COP30 WAS BASED ON A MISCHARACTERISED UNDERSTANDING OF THE STATUS QUO

The pendulum has swung, and climate alarmism is on a notable decline; and to begin with, I’d like to address the fundamental and strategic flaw among the organisers of COP30 – which is that they mischaracterised the status quo, as it pertains to genuine environmental issues. Of course, this might be generous language on my part, because it very well could NOT be a mischaracterisation, and was instead the COP30 organisers doubling down on a deceptive narrative. However, it nevertheless is a gross mischaracterisation, and I say that understanding that it is also the irony of deception that those who are deceived often do not know that they are.

So, what is the mischaracterisation? Well, the UN climate chief Simon Stiell was in fine hysterical form at the start of the COP30 conference in Belém, telling delegates that squabbling would not be forgiven while famines take hold, forcing millions to flee their homelands. His exact words were (quote) “To falter whilst megadroughts wreck national harvests, sending food prices soaring, makes zero sense economically and politically.” Now, these words almost sound noble, except that they are contradicted and overshadowed by the fact that the COP30 organisers cut down 100,000 mature rainforest trees so that 50,000 other COP delegates can hear them. 

But, despite the sentiments from the UN climate chief Simon Stiell, herein lies the mischaracterisation of the status quo: over the last 30 years, higher crop yields (thanks to hydrocarbon-produced fertiliser and increases in global biomass caused by a slight increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere) … these higher crop yields have led to the almost complete elimination of natural famine. Which is why climate alarmist cannot adequately define a climate refugee (even through they continuously churn out the false rhetoric that billions are already on the move try to escape climate change disasters).

In reality, over the last 25 years, natural famine, that primarily caused by environmental factors such as droughts and heat, has become exceedingly rare. In fact, natural famine mortality has been falling dramatically over the last 100 years. The nuance (which climate alarmists conveniently skip over is that almost all famines (at least since the last 100 years) are caused by local conflicts or senseless outbreaks of political ideology. For example, Chairman Mao Zedong’s ‘Great Leap Forward’ in the late 1950s destroyed traditional farming in China and led to tens of millions of deaths through starvation. And ironically, if the hard-Left Net Zero advocates would implement their plans and abolish hydrocarbon-produced fertiliser across the globe, even higher numbers of people, stretching into billions, will starve.

But it was not just Simon Stiell who had ideas divorced from reality. In addition, former Amnesty International Secretary General Kumi Naidoo was also at COP30 and offered the opinion that (quote) “we’ll warm up the planet to the point where we destroy our soil and water, and it becomes so hot we can’t plant food.” Now, either that is a very hardline alarmist and pessimistic opinion on the state of the climate, or it is flat out wrong – neither of which are not concerning. And I say this because (as far as what science evidences) you cannot destroy H20 (or water). Water molecules are made of atoms. Chemical and nuclear reactions rearrange these atoms, but the atoms themselves are never created or destroyed. Additionally, while the water is “broken apart,” the hydrogen and oxygen atoms are still present. And so, in other words, water cannot be easily “destroyed” by heat in the typical sense, as it is a very stable molecule that is actually a product of combustion (which is a burning). And while this is said as a refutation of the claim from former Amnesty International Secretary General Kumi Naidoo, it is impossible to miss that it also testifies of how utterly incredible God’s detail to creation is. So, no: there is not a reality where weather heat can destroy water; and even those who separate water molecules will tell you that it requires excessive amounts of heat that exceed (I believe) 3000 degrees celsius. And so, the very primary concerns that were expressed at COP 30 were gross mischaracterisation of reality or the status quo. Frankly, it is amazing what you discover when you question and poke holes into the alarmist sentiments that are promulgated. But, as you can imagine, those were not the only concerns from COP30.

COP30 CLIMATE ALARMISM IGNORES CENTURIES OF ADAPTATION TO CHANGES IN CLIMATE

Additionally, it is worth noting that mischaracterisations fueling the climate alarmism at COP30 ignores how people have always adapted to changes in the climate or environment. This is to say, that firstly, there have been no statistically worsening trends of climate impacts. But, in addition, there have been many improvements in humans adapting to whatever nature has thrown against them. We have ways of keeping water cumulatively for dry seasons, non-GMO means of ensuring a higher crop yield, and seed cleaning strategies that lead to more reliable and uniform growth; among many others.

Meanwhile, evidence continues to accumulate showing the Earth is increasing biomass at a considerable rate as higher levels of CO2, partly helped by humans using hydrocarbons, rescue the atmosphere from the near-denuded levels of the immediate past. Additionally, more CO2 in the atmosphere has boosted plant growth almost everywhere, leading to notable de-desertification in marginal living areas in places such as sub-Saharan Africa. Another advantage is that plants growing with more CO2 need less water and can survive in areas where local droughts occur. More biomass also leads to a healthier planet with massive benefits cascading through the ecosystem. All of this is ignored by the COP30 attendees. But, as they travelled down their local ‘highway of irony, built for their comfort by chopping down 100,000 rainforest trees, they should at least have been comforted by the news that the remaining mature Amazon trees are gorging on CO2 gas, and will thus continue to flourish for that reason. But, here is more on the role and importance of CO2.

THE LACK OF CONSENSUS ABOUT ABOLISHING FOSSIL FUELS AT COP30

This then brings us to a notable outcome from COP30 – particularly in how the conference ended. In essence, a last-minute agreement at the conclusion of COP30 was struck which ended up satisfying nobody, following threatened walkouts and tantrums.

And how it started is that a minority of countries, led by the UK and the EU, wanted the agreement at the conclusion of COP30 to include a legally binding roadmap on how and when the world would transition away from fossil fuels – which is concerningly something that leaders of nations had committed to (in principle) at COP28. Such a roadmap would essentially put meat on the bones of what had been no more than a vague promise to do something at some stage in the future.

However, a majority of countries opposed the UK’s plan, which had been strenuously argued by Ed Miliband. Although fingers were pointed at the Arab oil states, it was China and India, supported by many Asian and African nations, whose economies depend on fossil fuels and who need them to improve the lot of their people, that challenged the idea (which is quite incredibly, seeing as climate policies are often dictated to African and Asian countries).

In contrast, the UK and EU, along with a small handful of Latin American countries and Pacific Islands, even sent a letter to the COP President threatening to block any agreement that did not include a firm commitment to phase out fossil fuels. But it was all to no avail, as the COP Presidency simply ignored their demands and offered them a ‘take it or leave it’ choice instead. To which the UK and EU had to back down. Consequently, the final deal made at COP30 made NO MENTION of a roadmap and even failed to include stronger language about phasing out fossil fuels. The only mention was a passing “acknowledgement” of the transition already agreed at COP28. Indeed, the pendulum has swung, and climate alarmism is at a decline.

And in addition, I believe one of the key takeaways of COP30, especially in light of the failure to create consensus on abolishing fossil fuels, is that there has been the eclipse of Europe as a force in world politics. No longer does the rest of the world put a premium on the declarations of European climate alarmists. Because, after all, why should any developing nation be denied cheap, abundant fossil fuel energy because of the declarations of European nations? In truth, COP30 was the conference when pious platitudes met reality. And reality won. As such, while some Western countries are still determined to pursue Net Zero regardless of the cost and damage entailed, the rest of the world long ago worked out that fossil fuels are an essential, not a luxury.

THE WAR ON FOSSIL FUELS

While they ultimately failed, the attempt at pushing for a legally binding commitment to phase out foil fuels represents a war on fossil fuels, which is quite important to be aware of and push against. And to detail this further, we ought first to quickly establish why fossil fuels are not a problem. So, you no doubt have heard of the term “fossil fuels” before. When the average person hears “fossil fuels,” they think of a dirty technology that belongs in the 1800s. Many believe they are burning dead dinosaurs to power their cars. They also think that “fossil fuels” will destroy the planet within a decade and run out soon—despite the fact that, after water, oil is the second most abundant liquid on this planet. In any case, none of these notions are true, but many people believe them; and – no doubt – the use of propaganda terms plays a large role.

In fact, George Orwell was correct when he said that corrupting the language can corrupt people’s thoughts. Additionally, it is crucial to note that the problematisation of fossil fuel has an extensive history – as there has been a prolonged war on the fossil fuel industry. For instance, kindly have a listen to this promotional video from Greenpeace on what they say are the dangers of fossil fuel advertising; and subsequently a discussion with Bill McKibben, on what he called the Radicalness of the Fossil Fuel Industry.

UNDERSTANDING HYDROCARBONS IS ESSENTIAL FOR APPRECIATING FOSSIL FUELS

Now, considering the presence of such propaganda against fossil fuels, I would kindly suggest understanding “fossil fuels” as being somewhat synonymous to hydrocarbons, which is a much better and more precise word.

In essence, a hydrocarbon is a molecule made up of carbon and hydrogen atoms. These molecules are the building blocks of many different substances, including energy sources like coal, oil, and gas. These energy sources have been the backbone of the global economy for decades, providing power for industries, transportation, and homes. Therefore, they are not an inherent evil; they are a necessary and functional resource. In fact, oil and gas account for two-thirds of all energy consumed on earth. Add in coal, and the total soars to well over 90%.

Even as oil and gas are consumed, reserve estimates are not decreasing, but increasing, thanks to significant advances in drilling and production technology, especially deepwater drilling, multistage hydraulic fracturing, and horizontal drilling. Consumers’ natural gas prices are down significantly, as a result. Similarly, production from US shale oil has saved consumers as much as $248 billion on gasoline and other refined projects. And it’s a good thing, because global hydrocarbon consumption is expected to grow significantly in the coming decades, particularly in the developing world. And so, this is why we ought to be cautious of messaging that tries to vilify what is clearly a reliable energy source. However, the war on fossil fuels is also driven by diabolical approaches that have a Malthusian view on human life, as the President of Loveworld Incorporated warned a long time ago. 

IT IS AN IRREFUTABLE FACT THAT HYDROCARBONS ARE RELIABLE ENERGY SOURCES

Now, it is also important to note that hydrocarbon fuels still make up about 86% of the world’s energy supply, which is roughly the same as it was in 1997. 22 Years later, and these fuels are still the primary source of energy, despite the growing use and development of renewables. When we ask why this is so, we discover that it is because these fuels are good at what they do! Most industries still rely on these fuels to provide power, heat and energy because they are efficient, effective, and readily available.

For instance, a major user of hydrocarbon fuels is the transportation industry. This includes everything from the taxis, e-hailing rides, buses, ferries that transport people over short distances of water, and even private vehicles. And while advances are being made in this sector to introduce modes of transport that rely less of hydrocarbons – with for example, the Ugandan-based company Kiira Motors introducing a solar-powered electric bus, the first of its kind in East Africa, …while these inventions are making great strides, they are far from being a model for what transportation ought to look like, because of challenges like high costs, limited availability, and issues with charging the vehicles which make them less reliable options for many.

Similarly, the mining industry doesn’t just obtain the hydrocarbon fuels we use every day – it uses them itself! Mining operations require enormous amounts of power, relying on energy from the grid, where possible, and generators in order to get the job done. Diesel and HFO are often the fuels of choice here, due to their lower costs and the added benefit of lower machine maintenance costs, and for the fact that these fuels are readily available.

Additionally, marine transport (or shipping) remains the best and most efficient way to transport goods around the world – 90% of Africa’s imports and exports happen via sea! But those enormous, mobile, island-size vehicles need the power to do it, and hydrocarbon fuels are its primary source of fuel and energy. These tremendous machines use a variety of fuels, including diesel, bunker fuel (HFO) and liquified natural gas (LNG). Renewable energy has infiltrated the shipping industry as well, offering the use of solar energy. At this point in time, solar energy can’t do much more than power basic electrical facilities on ships, leaving hydrocarbon fuels to do the heavy lifting.

And (of course), as we know, hydrocarbons are essential for the availability of electricity. With electricity, almost all things were made possible with ease: we have heated water, we can store our food safely in refrigerators, we can control the immediate climate in our environments through air conditioning, we can work on our computers, laptops, and phones, and we have something to power machinery, doing the jobs humans can’t. And all of this was initially made possible with hydrocarbon fuels! To provide us with the power we have at arms’ reach every day, hydrocarbon fuels and materials like coal are burned in power stations, transforming that heat and stored energy into kinetic energy, which turns huge turbines and generates electricity. Hydrocarbon fuels are even used to make renewable energy sources like solar panels – silica rock must be melted to create the silicon needed for solar panels, which can only be done with coal-fired or HFO-fired power plants!

Written By Lindokuhle Mabaso

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

 “The Manufacture of Evidence Towards the Climate Change Hoax”, and we ought to begin with some context, in particular the events reported in the months of May and June. First, Mount Lewotobi Laki-laki in Indonesia has been erupting as of June 17th. The first eruption was HUGE and sent ash 10,000 plus meters into the air! In addition, Hawaii’s Kilauea volcano shot lava 1,000 feet in the air in its latest eruption on May 25th. Mount Etna also erupted on June 2nd, unleashing lava fountains and a rare pyroclastic flow near Catania, in Sicily. But, even as early as February this year, there have been reports that three volcanoes in the US are going to erupt this year, namely: Kilauea (in Hawaii), Great Sitkin (in Alaska), and Mount Spurr (also in Alaska) were all showing signs of “heightened unrest” – and one of them, being Kilauea has already erupted. Here is the footage from the eruption we’ve referenced today.

WHAT CLIMATE CHANGE ALARMISTS CLAIM ABOUT VOLCANO ERUPTIONS

As you can expect, climate alarmists are attributing the successive eruptions to the vaguely defined climate change factor. But, let’s first consider what causes volcanoes to erupt. In essence, volcano eruptions are primarily caused by the movement and melting of rocks beneath the Earth’s surface, leading to the accumulation and release of magma and gases. This process is often linked to plate tectonics, where the movement of these plates creates pathways for magma to rise and erupt. The composition of the magma and the presence of trapped gases also play a crucial role in determining the explosivity of an eruption.

In more detail, when we speak of Magma Formation and Movement, it is worth noting that deep within the Earth, extreme heat causes rocks to melt, forming magma. Magma, being less dense than the surrounding solid rock, rises towards the surface. It then accumulates in magma chambers, reservoirs beneath the volcano. And gases dissolved in the magma also contribute to its buoyancy and upward movement. Then, regarding Plate Tectonics and Volcanoes, in essence, the earth’s crust is composed of these tectonic plates that constantly move and interact. Most volcanoes are located at or near plate boundaries, where these plates converge, diverge, or slide past each other. At what are called subduction zones, one plate slides beneath another, then the descending plate melts, generating magma that rises to the surface. At mid-ocean ridges, plates diverge, allowing magma to rise and create new crust. Some volcanoes, like those in Hawaii, are formed over hotspots, where plumes of hot mantle material rise from deep within the Earth. And so, generally, this is what is promulgated as the essence of volcano eruptions.

Well, climate alarmists are promulgating their message as well, as far as volcano eruptions are concerned. They state that climate change is altering geological systems, including volcanic eruptions. Melting glaciers, for example, they say can cause magma to rise to the surface, while rising sea levels can reduce magma production at depth. Over time, certain volcanic regions are said to expect an increase in eruptions and secondary hazards.

Well, let’s directly respond to this. Now, on the one hand, the nuance that is being downplayed by climate alarmists is that volcano eruptions are not a new phenomenon, and because of the magnitude or nature of certain eruptions, those volcanic eruptions have actually contributed organic changes to weather conditions. And the reason that this is often downplayed is because it undermines the whole anthropogenic factors of climate change, through which climate alarmists place blame for (often organic) changes in weather on human activity. For instance, the 2022 Hunga Tonga underwater volcano eruption injected unprecedented water vapor into the atmosphere — which many said actually fueled the levels of extreme heat that were experienced in 2023. While researchers highlight this impact, the dominant narrative from climate alarmists continues to downplay natural variables from such eruptions in favor of anthropogenic explanations!

HOW CLIMATE ALARMISTS DEFINE CLIMATE CHANGE MEANS ANYTHING CAN BE EVIDENCE OF IT

The second response to the claim from climate alarmists on climate change causing more volcano eruptions is that it is difficult for them to make a clear argument on this because what is defined as climate change is always relative to the devastation they attribute to it. This is to say, they will claim climate change causes hot weather that results in more forest fires, while simultaneously arguing parts of Europe are experiencing the coldest winter there has ever been because of climate change. And so, this gets a bit ridiculous because it sounds like the definition and evidence of climate change is based on circular reasoning; while any weather event with a destructive capacity can conveniently fit the vague and almost all-encompassing definition of climate change. And this is not a new tactic. It is a means of concealing the fact that there is no objective scientific evidence that proves most if not all of their claims, and therefore, they have shifted their focus to manipulating more dramatic events in nature for their cause – because they make for better optics, and the events can spread fear without climate alarmists ever having to make a concrete argument on whether there is evidence for climate change.

And the fact is, there really isn;t scientifically sound evidence for climate change. What has been taking place for years, is that climate alarmists have quite literally manufactured evidence towards their claims. For example, Dr Moore, exposes how climate alarmists actually make up the evidence used to justify their claims. He says that the so-called climate alarmists “build a computer model that gives them the answer they want, and then tell you that they’ve got evidence that this is going to happen in the future.”

CLIMATE ALARMISTS ALSO HAVE A TENDENCY TO MANUFACTURE CLIMATE CHANGE CONSENSUS

But, it’s not just evidence that is manufactured. It is also the claim of consensus. You’ve probably heard the claim that “97% of climate scientists agree with climate change”, or as Norah O’Donnell put it, the scientists agree that the earth is warming up at unprecedented levels. But, here are two questions to ask anyone who pulls the 97% trick. (1) What exactly do the climate scientists agree on? And usually, the person will have a very vague answer like “climate change is real” or “the earth is warming up”- which, by the way, is a response that lacks credibility and substance.

The second question to ask is (2) How do we know the 97% agree? In fact, how was that even proven? What you’ll discover is that almost NO ONE who refers to the 97% claim 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, the popular one which was a paper authored by a John Cook, who runs the popular website SkepticalScience.com, which is a virtual encyclopedia of arguments trying to defend predictions of catastrophic climate change from all challenges. In the paper, Cook was able to demonstrate only that a relative handful 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). And what this really means is that there is no quantifiable 97% consensus among climate scientists.

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.”