Your life is changing now and will continue to be changed at increasing speed via the Climate Change narrative. Of all forces acting on you over the next 30 years, this will be the biggest because it underpins all other change. Why? Because it affects energy policy, price, availability, consumption and legislation and there is literally nothing more fundamental to human life on the planet than energy.
Climate narrative is also insidious and relatively slow acting. Change from this narrative is incremental, unlike Covid, which was a step-change. In the face of a fear-backed step-change narrative, more than half of the population did what they were told. Take a bigger fear-backed narrative, stretch it out and chop it up into manageable change chunks and even more people will comply with zero resistance or question.
Add to the Climate narrative a manmade energy “crisis” set inside a manmade economic meltdown and the pressure to go along increases. Just look at energy rationing that is now in place in the EU.
Efficient knowledge - what do you need to know to ask questions?
Do you think you need to be a climate scientist or some related “expert” to verify the quality and integrity of the climate narrative?
You don’t.
You just need to get to the heart of the narrative, break it open and then look at whether it stands up to scrutiny in context of evidence.
You could also look at the integrity of the methods and data that underpin the narrative.
This is not that hard to do. There are people out there doing this for you in such a way that all you need to do is quickly and efficiently avail yourself of their analysis in order to be able to question the narrative and those who peddle it, for yourself.
You don’t have to be exactly right. That’s not the point. You just need to be in a position to ask key questions then judge the answers that you get back. Those answers will tell you whether the people giving you the answers have integrity, knowledge, and can be trusted.
If you cannot get into such a position, you are a slave to the narrative.
If the narrative is wrong, you are complicit in being misled and you are responsible for your own doom in whatever form that comes.
Core Issues
Greenhouse gas emissions from human activity and energy production and consumption are, as I understand it, the key issues. They stem from and precede, respectively, all other “environmental and sustainability” issues such as general consumption and pollution.
If there is a reduction in energy availability per capita, greenhouse gas emissions should drop because all human activity will be curtailed. It’s that simple at its core.
CO2 and temperature
Take a look at global atmospheric CO2 levels according to the Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science (IAC).
That’s a right old tea-blurter, innit? At this point we might swear a lot and go round telling everybody we’re doomed. Or are we? The first thought that sprang to mind when seeing this hockey stick of hockey sticks1 was: that’s an awful lot of unprecedented rise in CO2 to produce a warming of just under a degree in 100 years!
John Dee points out that the “hockey stick” rise of CO2 levels from about 1850 to now is an increase of CO2 levels from 280ppm to 400ppm (43%) over 170 years.
This is backed up by NASA:
According to an ongoing temperature analysis led by scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), the average global temperature on Earth has increased by at least 1.1° Celsius (1.9° Fahrenheit) since 1880. The majority of the warming has occurred since 1975, at a rate of roughly 0.15 to 0.20°C per decade.
So, it is fair for John Dee to say that over the hockey stick period, global average temperatures as measured/estimated/modelled by NASA et al is “at least 1.1° Celsius”.
Note: beware of assuming certainty about the meaning of:
The majority of the warming has occurred since 1975, at a rate of roughly 0.15 to 0.20°C per decade.
In order to understand this at below surface level, you have to understand how global temperatures are “measured”. Again, John Dee’s Climate substack gives some flavour of various aspects of temperature modelling, and it is not an exact science that has remained consistent. Nor is it entirely defensible. It’s a big topic, beyond scope of this brief article.
What I will say is that you should remain very, very cautious of believing that since 1975, only human activity has been triggering an inexorable temperature rise that is catastrophic. The situation is not that simple. For example, you must be able to factor in this scenario:
You have no idea how that global average temperature figure is calculated now or has been in the past.
If you don’t know the difference in changes to temperature measurement and calculation, you don’t necessarily know why there might have been a temperature rate change since 1975.
If temperature measuring station are located in many “hot” places, temperature measurement data could be skewed. Do you know where all the temperature measurements are done and how they are amalgamated?
It is unsafe to assume that climate science experts take care of all this and produce clean, defensible results and therefore you can safely trust the surface level statements and assume the entire thing is trustworthy. In short, unless you look and learn, you have no ability to verify. Therefore, you are unable to “trust and verify”. Instead you can only “assume trust”, which is totally inadequate. If I asked you to give me £10k to invest for you because I knew what I was doing, would you assume I was trustworthy or would you assess and verify?
The hockey stick in historical context
The industrialisation of the human race has occurred between 1760 and now. That’s the industrial revolution of the entire globe (unevenly distributed) and the entirety of mankind, not just the nations of the Industrial Revolution. According to the graph above, CO2 levels did not exceed the rough, prevalent average of 280ppm until 1850, which is after the end of the Industrial Revolution period of 1760 - 1840 during which Europe, US, UK industrialised.
ALL of that CO2 increase of 120ppm has resulted in a 1.1° Celsius average global temperature rise (ignoring the complex estimation method of that figure).
Industrialisation 1760 - Now
This period includes ALL of mankind’s worst industrial and environmental crimes:
Egregious fossil fuel use for energy and heat production;
Full scale chemical engineering including all plastic use and production;
All pollution associated with fossil fuel use and industrial production in all forms;
Zero sustainability approaches to human living;
Industrialisation of the food cycle;
Globalisation i.e. the trans global shipping of resources, goods and food.
This period has also resulted in:
Technological improvements of industrial practises to change energy consumption and lower waste and pollution;
Changes to consumer and industrial consumption and waste behaviours in some parts of the world.
Energy sources as of today into the future
Look at these two charts on energy sources and consider what they mean in the context of 120ppm CO2 increase over 170 years and the attendant 1.1° Celsius temperature rise.
https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2019/11/KellyWeb.pdf
Now, I’ll introduce you to Professor Michael Kelly of Cambridge University. Watch or read his 2019 presentation and ask yourself if ANY of what you are witnessing in the global Climate “Crisis” narrative tells you anything Kelly tells you, or deals with any of the questions Kelly raises.
https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2019/11/KellyWeb.pdf
Climate "Crisis"? Trust but verify
I won't be here in 30 years time - at 75 going on 76, I doubt if I've got that much longer left. The Globalists want to reduce the population by, well, most of us via, these vaccines, so if you have been vaccinated, you probably won't be around for that much longer either, so at days end, those few of us who still are and not vaccinated, will be, less attrition by natural causes and other means - not many, if any at days end, to need to worry about the climate and if the fruit loops got it right or wrong, from the outset!!
Thank you for the introduction to Professor Michael Kelly. You can never have too many Truth Speakers to share with others.
The integrity of the narrative is to be questioned. Who designed these models to secure government grants? Who is plugging the numbers in the “models”? Why should I not question the AI modeling and predictions? Who designed (manipulated) the AI? Man came before the machine so we know greed is part of the formula.
One thing is certain, those pushing the climate narrative have no concern for the poor across the globe. If we do not unite for the common good of our neighbors, we will all be cannon fodder of the elite including our children and grandchildren.
Why anyone thinks going backwards to move forward at the cost of human lives is hip is psychotic. We know, “MAKE THE POOR RICH AND THE PLANET IMPROVES!” Being complicit or quiet about questionable mainstream narrative will keep us digging the hole Professor Kelly mentioned.
Here’s another dangerous critical thinker and his recent comments about the globalist climate agenda.
Back Off, Oh Masters of the Universe presented by Jordan Peterson
https://youtu.be/--QS_UyW2SY
Below, a few statements from Jordan Peterson’s piece for the Telegraph UK.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/08/15/peddlers-environmental-doom-have-shown-true-totalitarian-colours/
We’re not evil just because we don’t believe that you are omniscient.
Let’s update Mark Twain’s famous dictum: there are lies, damned lies, statistics - and computer models.
“Computer model” does not mean “data” (and even “data” does not mean “fact”).
“Computer model” means, at best, “hypothesis” posing as mathematical fact.
For those without a Telegraph UK subscription, here is the transcript on Reddit.
Back Off, Oh Masters of the Universe
by Jordan Peterson
https://www.reddit.com/r/Wallstreetsilver/comments/wpj4aq/back_off_oh_masters_of_the_universe_by_jordan/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
Thank you for your Substack. We all need to question everything, speak up louder, and advocate not just for ourselves but for those who are at a severe disadvantage.
Cheers