The President of Loveworld Incorporated, being the highly esteemed Rev Dr Chris Oyakhilome DSc DSc DD, once remarked that “Deception is the harbinger of the end”; and I think this remark perfectly captures why a cohort of individuals whose propensity to fallibility has become a trademark of their work and contributions, are still being published and publicised. Because otherwise, in the absence of the deception factor, it is difficult to explain why climate alarmism is highly regarded by others – so much so, that a few hours ago, Time Magazine published an article titled “The World’s First Climate Tipping Point Has Been Crossed, Scientists Say”. And this is yet another piece that decries an impending doom (because, for some reason, despite all the restrictive policies and carbon taxes imposed by governments, there is seldom a positive shift in their calculations). And so, in addition to the work we’ve done here at LN24 International disproving the claims behold the climate change hoax, let’s push the envelope and have a frank discussion about the chronic fallibility of climate alarmists.

TIME MAGAZINE: “THE WORLD’S FIRST CLIMATE TIPPING POINT HAS BEEN CROSSED, SCIENTISTS SAY”

 We ought to start with the Times Magazine article and its recent contributions to the climate alarmism discourse. So, as referenced earlier, Time Magazine published an article titled “The World’s First Climate Tipping Point Has Been Crossed, Scientists Say”. Then, Simmone Shah, who is the author of the article remarks that (quote) “The exact moment when Earth will reach its tipping points—moments at which human-induced climate change will trigger irreversible planetary changes—has long been a source of debate for scientists. But they might be closer than we think. A report published today says that the Earth has passed its first climate tipping point.”

She continues to state that “The second “Global Tipping Points” report published by the University of Exeter found that warm-water coral reefs are passing their tipping point. Rising ocean temperatures, acidification, overfishing, and pollution are combining to cause coral bleaching and mortality, meaning that a large number of coral reefs will be lost unless the global temperature returns towards 1°C warming or below. “ Furthermore, Tim Lenton, who is the founding director at the Global Systems Institute at the University of Exeter (who led the report that Simmone Shah is wrote bout in this Times articles), he is quoted stating that “We’re in a new climate reality,”… and that “We’ve crossed a tipping point in the climate system, and we’re now sure we’re going to carry on through 1.5°C of global warming above the prior industrial level, and that’s going to put us in the danger zone for crossing more climate tipping points.”

And for clarity, the authors define a tipping point as “occurring when changes in a system become self-perpetuating and difficult to reverse beyond a threshold, leading to substantial, widespread impacts.” Scientists  are said to have found as many as 25 major tipping points, including the Amazon rain forest transforming from a lush forest that stores carbon emissions to a dry savannah, and the permanent melting of polar sea ice whereby the dark open water absorbs more heat compared to white snow, encouraging further melting. Now, let’s directly respond to these claims.

First, Simone Shah does not do much to clarify who exactly are the scientists behind the claim that the “World’s First Climate Tipping Point Has Been Crossed”, which I think we can at least deduce that they are people working with Tim Lenton, who is the founding director at the Global Systems Institute at the University of Exeter, as quoted by Simone Shah herself. But this question matters, because knowing who are these individuals that are shoved under the collective title of “scientist” helps us to investigate their credibility; because otherwise, their credibility appears only to be that they agree with climate alarmist claims – which is not on its own a testament of critical thought and scientific integrity.

Secondly, it is worth noting that merely stating that scientists have made a certain claim about climate change does not carry the weight it does, because scientists do not have an overwhelming consensus on issues pertaining to climate change – UNLESS the money funding their research comes from organisations that expect them to arrive at that conclusion – hence climate alarmism grew parallel to research funding for this area becoming a billion dollar industry – which is also not testament of scientific integrity or genuine consensus among scientists. In fact, regarding scientific consensus on climate change, you’d recall that we’ve discussed here on The War Room that almost NO ONE who refers to the claim of there being about 97% consensus among scientists concerning a climate emergency has any idea of whether this claim was proved. And in our previous discussions we’ve discussed that among the studies that were used to justify the lie behind the 97% consensus claim, was a weirdly popular paper authored by a John Cook, who runs the website SkepticalScience.com, which is a virtual encyclopedia of arguments trying to defend predictions of catastrophic climate change from all challenges. And yet, in the weirdly popular paper, Cook was able to demonstrate only that a relative handful of scientists endorse “the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.” Cook calls this “explicit endorsement with quantification” (quantification meaning 50 percent or more). But, really what those findings meant is that there is no quantifiable 97% consensus among climate scientists.

To drive this further, Dr Judith Curry, who is a renowned climatologist and Georgia Tech professor emeritus, she describes how climate research has been overtaken by politics, funding incentives, and academic pressure to conform. She adds that honest debate is discouraged, climate models are treated as infallible and students are trained to find disasters, not question assumptions.

THERE IS 0.04% CO2 IN THE ATMOSPHERE; AND HUMANS ONLY CONTRIBUTE 3% OF THAT

This brings us to the third point of rebuttal to the claims made in the Times article by Simone Shah, and this has to do with the association between the so-called tipping points, with what is regarded as human-induced climate change that will trigger irreversible planetary changes. Now for clarity, human-induced climate change (also referred to as anthropogenic factors of climate change), usually has to do with carbon emission from humans. Well, the point of rebuttal is this: climate alarmists need to stop for a moment and ask how much carbon dioxide is in the earth’s atmosphere and how much of it humans contribute to because they will discover how ridiculous their approach is.

Simply, CO2 (that is carbon dioxide) is 0.04% of the atmosphere. Humans create only 3% of that 0.04%. This means that if carbon dioxide is inherently bad (which it is not, considering its organic existence and role in the flourishment of life), there is nevertheless an incredibly low amount of it in the earth’s atmosphere already. Secondly, assuming the amounts of carbon dioxide need to be kept at a minimum, restrictions on humans who collectively contribute only 3 percent of carbon emissions is a ridiculous approach with less than marginal gains. And the proof of this is that carbon emissions have actually been on a sharp decrease for YEARS!

Today, CO2 levels are at about 400ppm; and yet, CO2 at 4,000 parts per million means abundant life. The historic average for CO2 in the atmosphere is also 1,600 ppm. Meanwhile, CO2 is considered completely safe in naval submarines at 8,000 ppm, which is notable as the oceans are the storehouse of 93% of all CO2 on earth, where up to 70% of all photosynthesis takes place, via phyto-plankton.

CHANGE IN THE CLIMATE DOES NOT NECESSARY REFLECT AN IRREVERSIBLE AND IMPENDING DOOM

Then the fourth and final piece of rebuttal to the Time magazine article by Simone Shah has to do with the definition of tipping point itself (that is beyond its association with human CO2 emissions). Just to remind you, the authors quoted in the study define a tipping point as “occurring when changes in a system become self-perpetuating and difficult to reverse beyond a threshold, leading to substantial, widespread impacts.” The so-called scientists are thus said to have found as many as 25 major climate-related tipping points, including the Amazon rain forest transforming from a lush forest that stores carbon emissions to a dry savannah, and the permanent melting of polar sea ice whereby the dark open water absorbs more heat compared to white snow, encouraging further melting.

Now, the question I’d like to ask (part of refuting these remarks) is this: Have they differentiated between a tipping point and a natural occurrence, that either requires no alarmist response or the earth is equally capable of correcting organically? I ask this because when climate alarmists make statements that are supposed to communicate an impending emergency, it is often relative to how they have manipulated the data and chosen to frame the message they wish to communicate. For instance, they can say “today is the hottest day ever recorded” – and that sounds somewhat serious to the unsuspecting mind. But, how consequential it is that today is the hottest day ever recorded changes the moment you ask “since when”. Because, for example, the hottest day recorded in the last 50 years, is not equal to or above the hottest day that was recorded in the days of Jesus on earth. And yet, ironically, the communication from climate alarmists is that we are progressively experiencing harsher climates due to increasing CO2 emissions, and not that the present state is even better than previous years, when there were lesser CO2 emissions.

And so, the tipping points sound well defined, until you realise that the definition is hinged on a relative consideration of irreversible harm. The earth was made by a very wise Creator who understood how to ensure harmonious co-existence of all elements and life. That is why the sun knows when to shine, and oceans have boundaries; or why there are habitable (and thus likely non-habilitable places of the earth) – so much so, that the earth is even able to self regulate and correct. For instance, after something as destructive as a volcano eruption, plants grow incredibly well after because volcanic ash creates incredibly fertile soil that is rich in essential nutrients like potassium, phosphorus, and calcium. God knew what He was doing; and change in the climate is an organic event and does not necessarily reflect an emergence or irreversible doom.

CLIMATE ALARMISTS ARE ALSO WRONG ABOUT ANTHROPOGENIC FACTORS 

But, let’s also zoom in on the claim of anthropogenic factors fueling climate change. So, climate alarmism is built upon the four part theory that: (1) Firstly, CO2 levels were in equilibrium (at around 280-300 ppm); (2) secondly the use of fossil fuels (and steel, cement & aluminium production) increases CO2 levels; (3) thirdly, increases in global CO2 concentrations increases average global temperature; and (4) finally, that an increase in average global temperatures is bad, and causes more bad weather.

Well, this theory has been destroyed by a paper which demonstrates that CO2 levels (using an analysis of 979 technical papers reporting from 1,901 air samples) have actually not been in equilibrium and in fact rose to 383 ppm in the early 1940’s  (thus corresponding with temperature increases at that time) and then fell.

CO2 levels have been measured at Mauna Loa in Hawaii since 1960 – but prior to that, CO2 measurements relied upon proxy data from Antarctic ice samples which have been found to be highly questionable given a great deal of selection bias that was uncovered.

In more detail, the late Dr Ernst-Georg Beck spent years compiling an exhaustive chemical database of the CO2 levels measured in air samples from across the globe. Analyzing 979 technical papers reporting from 1,901 air sample measurement stations, Beck’s CO2 measurement data was published in a scientific paper entitled “Reconstruction of Atmospheric CO2 Background Levels since 1826 from Direct Measurements near Ground” after his death in 2022.

The 60,000 global-scale chemical measurements compiled between 1930 and 1950 using data from 25 authors and locations assessed that between 1939 and 1943 global atmospheric CO2 rose to 383 ppm – the same concentration again achieved in 2007. After the early 1940s, the chemical measurements indicate CO2 plummeted  to 310 ppm by the late 1940s.

Well, these fluctuations are consistent with variations in sea surface temperatures and temperature-dependent soil respiration processes, thus suggesting that temperature is the driver, and CO2 variations are the effect. But, ultimately, this proves that the major driver of CO2 levels are natural temperature variations, and not human activity.

Furthermore, the analysis reveals that of the 90 ppm rise in CO2 since1958 (the Mauna Loa era), not more than 12 ppm could be said to have derived from fossil fuel emissions. And when the CO2 rose to 383 ppm in the early 1940s, the impact from anthropogenic emissions “can be largely excluded.” This means that climate  alarmism is once again exposed to be a scam. Simply, CO2 variations happen outside of anthropogenic factors, thus meaning that schemes to reduce fossil fuel use are also a vain and diabolical effort.

So, given that this theory on anthropogenic factors is so obviously wrong, why was it pushed? The answer is control. Former US government insider, Marc Morano, summarises how unelected globalists are using the “human-induced climate change” hoax as a pretext to deliberately collapse the food supply, so people will have no choice but to eat insects and lab-grown “meat”. And this is further evidenced by the fact that Climate grifter extraordinaire, John Kerry, announces the need for a war-like effort to collapse the global farming industry, under the pretext of tackling the “human-induced climate change” hoax.

THE REAL “INCONVENIENT TRUTH” IS THAT CLIMATE CHANGE ALARMISTS ARE ALWAYS WRONG

You’d recall that Al Gore presented a film titled “An Inconvenient Truth”, and it portrayed sea level rises as such that they’re going to be 20 feet in a few decades. Well, it appears that the real so-called inconvenient truth is that climate alarmists are often wrong; especially considering that this was nowhere in any science at all, even the most extreme, far-fetched projections.”

Written By Lindokuhle Mabaso