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, Karl Michael. Here you will 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.
The Climate Change Hoax
“Audiatur et Altera Pars”
What if everything you've been told about climate change is a carefully orchestrated exaggeration? Join us on the Climate Change Hoax Podcast, where host Karl Michael and the works of Dr. Indur M. Goklany turn the spotlight on the mainstream narrative surrounding global warming. This episode peels back the layers of fear-mongering, challenging the reliance on computer models that predict catastrophic climate futures. By contrasting these speculative simulations with hard evidence and historical context, we question whether the projected 1.6 degrees Celsius rise by 2050 is truly a cause for alarm, or just another data point in the Earth's natural climate variability.
Through our examination of satellite data and weather balloon measurements, we offer a fresh perspective that counters the doom-and-gloom predictions. Our discussion also highlights how cities with vastly different climates, like Oslo and Singapore, thrive regardless of their stark temperature disparities. This episode invites you to reconsider the climate change discourse with a focus on observation and historical data, urging a shift from speculative fear to informed understanding.
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:Greetings crisis deniers. In the past decades, the public has been flooded with fear-mongering stories telling them that global temperatures will rise to catastrophically high levels. Climate activists claim that the cause of all this impending doom is the increasing amount of CO2 produced by human activities. The proposed solution is the so-called net zero emission policy, aimed at lowering human net CO2 emissions to the levels of the pre-industrial era of the late 1700s. Those activists also claim that people should panic and that time is running out. Antonio Guterres, the UN chief, said this Be aware that it is five minutes to midnight. We must act without delay. Well, antonio, many thousands of scientists disagree. In his numerous last morning speeches, antonio Guterres refers to computer simulations, not the real world. Greta Thunberg testified to the US Congress that there was no science behind her panic comment. This information cannot be found anywhere in the media. So why is there such a big difference between this scaring climate activist narrative and the optimistic climate scientist's message who believe there is no climate emergency? Not many citizens are aware that all the frightening climate predictions have been generated by computer models, and we know from experience in many other complex areas how misleading computer models can be. For example, think of the many wrong predictions by economic models. Or think of the large mistakes in recent pandemic modeling. Or think of the large mistakes in recent pandemic modeling.
Speaker 2:The output of computer models depends fully on the assumptions that model makers put into them. In the past 50 years, the predictions of climate models about global warming and their dire effects have all been wrong, and in the engineering community they would be classified as useless. More specifically, the assumptions in climate modeling are such that predicted temperature changes turn out to be persistently too high. Even worse, extreme weather events such as heat waves, droughts, floods, hurricanes, etc. Are intentionally used to support the extreme climate predictions. But if we position the current extreme weather events in a historical context, we see that these events are climate business as usual, as pointed out by Dr Indur M Goklani. By the way, dr Goklany continues to remain at odds with the climate alarmists, because he is right. His conclusion is that models, computer simulations, run too hot and that predictions of adverse effects on humans are highly dubious. They project a catastrophic future that is not born out of observations.
Speaker 2:It is much wiser and safer to rely on measurements. The history of science tells us that significant steps forward are always fueled by observations from new measurement instruments. Think of the very recent spectacular images of outer space by the new James Webb Space Telescope. The same good news applies to the modern satellites that deliver high-quality measurements around the Earth since 1979. Satellite data shows no extreme warming, and this is cross-checked by millions of weather balloon measurements. Therefore, let us make use of the abundant temperature measurements made through the years, those from the beginning of the industrial period, 1850, until the present. Measurements tell us that the temperature in 2020 is 1.1 degrees C higher than in 1850. Okay, let us extrapolate the satellite temperatures to the year 2050 by assuming that the temperature increase of the past 40 years 1980 to 2020, will carry on without any pausing and cooling. This generous projection results in a 2050 temperature that is 1.6 degrees C higher than in 1850.
Speaker 2:Now here's the big question Is the global warming of 1.6 degrees C a scary result? Does this outcome really tell us that it is 5 minutes to midnight? Well, let us look at today's difference in mean temperature between Oslo, one of the big cities near the North Pole, and Singapore, one of the big cities near the equator. Measurements show that the difference is as much as 22 degrees C, 20 times bigger than the global warming between 1850 and 2020, and almost 14 times bigger than the so-called scary global warming between 1850 and 2050. Despite this huge mean temperature difference of 22 degrees C, both cities are very prosperous and the citizens in both cities are enjoying life.
Speaker 2:So why do the media tell us that the global warming of 1.6 degrees C or more will lead to a disaster? The end is near, while 22 degrees C difference between Oslo and Singapore turns out to be no problem whatsoever. The answer is adaptation. The answer is adaptation. Mankind shows an impressive history, having survived many big changes in its living environment, including big changes in the Earth's climate. Thanks to our ingenuity, human beings have always found clever solutions to cope with all past challenges again and again. If you visit Oslo in Singapore, you see an impressive demonstration of humans' capability to adapt to climate differences of 22 degrees C.
Speaker 2:There is another interesting observation to make. Gradual global warming is not a serious problem, whether it is caused by CO2 or not. Not mitigation, but adaptation is the solution. So for all of those who would like to think that the present global warming is fully caused by CO2, our conclusion stays unchanged. Bear in mind that during the cooling period around 1900 and the temperature pause in the 60s, the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere continued to increase without delay. Hence the anomalous temperature behavior in these two periods were indisputably caused by Mother Nature. The same applies for the large climate difference between Oslo and Singapore.
Speaker 2:Finally, for those who still believe that CO2 emissions are pollution, we urge you to remember that CO2 is essential for all life on Earth. Additional CO2 in the air has promoted growth in the global biomass. It is also very favorable for agriculture, increasing crop yields worldwide. If this fact of life isn't convincingly sufficient, please realize that with the availability of modern nuclear power plants, we have ample time to create a global energy system with largely zero emission. But again, the big question is whether zero emission is a sensible goal. In conclusion, don't let the terrifying stories of institutions such as the UN, the EU and the WEF scare you Particularly.
Speaker 2:Climate alarmists must not use extreme weather events to poison our children with fear. To poison our children with fear. The gradual global warming which started around 1700, after the end of the Little Ice Age, is a fact and has not caused any serious problem. Our advice is enjoy today's climate, because stories from the Little Ice Age tell us that a cold climate is full of hardship. If we continue to invest in innovation. Mankind can easily cope with any effect of further warming.
Speaker 2:Hence we must stop the demoralizing back-to-the-past mitigation solutions. We observe that it only leads to decline and poverty. Climate-related deaths, floods, droughts, storms, wildfires, extreme temperatures have declined precipitously because richer and more resilient societies reduce disaster deaths and swamp any potential climate signal. Thirty years of climate summits have had no discernible effect on the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration. These summits cost an enormous amount of money. Instead, we must focus on the power of adaptation based on science, technology and education. It will lead us into an era of prosperity for nature and mankind. The preceding was excerpts of a paper published in 2020 by Professor Gus Burgout, emeritus Professor of Geophysics and member of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences, and the President of Clintel. I thank Professor Burgout for letting me quote from his work. By the way, the title of this episode is Latin, for let the other side be heard. Cheers.
Speaker 1: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.