Exposing the Climate Change Hoax, By James Reed

Jonathan Gault has detailed why climate changeism is a hoax. The case is all based around claims about carbon dioxide as the master chemical causing alleged global warming. However, carbon dioxide makes up only around 0.04 percent of the atmosphere, with most of the atmosphere being oxygen and nitrogen and water vapour, about 1-4 percent. Water vapour does have a much greater climate forcing, or warming effect than carbon dioxide, but it is not something that is in principle under human control. Nor for that matter are solar variations, the real engine of climate change. It is remarkable that the main source of heat to the Earth is from the Sun, but the mainstream climate narrative ignores the role of the Sun in climate. The reason is political; that if a gas that is linked to human activity so closely, as carbon dioxide is, can be implicated in creating an alleged existential climate crisis, then all matter of draconian globalist programs, as foreseen in Agenda 2030, can be rolled out.

I think even if climate change alarmist was factually correct, which it is not, none of the globalist policies, such as the elimination of fossil fuels would be justified in any case. What is the point of "saving the planet," if the great bulk of humanity dies off from a fuel/food dearth? Of course, that is the real agenda behind environmentalism: depopulation. For the Greens, people are pollution, so long as they are White.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2024/10/simple_facts_expose_the_climate_change_hoax.html

"To believe in the climate change hoax, you must believe 5 (palpably untrue) things:

CO2 is the "control knob" for the climate. This has been proven to be ridiculous. CO2 makes up only about 0.04% of the atmosphere, while 96–99% of the atmosphere is oxygen and nitrogen. Water vapor, a much larger determinant of temperature, varies from 1-4%. But what determines temperature more than anything else? Changes in the Earth's solar orbit (obviously). NASA has admitted this.

CO2 is harmful. Wrong! CO2 is plant food. Humans inhale oxygen and exhale CO2. Plants do the reverse. It is scientific fact that higher levels of CO2 lead to greater plant growth. This is essential if we are going to continue to be able to feed an increasing world population and one of the reasons why the planet now supports 8 billion humans.

We are at historically high levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. Again, not true. We are actually at historically low levels of CO2. Before the Industrial Revolution, the seminal starting point for climate hysteria (often cited by climate hysterics), the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere was approximately 290 ppm (parts per million). Plant life begins to succumb (it dies) around 150ppm. The amount of CO2 currently in the atmosphere is roughly 420ppm.

But is this historically high? Hardly. During the period of the dinosaurs, cold-blooded reptiles that required warm climates, consumed massive volumes of vegetation, and perished when the earth cooled, CO2 levels were roughly 3600ppm, creating the Jurassic conditions that enabled the dinosaurs to flourish, roaming the earth for millions of years.

Were the dinosaurs driving larger SUVs than Americans now drive? What caused CO2 levels to reach such heights then? It certainly wasn't humans. It occurred, as it always does and has, due to solar cycles, which NASA has admitted.

As the linked article states,

The data clearly establishes that there has always been a cycle to CO2 long before man's industrial age. This is data government wants to hide. As along as they can pretend CO2 has never risen in the past before 1950, then they can tax the air and pretend it's to prevent climate change. Moreover, while we can clean the air with regulation as we have done, under global warming, they allow "credits" to pollute as long as you pay the government. It is the ultimate scam where they get to tax pollution and people cheer rather than clean up anything.

The more accurate way to describe our current CO2 situation is that we are experiencing a CO2 famine that could lead to the disappearance of plant life:

It's nonsensical to create government policies based on future hypotheticals about natural processes. Does it make sense that anybody would base policy (and spend money) on predicting what could happen in the future? Are there not infinite possibilities as to what could happen?

The odds of predicting correctly are far worse than winning Powerball. Who in his right mind believes that any person or computer model can predict the future? Anybody that does should be asked if he (or she) is willing to place a meaningful amount of their personal wealth on the line. Furthermore, if somebody really were able to predict the future, would they be predicting the weather, or would they be predicting perhaps stock market and individual equity moves, or perhaps lottery numbers?

The conclusion: Any attempt to predict the future is a guess. Models that are, and have been, wildly inaccurate are not science; they are science fiction. Neither anybody nor anything can predict even next week's weather accurately due to the millions of atmospheric and stellar variables. This is so obvious that we still must GUESS as to the path and severity of a hurricane—even after it's formed.

If we can't even predict the weather, how can we control it? If you still have arrived at a point where you believe that CO2 is the weather control knob, it's harmful, we're at historically high levels of it, and that the US government (or any other entity on earth, perhaps maybe the UN) can predict the weather, then how would they go about controlling it?

If the US government could control the weather, then why didn't it stop Helene (September 26, 2024) or Milton (October 7, 2024) before all that destruction and save FEMA from the bother of having to clean up? Why didn't the National Weather Service or NASA stop it? Well, it's because the US government, which can't even stop illegals at the Southern border, can't do anything to stop modest changes in atmospheric CO2 levels.

And let's say at this point that you're still a "believer." Do you really even believe that the pathological liars in the US government can control enough of the weather on our side of the planet that it can offset activity in the rest of the world? What if a volcano erupts? What then? And how do you factor into all this the fact that China is building a new coal-fired power plant each week (52 per year)?

"The greatest folly is to believe in the palpably untrue. It is the chief occupation of mankind." – HL Mencken