THE DEEP CHECK
An Evidence Base Investigation of Fact and Fiction
IT IS WEATHER, CLIMATE CHANGE or GLOBAL WARMING ?
Weather refers to atmospheric conditions that occur regionally over short periods of time from days to months. - NASA (Variances such as California droughts can last for years.)
Climate Change refers to a change in the long-term (at least 30 years) average regional or global temperature, humidity, and rainfall patterns. - NASA
Global Warming or Cooling is Climate Change taking place on a global basis such as The Little Ice Age while Climate Change may apply to one or more regions but not necessarily the whole world as was the case of The Medieval Warm.
116,000 YEARS of CARBON DIOXIDE and CLIMATE CHANGE
116,000 years ago the most recent ice age began, freezing all of northern Europe, Russia and half of North America. Carbon dioxide sank to 180 parts per million (ppm).
20,000 years ago the world began a roller coaster of warming and chilling that ended after the Younger Dryas 11,500 years ago. Carbon dioxide rose from 180 ppm to 240 ppm.
10,000 years ago the world was 1.5 C (2.7 F) hotter than it is today (2020 - 2025) and stayed hotter for the next 4,000 years. Carbon dioxide slowly rose to 260 ppm
6,000 years ago the temperature dropped to what we have today and stayed that way for the next 4,000 years. Carbon dioxide rose to 280 ppm.
2,000 years ago the temperature began a 1,500 year decline to the start of the Little Ice Age 550 years ago. Carbon dioxide levels stayed at 280 ppm.
Carbon dioxide began to rise in 1750 CE. Temperature began to rise in 1830 CE.
That was the first time in 10,000 years that temperature and carbon dioxide moved in the same direction at the same time.
Dr. Vinther’s 12,000 Year Graph of six Greenland ice cores begins 11,500 years ago emerging from the frigid Younger Dryas years. Zero on the vertical temperature axis is the 1880 to 1960 CE average temperature. The 2000 CE temperature at the right side of the graph is 1 C (1.8 F) higher than that 80 year average still but 2 C (3.6 F) lower than the period shown as 8000 to 4000 BCE.
BAC II’s 10,000 Year Graph of the Baltic Region shows the same data line over the same time period as the Vinther above and the Rosenthal graph below. The red and black lines show moving averages. There were century long temperature peaks six to eight thousand years ago that were 3 C (5.4 F) higher than today. Perhaps our current rise of 1.5 C over two centuries isn’t historically exceptional.
These graphs are not unique. Five hundred million years of climate history shows that greenhouse gases and earth’s temperature appear to move independently of each other. This graph is based on the carbon 14 isotope and oxygen 18 isotope both of which are created by solar radiation in the thermosphere. It’s a combination of Dr. Berner’s carbon dioxide data (blue line) with the Smithsonian Institute temperature (red line) of NOAA data. The combined graph was commissioned for this website.
The Arctic, Greenland and Antarctica were ice free most of the time. Global temperatures during most of the last 250 million years were much hotter than today. Temperature and carbon dioxide appear to move independently from each other strongly suggesting carbon dioxide and the greenhouse gases do not cause temperature change. Earth’s climate is always changing, usually creeping invisibly in our perspective of time, but always on the move in geological time.
WHY DO WE BELIEVE CARBON DIOXIDE IS CAUSING CLIMATE CHANGE
A few climate scientists had been advocating it for decades but didn’t attract an audience until the initial data from the Greenland and Antarctic ice cores was published in the early 1990s. Al Gore championed it in his 2006 book An Inconvenient Truth and speaking tour. The media covered it, people began to accept it and politicians chased the votes. Now the climate really does appear to be changing and many have accepted the mantra that carbon dioxide and the other greenhouse gases are the cause.
The idea was proposed in 1895 but languished until 1959 when Dr. Roger Revelle, a highly respected oceanographic scientist, said it might be possible in the scientific journal Tellus 9 (Issue 1, Page 27). Up to that time climate scientists couldn’t figure out what was causing climate change. The early Greenland and Antarctic ice core data graphs appeared to show that carbon dioxide and temperature moved together. They thought it was the proof they’d been looking for. Many climate scientists jumped on board. Yet no one was concerned that Ice Ages are a time of extreme climate with half of the northern hemisphere, one third of earth’s total land mass, completely frozen. The world’s oceans dropped 130 m (420 ft). Everywhere north of the tropics was far colder than today greatly inhibiting evaporation from the oceans and plant growth which altered the carbon cycle.
THE CORRELATION FALLACY
Worse, no one was concerned that when two lines on a graph appear move together (or opposite) it is a correlation - only a suggestion that there may be a relationship. Mistaking a correlation as proof of a relationship is called the Correlation Fallacy, a fundamental mistake. Unfortunately many in the scientific community made that fundamental mistake. Former United States Vice President Al Gore promoted that mistake by advocating carbon dioxide as the cause of climate change in his speaking tour and book, An Inconvenient Truth (2006). Wide spread skepticism swung to wide spread public acceptance.
The second contradiction in a sole cause relationship is that the independent (leading) variable must always cause the dependent (following) variable to change in the same direction, by the same time lag (if any) and by same proportionate amount of change as the independent variable. For carbon dioxide to prove it is the sole cause of temperature change, it must always cause temperature to change in the same direction, time and proportion to the change in carbon dioxide.
An Inconvenient Truth’s graph and the graph below compress 100,000 years (an entire ice age) into a very short time line. When the time line of a highly compressed graph is expanded, it becomes easy to see there were many times when the three requirements of direction, time and proportionality don’t match. These contradictions are problematic to stating that carbon dioxide is the cause of climate change.
WHAT ARE CLIMATE SCIENTISTS SAYING NOW?
Rather than carbon dioxide leading temperature, detailed analysis of the ice core data by climate scientists has found that it is temperature that leads carbon dioxide.
Dr. Florides summarized his data analysis project saying:
“Temperature rises first, followed by an increase in atmospheric CO2.” Global Warming and Carbon Dioxide Through Sciences, Research Gate:
DOI: 10.1126/science.1078758
Dr. Caillon’s data analysis team found that temperature leads carbon dioxide saying: “CO2 increase lagged Antarctic deglacial warming (temperature) by 800 +/- 200 years”.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12637743/
Dr. James Lovelock, a highly respected scientist, early carbon dioxide advocate and author of The Revenge of Gaia (2006) did something in 2014 scientists rarely do. He reversed his position and said it was a mistake to say carbon dioxide controls temperature.
“We're no longer in a position to say that just because carbon dioxide rises … the temperature will rise likewise.”
How could Dr. Lovelock and so many climate scientists have gotten it wrong? Dr. Lovelock said:
“We were carried away by the (correlation of) the ice cores of Antarctica.” The quotes are from the Toronto Globe and Mail, Nelles interview, July 11, 2014.
The carbon dioxide and temperature lines move together in this graph of the ice cores as they should in this highly compressed time line where 800 years is a hair’s width. The Correlation Fallacy says that at best, their movement can only suggest a relationship. Carbon dioxide spiked above 280 ppm four time between 400,000 and 100,000 years age, each spike lasting thousands of years - without any human generated greenhouse gases.
This expanded snippet of An Inconvenient Truth‘s graph from 500,000 years ago shows: 1) an example of carbon dioxide rising proportionally more than temperature for about 35,000 years on the left, and 2) temperature rising on the right while carbon dioxide is falling for about 13,000 years. These data inconsistencies say there must be more than one more major factor influencing climate change.
IS THE CURRENT CLIMATE CHANGE CATASTROPHIC ?
Dr. Wrightstone’s 600 Million Year Graph shows the Jurassic Period when dinosaurs roamed the earth. Carbon dioxide levels were four to seven times higher than today. The fossil records show that dinosaurs thrived. Plants thrived. Coral, clams and shell fish also thrived. The oceans did not become acidic because of higher temperatures and the much higher levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Chemistry and the Carbon Cycle say the oceans cannot become acidic. Please note the “Current CO2 level” dotted line near the bottom of the graph and the thin black line just below it titled “Mass extinction level 150 ppm” (parts per million) of air.
PLANTS Carbon dioxide is for plants what oxygen is for us. When carbon dioxide levels plunged during the ice ages to 180 ppm (parts per million) it was starvation level for plants. The carbon dioxide Death Zone for plants is 150 ppm. Plants thrive in higher levels of carbon dioxide. Their ideal level is four times higher than today’s so-called catastrophic level of 420 ppm. Many greenhouses operate at levels carbon dioxide two to three times higher than 420 ppm. Workers do not require special breathing apparatus in those enriched carbon dioxide environments. OSHA’s Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) is 5,000 ppm of CO2 over an 8-hour work day.
Dr. Patrick Moore (a Greenpeace Co-founder) Should We Celebrate Carbon Dioxide
The Global Warming Policy Foundation https//www.thegwpf.org
Anran Wang, et al., Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China
CO2 enrichment in greenhouse production: Towards a sustainable approach.
Rising levels of carbon dioxide make plants more productive which is helping feed our ever increasing global population. We also benefit by more productive plants producing more oxygen. “From a quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands have shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide ...”
https://www.nasa.gov/technology/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth-study-finds/
THE OCEAN Is runaway, catastrophic global heating really in our future?
Graphs by climate scientists at Berkeley Earth show that atmospheric temperatures have risen 2 C (3.6 F) since 1830 CE. That was also the end of the Little Ice Age.
The upper ocean (200 m, 600 ft.) temperature has only risen 1 C (1.8 F).
Most of the vast, deeper ocean (3,650 m, 12,000 ft.) has remained at 4 C (39 F).
NASA scientists says the ocean capture 93% of the atmosphere’s excess heat. The United Nations (un.org) acknowledges this saying: “The ocean … captures 90 percent of the excess heat generated by (greenhouse gas) emissions.”
Dr. Lovelock said: “The ocean’s heat capacity is about 1,000 times greater than that of the land and atmosphere”. (Nelles interview as cited above.)
THE GREENHOUSE GASES – A Closer Look
This is the land of uncertainty. In its AR6, Leadership Summary, WG1, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) shows the following as greenhouse gases. The color bars show the IPCC’s atmospheric Global Warming estimate for each. The black bars show the large range of uncertainty for each element which has a major impact on reliability in climate modelling.
GASES: 5 heat (orange)
1 cools (blue)
AEROSOLS: 3 cool
1 heats
Sulphur dioxide’s cooling (blue) alone cancels all of the small heaters (orange) in this chart leaving 420 ppm of carbon dioxide and 2 ppm of methane as global warming’s heaters.
CARBON DIOXIDE Source
Annual natural CO2 emissions were 550–848 billion tons from 1990 to 2022. Humanity’s emissions were 3% to 5% of the total.
METHANE Source
“The CCMI models estimate the tropospheric methane lifetime at about 8 years (average over years 2000–2009), with a range of 7.2 to 10.1 years.” There are more studies listed in Section 3.3.5 confirming the Morganstein study. The IPCC that says a methane molecule has a 100 year life span which is the basis for the orange color bar being far wider that 2 ppm. Why do IPCC bureaucrats who are not climate scientists contradicting climate scientists?
Section 3.3.5 “Approximately 40% of methane is emitted into the atmosphere by natural sources and about 60% comes from anthropogenic sources.” Of humanity’s 60% “the largest emissions (are) from rice cultivation in Asia, accounting for 30 % to 50 %.” (Fig. 3) Humanity’s contribution from rice farming needs to be adjusted because rice is often grown on converted wetlands, a natural source of methane. Attributing 1/3rd of rice cultivation’s methane to what the converted wetlands would have contributed had they not been cultivated changes the balance to approximately 45% by nature and 55% by people. With the world’s ever increasing population and rice being a staple of the countries with the higher population growth rates, it appears highly unlikely that global methane levels can be held at the 2024 level of 1,921 parts per trillion (NOAA) which rounds to 2 parts per million in the atmosphere.
THE GREAT CLIMATE MODELLING DEBATE
Many climate scientists are questioning the U.N.’s IPCC climate prediction models. Click scholar.google.com and paste “criticism of IPCC modelling” in the search window, not the URL line.
Dr. Patrick Moore said, “The only trends the computer models seem able to predict accurately are ones that have already occurred” (as cited above).
It’s worth noting the earlier IPCC modelling statement:
“In climate research and modelling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”
Section 14.2.2.2 https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/TAR-14.pdf
GREENHOUSE GASES ARE WHAT GETS HEATED
Continued ...Dr. Rosenthal’s Graph 12,000 Year Graph of the Makassar Straight (tropical temperatures) show the same temperature pattern (black line). Global temperature changes are usually less responsive in the tropics because the sun always directly overhead providing a constant level of solar radiation. The further away from the tropics, the greater the influence of variable climatic factors. The exception was Antarctica which is relatively isolated by the Antarctic Circumpolar Current and the Westerly Wind Drift.
RADIATIVE FORCING IS HOW THEY GET HEATED
Graph by Frank van Mierlo : PW is a petawatt, one billion million watts of energy.
Radiative Forcing has a vast number of interactive global components, with even more as yet unknown components likely, all of which renders precise quantitative measurements impossible. Radiative Forcing and Earth’s Energy Balance are explained in a 2009 NASA Tutorial (Some of the information may be dated.)
Atmospheric Water Vapor
The IPCC says “Water vapour is the most abundant radiatively active gas, accounting for about 75% of the terrestrial greenhouse effect ...” The Physical Science Basis 2021, Section 1.3.3, Page 179.
Often called humidity, water vapor is unique among the greenhouse gases because it only exists in the troposphere, the lowest level of the atmosphere where our weather takes place. It is almost non-existent (2-5 ppm) in the ultra dry stratosphere. The troposphere is an irregularly shaped dome of air 10,000 m high (33,000 ft) within 30 degrees of the sun’s zenith. It’s where “approximately 90% of radiative forcing from short wave solar radiation occurs” (CoPilot). The troposphere bulge follows the sun’s migration sloping to 3,000 m (10,000 ft) at the poles.
The air contains 38,000 ppm of water vapor at 30 C (86 F) and 90% relative humidity, typical in the tropics (arid regions excepted) and of summer conditions in the world’s humid mid latitude regions. Higher temperatures and/ or higher relative humidity can raise water vapor to 70,000 ppm.
After subtracting the cooling effect of sulphur dioxide, carbon dioxide at 420 ppm and methane at 2 ppm are the remaining warming gases shown in the IPCC gases chart above. Carbon dioxide is the radiative forcing standard that all other GHGs are compared to. Methane’s atmospheric 2 ppm has a long accepted ratio of being 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide making methane equivalent to 40 ppm carbon dioxide. Together they have a radiative forcing value of 460. Water vapor’s radiative forcing value is half of carbon dioxide. At 38,000 ppm humidity’s radiative forcing value is 19,000 which is 19,000/ 460 = 41 times greater heater than all of the other gases and aerosols combined.
Atmospheric water vapor is an under rated global temperature regulator in the climate change debate. Heat energy is required to transform liquid water into atmospheric water vapor. That energy is released when water vapor condenses into droplets forming clouds. At cloud altitude, heat energy has an easy escape from the planet. And raindrops capture carbon dioxide. More temperature regulating mechanisms are available in this NASA site’s at Reference Section.
RADIATIVE FORCING’S ACHILLES HEEL
As night follows day, atmospheric heat energy moving at the speed of light progressively escapes to the heavens. A clear night with low humidity has much greater temperature drop than an overcast night with high humidity. But it doesn’t matter to climate change how much heat is left over the next morning. NASA, the UN and climate scientists agree – that’s weather. What matters to climate change is how much heat caries over year after year for decades. The sun’s long term constant energy input plus annually increasing greenhouse gases must produce constantly increasing global temperature. Global temperatures are not experiencing a constant annual increase which questions radiative forcing as a major factor in climate change.
SOME FORCES OF NATURE LIKELY CONTRIBUTE TO CLIMATE CHANGE
Nature has been changing the climate since the world began without any help from mankind’s greenhouse gases. One of the many ways is a theory developed a century ago by ground breaking structural engineer turned astrophysicist Milutin Milankovitch.
Dr. Milankovitch formulated three theories:
• Orbital Eccentricity: Earth’s orbit around the sun changes from round (warmer) to oval (cooler) in 100,000 year cycles. Earth is in the warming phase.
• Axial Obliquity: How far the earth tilts toward and away from the sun between summer and winter varies in 41,000 year cycles. Earth is in the warming phase.
• Axial Precession: The earth also leans like a wobbling top as it tilts toward and away from the sun in a 26,000 year circle. It’s currently warming the southern hemisphere more in its summer than the northern hemisphere in its summer. It’s about to reverse and give more summer warmth to the northern hemisphere. Images courtesy of NASA.
Highly accurate technology and computing power have confirmed Dr. Milankovic’s theories. Climate scientists have noticed a loose correlation between cooling alignments and the ice ages of the last two and a half million years. Research is investigating how much these three factors can heat and cool earth’s climate. Yet the Milankovic Cycles have been in motion for hundreds of millions, if not billions, of years. Why has earth’s climate been so much cooler for the last two and a half million years?
CASSIOPEDIA - HD 7977
Recent astrophysics research found that a star of the Cassiopeia Constellation passed close enough to our solar system 2.8 million years ago to disturb the orbits of our giant outer planets. Their orbital wobbles in turn disturbed earth’s orbit and occurred shortly before the start of the current progression of ice ages and interglacial warm periods (including the one we live in). Did earth’s orbit return to its pre-Cassiopea fly-pass pattern or has its orbit been permanently affected? The discovery of the Cassiopeia star’s fly-by has changed a long held belief by astrophysicists that our solar system was not influenced by other stars. More climate related astronomical discoveries are likely. Astrophysical Journal Letters, Kaib, et al.
Digressing for a moment - Mars is smaller than earth and closer to Saturn, Jupiter and Uranus. It’s solar orbit would have been even more affected than earth’s solar orbit. What effect did that have on Mars. Has Mar’s solar orbit recovered?
POLAR MOVEMENT
Another interesting relationship is the correlation between climate change and the movement of earth’s magnetic north pole. In 200 AD (red dot upper left) earth’s magnetic north pole was located on the coast of Siberia. The middle east was referred to as The Fertile Crescent, then a green and temperate region. By 750 AD the magnetic north pole had moved to the northern tip of Canada’s Baffin Island. The middle east had become hotter and dryer. In 1,000 AD the magnetic north pole was at the geographic north pole. Europe and some other parts of the world were experiencing the Medieval Warm. By 1,500 the magnetic north pole was in the Arctic Ocean slowly migrating to Canada’s northern coast. The Little Ice Age had begun. The magnetic north pole stayed near Canada’s north shore until fifty years ago when it began to move rapidly north and west toward Siberia. Now it’s closer to Siberia than Canada again and the world is warming. Fertile Crescent Reference: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abg4044
Researchgate.net Each dot represents a 50 yr. progression.
Is this correlation between climate change and pole movement just a coincidence or is it suggesting a real possibility ? “Analysis of the movement of the Earth's magnetic poles over the last 105 years demonstrates strong correlations between the position of the north magnetic, and geomagnetic poles, and both northern hemisphere and global temperatures. Although these correlations are surprising, a statistical analysis shows there is a less than one percent chance they are random …”
A.K. Kerton, 2009 : Climate Change and the Earth’s Magnetic Poles, A Possible Connection
While it is highly likely that the movement of earth’s magnetic poles are contributing to climate change, how is that possible since air is not attracted to magnetism? Recent research found that the movement of earth’s magnetic poles causes gravity waves which affect earth’s very high altitude magnetic radiation shield. That affects air currents in the earth’s upper atmosphere.
Vlasov, D.I., et al.. Seasonal Features of the Spatial Distribution of Atmospheric Gravity Waves in the Earth’s Polar Thermosphere. https://doi.org/10.3103/S0884591322020076
Other researchers found that changes to the magnetic radiation shield affected lower levels of the atmosphere which affects our climate. “Magnetic field changes directly affect the temperature and wind in the upper atmosphere … we also find significant responses in (the lower atmosphere).”
Cnossen I., H. Liu, and H. Lu (2016), The Whole Atmosphere Response to Changes in the Earth's Magnetic Field From 1900 to 2000. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres
Solar radiation hitting earth’s magnetic radiation shield (not to scale).
Jing Liu, et al. Solar flare effects in the Earth's magnetosphere, Nature Physics (2021)
Could the movement of earth’s magnetic poles be affecting air and ocean currents another way? Curiously, while water is attracted to static electricity, water is diamagnetic - repelled by magnetism. Could the higher density of water in atmospheric rivers and hurricanes be enough for them to be affected by the movement of earth’s magnetic poles? Could the differences in density due to temperature layers and salinity concentrations be enough to affect ocean currents? And if so, to what extent?
THE SUN
Yet if everything currently known about climate change conspired to reach its maximum cold phase at the same time, it still wouldn’t be cold enough to explain the abrupt 1,200 year long plunge to the near ice age temperatures of the Younger Dryas (12,700 to 11,500 years ago). What caused that abrupt plunge and equally fast recovery? Could it happen again? The simplest explanation is the sun. We’ve always been told the sun’s strength doesn’t change. It might be time to rethink that.
“The sun is the ultimate factor in causing change of the terrestrial climate. At a small but measurable level, the sun varies, just like most of the stars do.”
Dr. W. W. Soon, Astrophysics (Harvard), Climate Change : The Facts, chapter 4, page 57.
It’s been known for centuries that the sun’s north and south poles reverse like clockwork every eleven years. When they reverse there is a sharp rise in sun spot (solar storm) activity as shown in the even march of the blue spikes. The black line shows the moving average number of sun spots. During the Maunder Minimum it flat-lined which coincided with the coldest part of the Little Ice Age. The Dalton Minimum also had significantly fewer sun spots and was the last cold phase of the Little Ice Age. Is the drop in temperature and sun spots a coincidence ?
Maunder Minimum : Author Unknown
Paraphrasing a research paper by Dr. Schmutz: The correlation between the sun’s strength and temperature for 660 years indicates a 98% probability that the Little Ice Age was caused by variations in the sun’s strength. If the period is limited to 1650 to 1890, the probability increases to 99.99%. Schmutz WK, https://doi.org/10.1051/swsc/2021016
POPULATION
Missing in action from the climate change debate is the increase in global population. A search of the internet including two AI sites for a “graph showing population and global temperature since 1800” didn’t find any – none. DeepSeek and CoPilot were asked to create one. This is the graph by DeepSeek.
We were immediately struck by the similarity of both graphs to the many graphs showing temperature and carbon dioxide. Logic requires that those who believe the temperature-carbon dioxide graph is proof carbon dioxide causing climate change must also believe this temperature-population graph proves population growth is equally responsible for climate change. But as always, graphs show a correlation, a suggestion and never proof of anything.
REDUCING CARBON DIOXIDE AND METHANE
How likely is it that global CO2 levels will be reduced? Of the major generating nations, India has said it will not be able to achieve its carbon emission targets until 2070. India needs a lot more electrical power for its billion plus people. Clean power is expensive, more coal plants and their emissions are India’s reality. Until recently, the U.S. had spoken volumes by its silence on decommissioning coal power plants. The U.S. may not build more coal plants but neither are they hurrying to decommission any either. The recently announced G7 treaty commitment to install emission scrubbers by 2034 may or may not happen in the United States.
According to the International Energy Agency, China burns over half of the world’s coal. A New York Times International article April 7th, 2024 raised that level to 66% of the coal burned in the world. China is building coal fired power plants in Afghanistan. And while China talks about going green, the reality is quite different as detailed in an article by respected journalist Eric Reguly.
“China approved 10 gigawatts of new coal plants in the first quarter of this year, after approving 100 gigawatts in 2022 – the equivalent of 100 large plants. The capacity of the plants under construction last year was six times that of the rest of the world. China, building coal burners with alacrity, has yet to state credibly how it will achieve net zero 37 years from now even as its emissions keep rising. At some point, the West will ask: Why are we punishing our economies to achieve net zero when China, the biggest emitter, is not ?” The Globe and Mail (Ontario Edition), 12 Aug 2023, Eric Reguly
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/commentary/article-china-paris-accord-net-zero-commitments/
WHAT DO WE DO NOW?
We have had 450 years of very slow climate change causing generation after generation to believe the climate doesn’t change. Now we see it changing. Research since 2006 has caused many climate scientists to abandon the belief that greenhouse gases are the sole cause of climate change nor even the dominant factor. Some question whether greenhouse gases are even involved at all. Many climate scientists recognize that the forces of nature are calling the shots as they always have and that the forces of nature are now in a warming phase. Since we appear to be catching up to the long term average temperature of the last 10,000 years, glaciers are likely to continue receding and sea levels will gradually rise.
Politicians and the green industry are deeply committed to the belief that greenhouse gases are the cause of climate change. Will we look at the evidence and turn the trillions of dollars intended to reduce the greenhouse gases into readying the peoples of the low lying islands and every sea port in the world for rising ocean waters?
Email : climate.science.123@gmail.com