes, that is indisputable. I ask the question:- can a change in the nature of one molecule in 10,000 cause catastrophic global warming? I am forced to the answer NO! CO2 can warm the atmosphere a little, but not much. In the case of methane there is less than two molecules in 1,000,000 molecules of atmosphere. This is also indisputable. The principal gas which warms the atmosphere is water vapour the volume of which in the atmosphere is beyond the control of mankind.
To reduce the cause of modern climate change to only one variable, CO2 which forms 00.04% of the atmosphere, and to a small proportion of that variable (i.e. manmade CO2), is not science. It is pseudo science. The real empirical evidence shown by the present lack of sunspots is leading many scientists to the view that a cold spell is imminent.
In view of the worldwide and UK misallocation of resources I believe that a rational consideration of the factors involved is long overdue, natural climate change must be taken account of, the true purpose of the IPCC CO2 reduction campaign must be publicised, and the Climate Change Act 2008 and subsequent legislation must be repealed.
Photo by zeitgeistassociates 
Sorry, Guys. If you have been watching global warming as long as I have (62) years, you would realize the rate of change is ratcheting up and it is not governed by change in the insolation (incoming radiation from the Sun). Research John Tyndall 1850 on CO2 in the atmosphere. Its not new science. Ask yourself why so many record temperatures are being broken. Find out how much big money has been available to climate deniers in recent times. I thought I would be dead by the time its worst effects would be seen, but I was wrong. Our Barrier Reef is under threat, unprecedented bush fires devastated Eastern Australia 18 months ago, Western Canada recently experienced an unprecedented heat wave and the list goes on and on. Denying climate Change is unhelpful to the younger generation. They are smart enough to realize that our generation, by being slow to act is “fiddling while Rome burns”
Excellent – ‘Climate’ has become a religion and a very profitable one and an excellent source of control – Regardless of the actual obviousness that the Sun controls the climate the endless stream of climate catastrophes promised since the 60’s that never come to pass is evidence enough to show what nonsense is spouted – As per economists climate experts can be always wrong but still be experts – The system supports the doomsters because there is certainly no funding forthcoming if you say all will be well or that it wont but is natural and beyond out control!
I find it surprising that an article such as the above came out so soon after record temperatures were experienced in Canada and western USA. Rather than reading books he may find it instructive to observe for himself what is happening in the real world. If we ask questions like, why are northern fish species now breeding 300km further south: why has the Great Barrier Reef experienced 3 bleaching events in 5 years: why are some migratory birds overwintering at home; why have some winemakers moved to Tasmania after 150 years producing wine in Victoria? There has been minimal change in the radiation load from the sun over the years since measurement began, therefore we need to look for other causes of warming. The clue for this goes back to Joseph Tyndall who in 1850, not only discovered that carbon dioxide absorbs and re-radiates heat, he actually measured how much. So, in the light of historical scientific research, it makes sense to reduce carbon dioxide in the atmosphere until such a time that some other cause is discovered. What makes no sense is to wait like the frog in heated water waiting until it cooks.
There you go again. No. The clue for this, as you put it, is that Tyndall has been long discredited. He made no allowance for the large part of the CO2 spectrum that is occluded by water vapour, the hugely dominant greenhouse gas, and methane has even less of its spectrum ‘free’ to influence climate.
Thank you for this level-headed assessment with which I totally concur. Like you I have read much (and watched and listened and engaged with) on the subject and concluded more or less what you say above. The two of us can’t be wrong(!) But the forces of government, vested interests, opportunistic ‘scientists’ and that big elephant in the room – Groupthink – need more than we deniers crying as we do in the wilderness. The forces who take the contrary view are monied and big and numerous and determined to channel us into further economic woe coupled with obedience to the mantra. What now?
Possibly the worst aspect of this, and the most difficult to deal with, is the indoctrination of kids through their “education”. Didn’t someone say something about “catching them young” in a particular context?
A good and necessary article Peter; I hope that you are intending to publish it far and wide. One additional point worth mentioning is the blatant manipulation of the “data” by Gore in creating his “Hockey Stick” projection. How so many people were taken in by that is astonishing. Of course that group of people does not include the politicians who saw it as great way towards the imposition of absolute control.
Thank you Peter Kirby. An excellent article, backed up with REAL Science.
I was particularly interested in how little effect methane has on global temperatures, (or any thing else), since I do not want cows to vanish from planet earth, or Britain, even though I do not eat them myself !!
I did not know about the 2008 Act but now agree it must be repealed. In fact I agree with the whole of your final paragraph.
We know that CO2 in the atmosphere can contribute to a greenhouse effect. But the dramatic reduction in Hydrocarbon emissions, during lockdown, did not cause a perceptible change in that concentration.
As the link below shows, human CO2 emissions dropped by an unprecedented amount in the first few months of lockdown, while the atmospheric concentration continued virtually unchanged.
https://www.quora.com/Of-all-of-the-CO2-emitted-into-the-atmosphere-what-percentage-is-produced-by-humans
Looking back in time, we see further clues. As seen, annual Fossil Carbon production fell due to the Great Recession, from 1.2 Giga Tonnes in 1929 to 0.9 Giga Tonnes in 1932. But over the same period global temperature increased by 0.1 deg C. Also between 2002 and 2013, fossil fuel emissions accelerated, but the rate of rise in atmospheric CO2 concentrations did not.
Hydrocarbon use also accelerated between 1970 and 1990, while arctic air temperature FELL, showing that solar radiation had more impact on that temperature, than did Hydrocarbon emissions.
https://climatechange.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=006525
A key thing to note is that the rate of degradation of plant matter (and natural release of CO2) LAGS temperature. As the article and my curve above indicates, the change in atmospheric CO2 contributions follows temperature rise.
Roger Arthur I take issue with your opening sentence. CO2 does not ‘contribute to a greenhouse effect’. Or at least it cannot be said to contribute to climate change or warming to any significant extent.
The ‘greenhouse effect’ of CO2 is completely beneficial, because all PLANTS ‘FEED ON’ CO2. That is why some plant producers add CO2 to the air in their greenhouses.
Animals eat plants. Humans are animals, so even if we eat other animals we are still dependent on plants.
Plants photosynthesise in daylight. They absorb CO2 and give out oxygen. That is the sense in which they ‘feed on’ CO2.
Apologies if I have misunderstood you. Reading you again, I see that your main point is that human produced CO2 is no problem. In fact we probably both agree with the author, that there is no problem, except those caused by ‘Those seeking to Stop the Unstoppable’ !!
Well said Pauline. I was going to say, we dont know but the untrustworthy have made a statement with no scientific proof.
We are all aware just how correct modelling is, NOT! Plus I seem to remember one bunch of so called scientists were as we engineers say, “ were flogging the log”
The climate trolls have not made their case. Dismissed!
Agree, but to add. The main source of CO2 is the oceans. As temperature rises the water can hold less dissolved CO2 so it outgases. As the oceans cool they absorb more CO2. It is temperature change that leads CO concentration, not the other way around.
Thank you for this piece Peter. Very succinctly put in a form that those of us who just ‘know’ we are being scammed but TPTB but don’t necessarily have the scientific experience or time and opportunity to do the research (as you have done yourself) can appreciate.
What is making things worse is the dumbing down of the population through poor education to a point where they no longer ‘question’ what is being ‘fed’ to them. The recent expose of the dastardly psyops campaign explains why it has been so easy to fool so many into believing the twisted narrative!
An excellent summary indeed. I have attended Peter’s talks in the past. Viv should ask him to expand on the above – part 1, part 2 etc with links – so that we may accumulate detailed rebuttals to the claims made by the climate religion.
“…‘the science is settled’.”
There lies the problem. Politicians pick a nugget of “science” that suits the agenda of the moment and vigourously suppress all dissent. Remember Dr. David Bellamy? A decent old fellow who knew what he was talking about and was able to present it well. The BBC (of course) dropped him like a hot brick when he “dared” to challenge the global warming “science”
How many more have suffered the same fate?
In the year 1000 Lief Erikson sailed from Greenland to the American continent. Why Greenland? His father Erik the Red had blotted his copybook in Iceland and had to leave. It is recorded that the settlers kept livestock. That means they were able to make hay for winter forage.
By the year 1200 the settlements were effectively frozen out. It’s only in the last few decades that the climate in South East Greenland has returned to what it was in 1000.
… End of history lesson
dickatbarn. Thanks for reminding us about Lief Erikson. A very important bit of history!
The name David Bellamy rings a faint bell in my mind too.
Those who managed NOT to be dropped by the BBC did it by adopting the BBC’s lying agenda.
Well dick at least David Bellamy didn’t end up like David Kelly! The stifling of dissenting voices is becoming more like the old USSR every day now!
I had forgotten about Greenland. I read a little about that some years ago and thought at the time that I had never known that Greenland had ever been anything but hostile climate-wise!
There is /was an outdoor tomato variety called sub arctic plenty.
It was ‘bred’ to provide tomatoes grown in Green-Land by the Americans stationed there.
Excellent summary. I have notes for a similar article that I may adapt as a supplementary piece. The logarithmic nature of the CO2 v Temperature curve is rarely mentioned, but is a critical aspect to debunking the CO2 myth. Even if we could return to pre-industrial CO2 levels, the temperature effect would be ‘sliding back’ along an almost horizontal line. And it works going forward, too. No significant change either way, to the, already minimal, CO2 effect. So pleased to see you mentioned that.
Miliband’s Climate Change Act 2008 and Labour’s parting ‘gift’ (scorched earth policy) Harman’s Equalities Act (includes letting people decide the law as it suits them, by making something an offence if any Tom Dick and Harriet decides something offends them, among other insidious divisive provisions, and is thus an anarchist’s charter.) They are the two most pernicious Acts in my lifetime; incalculably damaging to a cohesive society and financially ruinous for individuals and the country. Johnson is vying to overtake them both, though, with the scientifically illiterate, suicide for the country, net zero b*ll*x. Both need repealing but it ain’t gonna happen.
But then again he is also pursuing suicide for the country through the also scientifically illiterate and, globalist planned, Covid ’emergency’. Anyone else see a pattern there? If one doesn’t get us the other very likely will. Except that net zero will eventually come a cropper just on the laws of physics. One thing they can’t change by wishing.
And there you have said it Phil. If we had a decent proper ‘conservative’ government they would be highlighting the failures and difficulties caused by the last Labour government. But of course, Cameron came to No. 10 on the declared notion that he was the heir to Bliar. That set the scene for the sharp progression towards the left that has been taken by the ‘conservatives’ and leaves us with a most left leaning and inept PM who is on course to finish the ruination of our once great and prosperous Country!
Amazing how many who style themselves as ‘conservatives’ voted for a Conservative Party led by a Tory leader running on the ‘heir to Blair’ ticket. Had those ‘conservatives’ got all their faculties in place? At least Cameron told them the truth. They only had theyselves to blame when Cameron dressed on the Left.
Jake I wonder if many did not really believe him and just thought that he was saying it because Bliar had been seen as an electoral success and Camoron wanted to get in any way he could!!! (Well he obviously felt that because he instantly got into bed with Clegg!!)
Maybe, perhaps, I’m still not sure. But on the ‘fool me once – shame on you; fool me twice – shame on me’ principle then yes, ‘conservative voters’ were lacking in intuitive powers! But, then as now, the choices were limited to the two ‘same old’ tickets; the propaganda machine was (and is) strong and the people poorly educated and discouraged from getting too deeply involved in active politics! Things have not changed and people are still falling for the ‘ready tongue’ of the worst shyster yet!