The Debate on CO2 and Environmental Impact

Climate change: a real threat or just exaggerated noise? Join me, Karl Michael, as I pull back the curtain on the climate change narrative and question the prevailing assumptions. With insights from a global network of over 1,800 scientists, we scrutinize the reliance on climate models that are heavily influenced by human-made inputs. Through a critical lens, we'll explore how Earth's climate has always been subject to natural variability, challenging the exaggerated predictions of global warming and the so-called climate emergency. Prepare to rethink the perceived role of CO2 in our atmosphere as we debunk myths of it being a pollutant and highlight its benefits for plant growth and agriculture.

We take a hard look at the statistics surrounding climate-related disasters, providing evidence that disputes the narrative of their increased frequency due to global warming. Moreover, Karl sheds light on the true costs and questionable effectiveness of climate mitigation measures, arguing against the unrealistic and costly net zero CO2 policy proposed for 2050. This episode is all about questioning the mainstream narrative and advocating for a more empirical, self-critical approach to understanding climate science, ensuring that both science and policy are grounded in reality, not ideology.

Transcript

Speaker 1: 0:02

The Climate Change Hoax. If you're suspicious that this climate change stuff may be exaggerated or just total BS, you've come to the right place. Welcome to the Climate Change Hoax Podcast With your host, carl Michael. Here you'll learn the truth about the deceivers who want you to believe we can actually control the weather. We cannot. The real goal is to control you. This is the Climate Change Hoax.

Speaker 2: 0:43

And greetings crisis deniers. Here's some advice from a global network of over 1,800 scientists and professionals 1,813 to be exact, and that number is growing. Climate science should be less political, while climate policies should be more scientific. In particular, scientists should emphasize that their modeling output is not the result of magic. Computer models are human-made. What comes out is fully dependent on what programmers put into them Hypothesis, assumptions, relationships, stable constraints, etc. Unfortunately, in mainstream climate science, most of this input is undeclared To believe. The outcome of a climate model is to believe what the model makers have put in. This is precisely the problem of today's climate discussion, to which climate models are central. Climate science has degenerated into a discussion based on beliefs, not on sound, self-critical science. We should free ourselves from the naive belief in immature climate models. In the future, climate research must give significantly more emphasis to empirical science. Climate science should be less political and more scientific. Scientists should openly address uncertainties and exaggerations in their predictions of global warming, while politicians should dispassionately count the real costs as well as the imagined benefits of their policy measures.

Speaker 2: 2:33

The Geological Archive reveals that Earth's climate has varied as long as the planet has existed, with natural cold and warm phases. The Little Ice Age ended as recently as 1850. Therefore, it should be no surprise that we are now experiencing a period of warming. The world has warmed significantly less than predicted by the IPCC on the basis of modeled anthropogenic forcing. The gap between the real world and the modeled world tells us that we are far from understanding climate change. Let me say that again we are far from understanding climate change.

Speaker 2: 3:21

Climate models have many shortcomings and are not remotely plausible as global policy tools. They blow up the effect of greenhouse gases such as CO2. In addition, they ignore the fact that enriching the atmosphere with CO2 is beneficial. Co2 is not a pollutant. It is essential to all life on Earth. Photosynthesis is a blessing. More CO2 is beneficial for nature. Additional CO2 in the air has promoted growth in global plant biomass. It's also good for agriculture increasing the yields of crops worldwide increasing the yields of crops worldwide. There is no statistical evidence that global warming is intensifying hurricanes, floods, droughts and such like natural disasters, or making them more frequent. However, there is ample evidence that CO2 mitigation measures are as damaging as they are costly. Bottom line there is no climate emergency. Therefore, there is no cause for panic and alarm. The net zero CO2 policy proposed for 2050 is harmful, unrealistic, expensive and total BS and will not do a damn thing for the betterment of mankind or the planet. Cheers.

Speaker 1: 4:53

You've been listening to the Climate Change Hoax. We hope you've enjoyed the show. If you did, make sure to like, rate and review. See you next time on the Climate Change Hoax.