Dylan Jones writes:

I was watching James Corbett’s “Why Big Oil Conquered The World” and was on the chapter entitled “Technocracy” featuring the editor of Technocracy News when I received these e-mails.

The most important assumption behind the AGW theory is that an increase in global atmospheric CO2 will cause an increase in the average annual global temperature. The problem is that in every record of temperature and CO2, the temperature changes first. Think about what I am saying. The basic assumption on which the entire theory that human activity is causing global warming or climate change is wrong. The questions are how did the false assumption develop and persist?

Tim Ball”

Dylan continues: 

Well I thought about what Ball was saying, again, as I have mulled through this before. What is interesting is what Ball leaves out:

 What scientists actually found was that CO2 feedback in response to orbital changes  amplifies that effect so that 90% of the warming occurs after the CO2 increase.

 “The initial changes in temperature during this period are explained by changes in the Earth’s orbit around the sun, which affects the amount of seasonal sunlight reaching the Earth’s surface. In the case of warming, the lag between temperature and CO2 is explained as follows: as ocean temperatures rise, oceans release CO2 into the atmosphere. In turn, this release amplifies the warming trend, leading to yet more CO2 being released. In other words, increasing CO2 levels become both the cause and effect of further warming. This positive feedback is necessary to trigger the shifts between glacials and interglacials as the effect of orbital changes is too weak to cause such variation. Additional positive feedbacks which play an important role in this process include other greenhouse gases, and changes in ice sheet cover and vegetation patterns.”

Other greenhouse gases” must surely include changes in the level of water vapour and cloud cover along with the ice sheet loss.

Ball refers to Anthony Watts as if he backs up his claims:

Anthony Watts’ 2009 article identified many of the difficulties with relying on Arrhenius.”

Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius asked the important question “Is the mean temperature of the ground in any way influenced by the presence of the heat-absorbing gases in the atmosphere?” He went on to become the first person to investigate the effect that doubling atmospheric carbon dioxide would have on global climate. The question was debated throughout the early part of the 20th century and is still a main concern of Earth scientists today.

His calculations showed that the “temperature of the Arctic regions would rise about 8 degrees or 9 degrees Celsius, if the carbonic acid increased 2.5 to 3 times its present value.

 “It is important to note that Arrhenius was not very concerned with rising carbon dioxide levels at the time, but rather was attempting to find an explanation for high latitude temperature changes that could be attributed to the onset of the ice ages and interglacial periods.

By 1904, Arrhenius became concerned with rapid increases in anthropogenic carbon emissions and recognized that “the slight percentage of carbonic acid in the atmosphere may, by the advances of industry, be changed to a noticeable degree in the course of a few centuries.” 

He eventually made the suggestion that an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide due to the burning of fossil fuels could be beneficial, making the Earth’s climates “more equable,” stimulating plant growth, and providing more food for a larger population. This view differs radically from current concerns over the harmful effects of a global warming caused by industrial emissions and deforestation. Until about 1960, most scientists dismissed the notion as implausible that humans could significantly affect average global temperatures. Today, however, we know that carbon dioxide levels have risen about 25 percent—a rate much faster than Arrhenius first predicted—and average global temperatures have risen about 0.5 degrees Celsius.”

Watts does not argue that Arrhenius was mistaken in his assessment that CO2 was a greenhouse gas that trapped heat. He argues that Arrhenius held that the CO2 rise due to combustion of fossil fuel would be beneficial. Finally Watts, like most skeptics, argues that Arrhenius overestimated the warming effect of CO2 not that it has no warming effect at all as Ball insists.

He also falls back on the “Friends of Science”:

The Friends of Science added confirmation when they translated a more obscure 1906 Arrhenius work.”

Much discussion took place over the following years between colleagues, with one of the main points being the similar effect of water vapour in the atmosphere which was part of the total figure. Some rejected any effect of CO2 at all. There was no effective way to determine this split precisely, but in 1906 Arrhenius amended his view of how increased carbon dioxide would affect climate. He thought the effect would be much less in terms of warming, and whatever warming ensued would be beneficial. He published a paper in German. It was never translated at the time or widely distributed, though many European scientists knew of it and read it.”

The IPCC has now lowered its estimates as well to be within range of Arrhenius’ revised view. This would give the range as 1.6 to 3.9 , but the same qualifiers persist.”

As far as I know, a good approximation to this range was predicted by Roger Revelle in the 60’s. No “lowering of estimates” there.

Some scientists rejected Arrhenius’s view. Nobody remembers them, but this is Ball’s “evidence” that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas?

Arrhenius himself made the link between the feedback effect of CO2 warming on water vapour levels:

In these calculations, I completely neglected the presence of water vapour emitted into the atmosphere. This acts in two ways: In part, the water vapour reduces the radiation in the same way as does the CO2, whereby the absorption of CO2 comprises a larger fraction of the earth’s radiation then if the water vapour would be removed from the atmosphere. In part, the temperature causes an increase in water vapour emitted into the atmosphere, on account of an increase in the quantity of CO2, with the subsequent rise in temperature.”

He didn’t retract his conviction that CO2 was a greenhouse gas, he acknowledged that the feedback effect on water vapour would be necessary to amplify the temperature increase to the predicted range.

Ball again:

The issue of Arrhenius mistaking a water vapor effect for a CO2 effect is not new. What is new is that the growing level of empirical evidence that the warming effect of CO2, known as climate sensitivity, is zero. This means Arrhenius colleagues who “rejected any effect of CO2 at all” are correct. In short, CO2 is not a greenhouse gas.”

Again, Ball presents no real evidence that this is the case, he just insists that such evidence exists, but we never get to see it.

In my view, it is a waste of time debating whether CO2 is a greenhouse gas or not, along with whether the earth is flat or if nuclear weapons are a hoax.

CO2 is about life yes, but so is H20, and that is definitely a greenhouse gas as Ball loves to remind us. I agree though that water is where the action is. However I have seen nothing really that refutes the notion that CO2 warms the planet. It’s all about the degree to which it does that:

1/3 Global Warming due to Anthropogenic activity – 1.5 degrees Celsius

CO2 emissions, deforestation, Methane emissions etc

2/3 due to “feedback effects” – Clandestine Climate Modification – 3 degrees Celsius – enough to “destabilize human civilization”

At that point, it might be too late to prevent permanent, dangerous feedback loops from kicking in.”

This is the biggest problem humanity has ever faced, and we’ve barely even begun to address it effectively. On our current pace, factoring in current climate policies of every nation on Earth, the best independent analyses show that we are on course for warming of about 3.4 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, enough to extinguish entire ecosystems and destabilize human civilization.”

Humans didn’t exist the last time there was this much CO2 in the air

You will find that most anthropogenic CO2 global warming proponents that disagree with each other, disagree about the extra 2/3, the 3 degrees Celsius that will result towards the end of this century as consequence of cloud feedback.

You will find that most anthropogenic CO2 global warming skeptics (the actual scientistsusually also disagree (with the proponents) around the issue of the extra 2/3, 3 degrees Celsius that will result towards the end of this century as consequence of cloud feedback and not about the warming due to CO2. In other words, they don`t accept the clouds will amplify the initial CO2 warming to threaten humanity. For them 1.5 degree Celsius by the end of this century is acceptable as we are already half way there.

Substitute cloud feedback for Clandestine Climate Modification that will intentionally ensure the extra 2/3, 3 degrees Celsius and destabilize human civilisation.

The skeptics are right that genuine cloud feedback wouldn’t cause the threat alone but they are unaware of or ignoring the Clandestine Climate Modification.

The proponents are observing the behaviour of clouds and water vapour and extrapolating but they are unaware of or ignoring the fact that such behaviour is characteristic of Clandestine Climate Modificationintentional cloud forcing rather than merely cloud feedback.

It makes sense therefore to concentrate on the 2/3rds warming due to Clandestine Climate Modification and convince either side of it as the missing piece to the puzzle rather than waste time on the 1/3 which would not pose a threat to human civilisation alone.

This factor would also render the notion of Climate Justice entirely valid as it does indeed come down to class warfare, the rich versus the poor.

Social Engineering will be sure to play a part:

Hansen called for a “human tipping point”—essentially, a social revolution—as one of the most effective ways of combating climate change, though he still favors a bilateral carbon tax agreed upon by the United States and China as the best near-term climate policy.”

Earth’s Most Famous Climate Scientist Issues Bombshell Sea Level Warning

Climate Modification really is the missing link that explains why the paradoxical plan of the Oiligarchs, who are really the ContrOligarchs, as set forth in James Corbett’s excellent “How Big Oil Conquered The World” and “Why Big Oil Conquered The World” is to divest from fossil fuels and phase into alternative energy sources, and transform themselves into the “saviours of humanity”.


Comment from Marvin Herndon

Some of the explanations are here:

Comment from Todd Schlesinger

The story they are telling is that temp would rise a few degrees in 80 years? It doesn’t explain the climate change we have already seen here in MD, over the 3 years since the spraying went berserk. No more Winter season, very little snow, all 4 seasons out of whack.  Major tree die-off, majority of animals in the adjacent forest vanished, greyish  dust visible on  car and outdoors area.   They made it warm here without the CO2.  And the Sun is now a whitish color; guessing the O3 layer collapsed.   

Comment from Elana Freeland
Ho hum, I’ve known this since before the self-important 2015 Paris Conference. Another globalist scam. CO2 is about LIFE, and whatever life the global elites and their phalanx of complicit scientists can’t destroy, they will milk and enslave so as to pile up disaster capitalist profits for themselves and their weaponized Space Age.

 Contribution from Harold Saive


The Evidence Proves That CO2 is Not a Greenhouse Gas

The CO2 error is the root of the biggest scam in the history of the world, and has already bilked nations and citizens out of trillions of dollars, while greatly enriching the perpetrators. In the end, their goal is global Technocracy (aka Sustainable Development), which grabs and sequesters all the resources of the world into a collective trust to be managed by them. TN Editor


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *