I have never been a climate skeptic. Always have I thought of myself as a climate realist. I always (‘always’ being relative within the context of my becoming interested in such things) tried to look at the evidence rather than following the general zeitgeist surrounding a subject. And so I have been a proponent of the climate change ideology, and sometimes a very ardent and vocal proponent. But what if the supporting evidence does not provide the whole picture, or even perhaps has been tampered with? I worked out a long time ago that the Earth’s climate had historically been very variable and often much warmer than it currently is, but yes, when you look at the data being used today to argue for a climate crisis (which is usually less than 200 years or slightly longer than industrialisation began), it becomes difficult to argue against the fact that it has been getting warmer in recent times and it is logical to conclude, given all the bad things we know certain people are doing to accumulate power, and what we all are doing in terms of using far greater amounts of energy obtained by methods unknown in earlier ages, all of which have the potential to affect what may be a finely balanced (since it is always changing) natural climate regime.
Only, and it is a big ‘but’, in order to acknowledge the warming phenomena and support the ‘crisis’ story, you have to ignore the fact that our world, at least since the ‘snowball Earth’ period, has also never been much cooler than it is now (on a global scale using average world temperature as the defining measure), even during the various intervening ice-ages. And also ignore that ‘cooling’ is the general direction in which our planet home is heading. It is a fact, according to all the data available to us, that the Earth’s average temperature has never in the last half billion years fallen below around 9°C and it last did cool to that extent less than 12,000 years ago, since when it has risen by 6°C to almost 15°C today. It has also to be recognised that today’s average temperature of 14.7°C has, in the last 2 million years, been reached or exceeded quite a number of times (four times within the Holocene – in which we are still living, despite the fictitious Anthropocene sometimes being mooted in recent times). And from 3 million years ago looking back to the 65 million year mark our world was never cooler than it is today. Yet the Earth still exists, and life has flourished over that period. Even surviving a few mass extinctions of species – including almost our own, some 74,000 years ago where it is said that mankind was reduced to some 500-1,000 pairs capable of breeding as a result of global cooling (that was the Toba eruption).
Yes, we may have some residual warming still in the system, perhaps one or two degrees more, but it is nothing that has never happened before and which life in general survived. There is no sign of the ‘runaway climate change’ so prominently mooted today. Actually more in the past now, I think. I don’t recollect hearing anything of that recently. And there are signs that Arctic ice melt may have reached a peak at the end of the last decade. And that is the single feature which got so many , including myself, so excited about the dire prospects way back in 2012 when mad scientists proclaimed the Arctic would be ice-free and there would likely be huge explosions of methane up there by 2016. None of that has happened. And if the world goes on cooling as it surely (and as logic dictates) it must – as the planetary core cools, it never will happen. Although it is true that it may have happened in the long distant past when the Earth was much hotter. And a lot of other climate adjusting things also happened in those hoary old times which have resulted in the world we see today. Which is absolutely lovely, is it not? Apart from the fact that we ourselves are doing our best to stuff it up.
Maybe the planet would be better off without our interfering presence.
Many other observable things around us do not always accord with the proclaimed ‘climate crisis’ we are being induced to accept. Especially when now it has become big business to find profit in schemes to address that ‘crisis’ – especially the obscenities of carbon trading and carbon offsetting (if that is not everywhere thought of as being the same thing). That, not exclusively, but perhaps more than anything has made me re-examine my views on the subject. My piece ‘Understanding Climate Change’ was the result of that reappraisal.
I realise this is a big step to take. And who am I in any case to take and proclaim such a step? And without quoting references too – although everything I say here is backable by solid facts. I am not here for ‘peer review’. I am telling you the way things are. If you don’t accept it then go do your own studies, exercising great care and with no pre-conditioned thoughts (I know, from personal experience, that is difficult to achieve).
However, I also know I am not alone in this. Some very prominent scientists have also changed their views on the subject. Nevertheless, I have now nailed my colours to the mast, so to speak, and see no reason to alter that repositioning. I acknowledge the reality of climate change. Only a fool or the poorly educated wouldn’t accept that the climate changes. It is part of nature. But the notion that we are in a climate crisis? Well that is pure nonsense, as the facts do not support it and the facts need to be manipulated and falsely presented in order to make up such a story. There are many examples of that. Go root them out.
So, if anything has altered on a personal level, it is my own research which has turned me into a ‘climate crisis’ skeptic. I have never at any time believed we should try to change the situation by ‘fighting’ or the ridiculous notion of ‘ending’ or ‘beating’ climate change. Such notions are bred from pure human hubris, laced with ignorance, and will only serve to increase the likelihood of prematurely ending our own species. What we should be doing is actually ‘nothing’. Because all of the dire probabilities of general cooling are so far in the future (at least a thousand years before we, or rather the people alive at the time, will feel much difference) that neither our children or grandchildren of many generations ahead are likely to suffer at all from them. The process of cooling will generally be much slower than the 0.5°C rise per millennium it has taken on average to get from the last (Younger Dryas) cooling – which marks the Pleistocene-Holocene boundary (11,700 years ago) – to where we are today. In fact it may take 120 such millennia, as it did in the previous such cycle.
Or, at most, we should simply ‘chill’ or ‘go with the flow’, while also extracting ourselves from our dependency on ‘big business’ – which will continue to pursue profit at any cost, even when the type of world it needs to exist is disintegrating around it. Those corporate structures will shrivel up and die with or without our support – though more quickly without.
None of which will alter the eventual outcome for planet Earth, and possibly for humanity, one iota.
Not Something Else 
Leave a comment