Click on the images for a
Since the Global Warming theory has become a generally acknowledged doctrine, a careful examination of the doctrine is evidently warranted. It is especially warranted in the light of the immense suffering that society has imposed on itself under this doctrine in the form of carbon taxes, and so on, including the shutdown of industrialization, the curtailment of food production, and the burning of food in automobiles. All this is done in the name of reducing CO2 emissions to save the Earth from overheating.
With this in mind, let's examine the doctrine. And I need to add here that Global Warming really is a doctrine. It cannot be called anything else. For example, it cannot be called a truth, because there is no truth in it. It is something that has been cleverly dished up for people to believe in, to solicit from them certain debilitating reactions that the ruling oligarchy desires as a means to incarcerate society with, into a prison without fences. That's the historic platform of the oligarchic system of empire.
The platform has served the masters of empire well throughout the ages. It is a platform designed to defended the mastery of empire against the normal development of society that the system of empire and oligarchic control would not survive. The Global Warming Doctrine falls into this category. Its intention is evil. Its design is deadly. Of course there is no truth in it.
Actually, the masters who run the Global Warming Doctrine have admitted themselves that there is no truth in the manmade global warming hoopla, since the climate doesn't comply with the doctrine, but has instead been getting dramatically colder from 1998 onward. Since this truth cannot be easily hidden, even with fudged figures as has become the standard practice, the name of the doctrine has been changed. Global Warming is no longer called that, since it isn't happening. It is now called Climate Change. Of course the doctrine itself has not been changed. CO2 is still cited as a grave danger to the Earth, and mankind the villain that causes the dangerous climate change.
The difference is that under the new Climate Change Doctrine, even the colder winters and increasing snowfalls, can now be blamed on human activity, so that mankind can be vilified for it. That's the objective - the truth be damned. It is evidently impossible to incarcerate humanity into the prison of self-defeating reactions when the truth is told. The truth is liberating. Society is presently killing itself over nothing. It has the freedom to step away from the torture chambers of this prison.
So what is really true about CO2, since CO2 has been dragged to the center of the stage of the Global Warming Doctrine that has been renamed the Climate Change Doctrine?
Is CO2 really a significant climate factor? Is it posing a danger? One cannot deny that a massive climate change is happening. The Earth has been in a dramatic cooling trend since 1998, which is accelerating. The climate is indeed changing. Cloudiness is increasing. The moderating greenhouse effect has been reduced, which is evident in larger temperature differences between the hot sunny days in summer and colder temperatures otherwise.
Is CO2 the climate factor for all this happening, especially for the colder winters that are experienced more and more around the world, with increased snowfalls? Or is the experienced Climate Change potentially the beginning of the scientifically expected end of the Holocene interglacial period of the last 13,000 years, in which our civilization developed? The end of the interglacial, and the subsequent return to the normal Ice Age climate for our planet, had been very much on the scientific agenda in the early 1970s, until this concern was hijacked in 1974 with the Global Warming Doctrine.
The late 1960s and early 1970s was an especially cold period, which roused significant concerns in the scientific community about the economic and scientific development that will be needed to prepare the world for the massive disabling of the northern agriculture that the return of glaciation climate brings with it. People cannot live without food. However, the bulk of the global food supply is grown in the northern regions that become agriculturally disabled when the climate transition to the next glaciation cycle begins. These kinds of concerns were on the scientific agenda in the early 1970s.
If the concerns had been followed up, an enormous scientific, technological, and economic development would have begun, which is necessary to meet a challenge of the magnitude that the Ice Age transition brings with it. It is plain to see that the oligarchic system would not have survived the resulting enormous development, which cannot be carried out on a monetarist platform. The rule of empire would have ceased.
In order to save the system of empire the scientific concern was turned upside down, whereby the Global Warming Doctrine was invented. CO2 was chosen to become the danger to mankind, rather than the impending Ice Age transition. CO2 was chosen, because it is a fundamental element of modern civilization. It is fundamental to everything, to agriculture, transportation, industrial production, food production, and the construction of housing.
The production of steel and cement are major CO2 emitters, as are livestock, and all modes of transportation. It became evident that when CO2 can be withdrawn from the human platform, civilization can be physically collapsed. And so it was chosen in 1974 when it was made a major environmental issue.
The CO2 was vilified in 1974, and ever since, with a scare tactic that declared it a dangerous greenhouse gas that causes the Earth to be overheated so that polar ice fields would melt, which would raise the sea level to such height that all low elevation areas in the world would be flooded. In order to prevent this catastrophe, it was said that CO2 emissions must be eliminated at all cost. Thus CO2 became the central issue of the Global Warming Doctrine, and remains that, on which the entire doctrine rests.
Of course it has been carefully omitted that the elimination of CO2 emissions necessarily collapses civilization.
Likewise, it has been carefully omitted that CO2 is not a climate villain, that the polar ice fields are not melting, that the sea levels are not rising, that the Earth is not overheating, and that in fact CO2 has never had a warming influence on the Earth, even in times in distant geologic history when the CO2 concentration was up to 15 times more dense than it is today, instead of just the few percent that the Global Warming Doctrine has been built on.
According to various studies the modern CO2 concentration is at the absolute lowest it has ever been in all the hundreds of millions of years for which these values are known. Most studies agree that around 450 million years ago the CO2 concentration was on average ten times greater than it is today, with a potential variance that puts it as high as 15 times greater than what we now have.
This enormous concentration, evidently had no effect on the climate at all. According to the Global Warming Doctrine these huge historic concentrations should have cooked the Earth. It should have turned it into a frying pan. Instead of this happening, the Earth has been subjected to a series of deep cutting Ice Age climates. One of these had such a harsh effect that it wiped out half of all species in the oceans.
For example, the massive CO2 concentration that is known to have existed 450 million years ago, didn't prevent the deep ice age at this time that had caused one of the most-devastating extinctions of life on our planet, which at the time was located exclusively in the oceans.
If this enormous CO2 concentration had no effect then, it stands to reason that CO2 is not much of a climate factor at all, so that the doctrinal perception of it is flawed, or is based on politically motivated intentional deceptions.
Sure, since these historic Ice Age Epochs are known to have occurred during times of dense CO2 concentrations, fancy excuses are cited, such as, that the configuration of continents were different in those times as if this had an effect on life in the oceans, and that the Sun was dimmer during those times. Thus great efforts are made to obscure the fact that CO2 is not a climate factor at all and that the Global Warming Doctrine has no real basis at all to stand on.
One of the false impressions that is often associated with the Global Warming Doctrine is the massive focus on Arctic thawing. While it is true that some parts of the Greenland Ice Sheets have undergone significant melting, it is not true that this is the result of global warming. Instead, it is the result of global cooling.
It is a known fact that cold air is heavier than warm air, and that the heavy air near the surface is moved towards the equator, driven by the centrifugal force of the earth's rotation. In North America the effect results into a mobile air mass flowing between the Rocky Mountains and the Appalachian Mountains that channels cooler air into the Gulf of Mexico, which recycles back across the Atlantic, bringing warm air into the North. This recycling system is called the Polar Mobile Anticyclone. The colder the landmass across the northern sheet becomes, the stronger will the flow become that brings warm air into the North.
Another deception is the misinterpretation of the ice core data, in terms of CO2 concentrations found in glacial samples.
The shown increase from 270 parts per million to 390, as we have it today, is said to be due to human activities.
This sharp increase shown, is what the Global Warming Doctrine is based on.
The Polish Professor Zbigniew Jaworowski, who worked in the field of ice exploration for 50 years, has called the CO2-deception, the greatest scientific scandal of our time. He speaks to us as chairman of the Scientific Council of the Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Warsaw, and as a world-renowned atmospheric scientist and mountaineer who has excavated ice out of 17 glaciers on 6 continents in a 50-year career. He explains the deception as inherent in the physical characteristics of ice accumulation.
He states that it is a recognized fact that when snow accumulates, the air becomes compressed, and that some of the compressed cold CO2 becomes dissolved in water vapor that escapes through cracks, or becomes concentrated in liquid water that forms pools or drains away. It is also known that this loss-process increases with increasing pressure when the snow builds up above it, which compresses the lower snowflakes into firn and then hoar, and so on, until a stage is reached when the firn and hoar become compacted into solid ice. This occurs at the 140 meter level, which happens to coincide with ice compacted from the beginning of the 1800s.
He states that it takes roughly 200 years of this loss-volatile compacting process for snow to become solid ice. Thus, when ice core samples are drilled from this region in ice they contain the progressively lower CO2 concentrations that resulted from the loss.
Below the transition zone all gases remain trapped in the ice. Which means that no more losses occur, so that the curve remains flat from this point on. He points out that those deeper measurements are all subject to the same loss process. He states further that comparative CO2 measurements in deep sediments indicate that in historic times, long before the industrial revolution began, the CO2 concentration had been roughly the same as it is today. This leaves us with the conclusion that the entire basis of the Global Warming Doctrine is a deception. Zbigniew Jaworowski doesn't call it a deception. He calls it the greatest scientific scandal of our time.
When one drills deeper, down to the extremely deep level, past the 80,000-year mark, the glacial ice becomes completely bubble free, under the immense pressure that builds up. All gases become diffused in liquids and ice crystals. But when the ice is drilled out, by which the pressure is removed, the gases expand and cause micro fissures, through which still more of the historic gases escape.
While all of this was known and was extensively published, it was simply disregarded.
The Polish Professor Zbigniew Jaworowski also points out that CO2 isn't a determining factor at all for our climate, as it accounts for only 3% of the global greenhouse effect, instead of the large ratios that are cited to justify the Global Warming Doctrine. And he points out that the manmade portion of the CO2 pool is too minuscule to matter in any form or shape, which he places in the range of 5 one hundredth of a percent to about a quarter of a percent.
And even if the manmade portion of the global CO2 content were as high as 3% as is sometimes claimed, it wouldn't make any difference either as 3% of 3% adds up to 9 one hundredth of a percent, which is insignificant in comparison with the up to 97% portion of the greenhouse effect that is caused by water vapor.
The water-vapor density in comparison is subject to many variables that are way beyond our control, such as cloud formation that is affected by variations in cosmic-ray density. The bottom line is, that human activity, and the little CO2 that is produced in the process, has absolutely no effect on the global greenhouse, which is controlled by huge factors that are beyond our reach.
That global CO2 concentration cannot be the violent greenhouse factor that it is made out to be, is evident by the fact that the CO2 response in reflecting solar radiation occurs in only 3 narrow bands and at the low-intensity end of the solar radiation spectrum, and even there its effect is masked by water vapor. While it is true that the three CO2 bands are close to the part of the spectrum where black-body heat radiation occurs, and where CO2 does reflect black-body heat back to earth as a greenhouse effect, its effect is widely overshadowed by water vapor, and more than that, by the dense blankets of cloudiness.
On cloudy days the CO2 effect is overridden by the processes of cloud dynamics where the CO2 is even less a factor. When clouds get into the way, the black-body heat doesn't radiate into space, but gets intercepted and distributed by its own dynamics. These are factors that CO2 based greenhouse climate models totally ignore, even while cloudiness is a major component of the earth's atmosphere.
The earth, when seen from space, is in many places largely hidden by cloudiness as this photograph indicates, as seen by Apollo 11 in 1969. The global cloudiness has increased since then. Overshadowed by this cloudiness the blackbody radiation that CO2 responds to, in a small degree, is not much of a factor, is it?
Nor can one say that the manmade addition to the global CO2 represents a significant contribution. Humanity's CO2 input 'is often portrayed in the Global Warming Doctrine as accumulating in the atmosphere, which is not the case, since a third of the atmospheric CO2, which represents a mere 2% of the global CO2, is recycled every year' through the oceans and vegetation.
The earth's atmosphere contains 750 billion tons of CO2, with a manmade contribution of 5 billion tons, which adds up to six tenth of a percent. Of this 220 billion tons, nearly a third, is recycled annually, especially with the deep oceans where most of the world's CO2 is retained. Many factors, primarily temperature, affect the equilibrium that is maintained by the recycling process. The recycling amounts shown here are variable amounts.
In considering that the Global Warming Doctrine is so full of holes and distortions, the scientific community, in whose name the doctrine has been erected, has begun to fight back and has not relented on this effort to clear its image and reputation.