Climate and pollution

One of the comments on the Delingpole article:

We are in an ice age today, we’ve been in one for the last 2.6 million years, it’s called the Quaternary. This ice age, the Quaternary, is filled with glacial periods and interglacial periods. We are currently in an interglacial period.

The earth goes into and out of glacial periods because of the cycles of the sun in conjunction with the Milankovitch cycles. That is the mechanism that controls whether the earth is in a glacial period or not.

So for the last few million years, the earth has bounced back and forth from glacial to interglacial periods… So what has the CO2 content of the atmosphere been through all that time?

Through all that time, millions of years, the CO2 has vacillated between 200 ppm (glacial) and 280 ppm (interglacial).

Like clockwork.

In 1860, the CO2 content of the atmosphere was measure to be around 250-260 ppm, *so right about where we should be going off the paleo climate history of the earth these last few million years*

Last year, the CO2 content was measured to be just above 410 ppm.

So here we are today, over 130 ppm higher than it’s been in millions of years. There is no doubt that man caused this, and it’s time we fixed it.

I, personally, have not the slightest idea – all I can do is read, read, listen and what we’re getting is conflicting ‘science’. There’ve been counter science to the official and I find it persuasive, the counter science, but I’m in no way any authority on this topic.

That, it seems to me, is the issue for most of us – whom to believe, dazzled by charts, figures and rhetoric.

Therefore, we tend to revert to trusted sources on other topics. Thus I’d tend to believe trusted readers. But what about when our own chaps, so to speak, disagree?

That scam though is a heavy factor against the situation as officially sanctioned reality.



15 comments for “Climate and pollution

  1. bobh
    June 26, 2019 at 14:07

    Since I was first started paying attention to it in the early 90s, the pro environment, pro global warming, pro climate change, lobby has drawn on far too many lies and subterfuges for me to take them seriously ever again.

    • Mark
      June 26, 2019 at 16:27

      Absolutely. You can’t blind people with “science” when you are a known liar.

      Sorry people at large just ain’t that dumb.

  2. June 26, 2019 at 14:20

    My go to site, James. Plus 42 years in aviation!

  3. Chuckles
    June 26, 2019 at 15:07

    It is a mistake to constantly talk about ‘science’ and whether something accords with accepted practice in such matters.
    It’s nothing to do with science, it’s politics top to bottom, so no amount of scientific sounding verbiage is going to have any effect. You have to ridicule their poor narrative and naivety to have any effect.

  4. June 26, 2019 at 15:18


  5. fos
    June 26, 2019 at 15:53

    It’s simple:

    1- if you believe that CO2 is the climate thermostat, this is bad news.

    2- if you don’t believe that CO2 is the climate thermostat, this level of plant food is a good thing.

    If 2), then all the temperature series and proxies and all the other junk correlations are irrelevant. The only thing that matters is the CO2 sensitivity (which the climatistas don’t like to talk about. Current value: diddly squat [scientific term, sorry!].)

  6. Doonhamer
    June 26, 2019 at 17:13

    Judge them by their actions, not their words.
    Who fly the most, and in the most expensive manner?
    Who buy beach front homes?
    Who have home that consume as much energy as small nations? (I exaggerate) (but not by much).
    Who hide the working of their big sums?
    Who keep changing the name of the big scarey thing?
    Who keep changing, or losing, historical records?
    Who is making the big bucks?

  7. Bruce Charlton
    June 26, 2019 at 17:20

    @James – You are being tricked by the old ‘pay no attention to the man behind the curtain’ scam – in other words you are being distracted into focusing on the wrong micro-question/s while; failing to notice that you already know (for sure) the answer to the real macro-question – as I explain here:

    To boil it down: Nobody can predict climate. Or, to put it another way; there is No Reason At All to believe anyone who asserts that they can predict what will happen to the earth’s climate.

    No Reason, because the minimum datum required to take seriously an assertion of knowledge about the future, is confirmation of a successful, precise prediction. Since there have been no successful, precise predictions of climate (and, on the contrary, a mass of vague and unsuccessful predictions) we must infer that nobody can predict climate.

    Nobody can predict the climate; and anyone who claims he can predict the climate is dishonest, ignorant, insane – or some combination of the three.

  8. ivan
    June 26, 2019 at 18:45

    One problem with that first comment, the person lost a few zeros from their ppm and/or has been drinking too much of the green koolaid.

    is an good representation of CO2 over that period.

  9. June 26, 2019 at 18:46

    Thank you, gentlemen.

  10. james wilson
    June 26, 2019 at 19:42

    The writer lays no foundation for his conclusion that CO2 must be reduced other than it is above the average during the epic historic disaster otherwise known as the ICE AGE. During the Jurassic (as well as others), a much longer age, CO2 was 2000 ppm, the ideal level for greenhouses, while the ice-age low of 200 is nearing the level of CO2 where photosynthesis ends, and human life with it.

  11. RationalThinker
    June 26, 2019 at 23:53

    Exactly what Ivan said James . . your 200 to 280ppm range is hopelessly wrong by a large order of magnitude.

    • June 27, 2019 at 07:25

      “your 200 to 280ppm range”

      Ain’t mine, bros and sisses – that was a quote of some guy. As for me, I’ve not a clue on the subject.

  12. June 27, 2019 at 04:05

    I, personally, have not the slightest idea – all I can do is read, read, listen and what we’re getting is conflicting ‘science’.

    There’s no science in it at all. It’s an argument about political ideology. Mostly it’s about political orthodoxy. If you want to be considered to be politically orthodox there are certain dogmas to which you must subscribe – the awesomeness of homosexuality, the fact that you can change your gender as easily as you change your underwear, the belief in climate change, etc. If you don’t accept all the required articles of dogma then you are guilty of heresy.

    It has nothing whatever to do with science. It’s politics. It’s politics all the way through.

    The political commissars who enforce the LGBT agenda are the same political commissars who enforce climate change orthodoxy.

    • June 27, 2019 at 07:26

      Certainly does seem so.

Comments are closed.