The earth’s climate is and has always been changing. Just about everybody agrees on that. But for the last decades and especially more recently there has been fervent disagreement when it comes to the question whether the climate changes of the last decades have been caused by humanity, more precisely, whether our massive CO2 emissions have caused a warming of the planet, and whether this could have consequences for the environment, which could also affect humans.
The mainstream view seems to be that humans have indeed caused the Earth’s climate to change, and that urgent action to prevent the potential effects is required. But there are also people who have a more or less opposite view.
So whom should we believe?
In the left corner are the activists, as I call them here, who more or less attribute climate change to mankind, and who urge us to take immediate action, more precisely they say we need to stop using so-called fossil fuels as soon as possible, so that the climate can stabilise and the predicted catastrophic effects of climate change can be avoided.
In the right corner are the sceptics, as I call them here. They are also often referred to as deniers, and they say that humanity has little or no influence on the Earth’s climate.
I deliberately described both camps in this way, because the vast majority of activists appear to be politically leaning towards the left and/or green side of politics, whilst the sceptics tend to be politically leaning to the conservative/right.
But the question should first of foremost be one of science, right? Only when sufficient scientific proof is on the table can or should political decisions be taken based on such proof. Generally this happens later rather than sooner, because there are always economic interests which are in conflict with science, and economic interests are always tied up with politics.
This was the case in the question about the ozone hole, this was the case when it came to the use of asbestos, and it was also the case in the question whether smoking is harmful. These three examples are relatively easy to grasp, cause and effect could be proved, and eventually something was done about it.
But when it comes to climate change, everything is very much more complicated. I will return to this later.
Firstly, I am happy to acknowledge that I am politically on the left, at least according to the definition of one of the great thinkers of our time, German professor Rainer Mausfeld. I am most definitely for social justice, for a just distribution of resources, for the protection of the environment, and therefore against the status quo which is dominated by this all-encompassing and in every sense of the word destructive neoliberal capitalist world order. So then, to the extent that it is useful to distinguish politically between left and right, I am clearly in the left camp.
And until a few months ago I too was totally convinced that humanity is hurtling towards a man-made climate catastrophe, and that everything needs to be done to counter it, even though I thought that this would probably not happen as fast as generally suggested, and although the recent phenomenon called Greta Thunberg was a thorn in my eye from the very beginning.
Yes, so I too believed in CO2-induced anthropogenic climate change.
For quite some time now we have been told that soon it will be too late if we do not act soon.
A few months ago I was involved in a short but intense conversation about the topic of climate change. One of the participants said simply that this is all rubbish, without stating his reasons. I took a deep breath and attempted to impart on him my reasons for believing the opposite. But after this conversation I began to question myself, not least because I was not able to present the arguments of the climate activists very coherently.
And I remembered the good advice of Swiss historian and peace activist Daniele Ganser. He recommends that we should inform ourselves thoroughly through a variety of sources before forming an opinion on any topic, instead of informing ourselves one-sidedly through limited channels of information, and simply taking on a viewpoint. This makes sense to me because otherwise we can easily become the victim of confirmation bias, so-called group think, not to speak of the problem of cognitive dissonance.
Normally I question many things critically, including myself. But concerning the issue of climate change, I now realised with some dismay, I had been informing myself rather one-sidedly. Since most of the media, including the alternative internet-based media which I increasingly use, are almost exclusively on the side of the activist, this comes hardly as a surprise.
But until now, had I even tried to listen to other opinions on climate change? Honestly no, not really.
And so I began to consult different sources from both camps, more or less alternating between the two camps. There are certainly sources on the internet where one can find the arguments of the so-called sceptics.
Very soon I realised that the science and climate change is anything but settled, and that there is a big element of manipulation at play, and soon enough the arguments of the sceptics convinced me much more, whilst on the other hand the arguments of the activists appeared ever less convincing. I also realised how extremely dogmatic and undifferentiated especially (but not only) the activists argued.
Yes, I have changed my opinion radically. And I am now myself surprised that so many well-educated and wise people, whose opinion I normally share, and who are very critical of the social and political status quo, that so many of these people are so uncritically taking the side of the activists. Amongst them are people like Noam Chomsky, Yannis Varoufakis, Mark Blyth, Chris Hedges, Naomi Klein, Richard Wolff, Richard David Precht, and also alternative news channels such as Democracy Now and The Young Turks, just to name a few. But this has long been anything but a rational debate, and so it is not a matter of intelligence or education. We are all humans with the same psychological weaknesses which can be easily exploited. More about this later.
I don’t want to be misunderstood. I am still very clearly for the protection of the environment. A large number of industrial processes are extremely damaging to the environment, and ultimately also damaging to humans. But maybe this is exactly the reason why some big polluting companies are increasingly subscribing to the campaign of the climate change activists, as this impending catastrophe, some say it is already here, so conveniently distracts from the actual atrocities those companies commit. Even companies which are making a lot of money by digging out and selling coal, oil, gas, and other materials, are increasingly becoming climate-friendly and brag about becoming CO2 neutral by such and such a year. What is this incredible rubbish? Something is not right.
What about the media, which I already mentioned above? They are a lost cause. They are united in supporting the activists, because quite clearly it is much easier to make headlines about catastrophes, which in turn is financially more attractive. This is not surprising when it comes to state media and the large private media houses. But it is concerning that most of the so-called alternative media are also completely uncritical regarding the topic of climate change.
It may well be that every single journalist simply believes in climate change, as I don’t want to accuse anybody of being malicious, but isn’t it the role of the so-called fourth estate to investigate every angle, and to report as neutrally as possible? This is not happening, on the contrary, the media are actively suppressing a real debate. And it is not the first time that the fourth estate fails. There is just one example I’d like to mention here: 9/11, where a lot has been and is still being swept under the carpet.
So what is going on here?
I have also realised that many legitimate environmental issues have been neglected since the media have been focusing almost exclusively on the topic of climate change.
And what about governments, why do most governments play along, even if only half-heartedly?
Consider this:
-How do you control people and mobilise them for your own purposes?
-Through propaganda.
-What is the best and most frequently used propaganda tool?
-Fear.
-What do you need to create fear?
-An (if possible defenceless) enemy.
Now this is probably presented very simplistically, but in the same way foreigners have been scape-goated into becoming enemies, in order to detract from the actual problems of US imperialism and capitalism in general (including the very lucrative weapons industry), CO2 has long ago been chosen as a kind of enemy. The numbers are relatively easy to work out, they are incredibly big, there has undoubtedly been a measurable increase of CO2 in the atmosphere, so this molecule is a kind of perfect enemy even though it is a harmless and even invisible gas.
And, after all, most governments have realised that a lot of money is to be made with renewable energy sources.
It is quite amazing how easy it is for governments and companies to sympathise at least outwardly with the activists. Even student protests are accepted, or even supported.
Strange though, after only a short period of consideration the Occupy Wall Street movement was brutally demolished. I have a feeling that if citizens and students were to protest for social justice and against the neoliberal world order, they would most probably be facing tanks within a short period of time. But protest against the phantom climate change, that’s okay, just let them vent a little, then at least they are distracted from the real problems. Something along those lines seems to be the train of thought.
And now a few further and more concrete arguments which have moved me to change my opinion on the issue of climate change. In this short essay I can’t possibly do justice to these arguments. Therefore I don’t refer to any specific sources. I can only recommend you do what I did and inform yourself thoroughly using a broad range of sources from both camps.
One thing I find irritating about the climate debate is that it hasn’t been an actual debate for a long time. The scientists on the side of the activists present their results, reports and predictions as unquestionable, indisputable facts, and sometimes even refuse to present their raw data for verification. They are thereby killing any discussion. This is in itself very unscientific, questionable, and therefore highly suspect.
In addition, activists rely on an allegedly undeniable consensus amongst themselves. They say that most scientists agree that CO2 emissions are responsible for climate change. Consider the basis for this argument in more detail. Each of the studies contains great flaws. And quite apart from that, science by consensus is not a good idea – if it were so, we would still believe the earth is flat. When studies can no longer be questioned and tested, that will be the end of science itself. That is religion.
I have also noticed that most of the sceptics are retired scientists. Why is it so? They themselves say that there is no doubt that scientists who are against the so-called consensus do not enjoy career advantages. Scientists also need money to live. And grants and promotions only occur when one complies. A more recent example would be Peter Ridd, who was sacked by James Cook University, because he contradicted the widely held belief that the existence of the Great Barrier Reef is threatened.
The very presumption by scientists that they can stop climate change through some means is a hopeless, presumptuous, and utterly absurd undertaking. The Earth’s climate is a highly complex, unpredictable, chaotic, multifactorial system which is constantly in flux. It is clear that the CO2 content in the atmosphere has measurably increased. But I am now convinced that the CO2 increase has not been caused by an increase in temperature, but that, if anything, it is exactly the opposite way round – a general increase in temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere leads to naturally more CO2 in the atmosphere, and a decrease in temperature decreases CO2 in the atmosphere, a process that takes many years.
The proportion of man-made CO2 in the atmosphere is very small. Apart from a clear greening of the Earth the increase in CO2 in recent history has not had any consequences, and there are no further consequences to be expected either. Warmer and colder periods have always occurred. This will continue, and this is nothing unusual. We are possibly at the end of an ice age, and we should be glad of it. And should the sea level actually rise, then humans will simply have to adapt over decades and centuries, which is also nothing new.
Climate models are extremely problematic, if one considers how multifactorial the Earth’s climate is, and how many of these factors are not even remotely understood (for example the role of clouds), that for vast sways of the Earth’s surface there are no measuring stations, let alone in the atmosphere itself. A model is nothing more than that, a model, it is in no way proof for anything, and it certainly is not a good basis for the predictions which are presented as undisputed facts. Also, so far every single prediction of every single model has been way wrong.
The sea level at certain places in the world is not only dependent on the expansion of the oceans, but it also depends on ground movements and tectonics, which is something activists never even mention.
It has become clear to me that glaciers grow and shrink naturally. For example, in the 1940s alpine glaciers were also smaller than they were later at their more recent peak in the 1970s. So what we are observing today is certainly nothing unusual. There are also long periods of history where there was no ice at all on the planet.
Regarding so-called extreme weather events there is no trend whatsoever to be observed, even though the opposite is being spruiked, and when nowadays practically every major natural disaster is attributed to climate change. As an aside, recently I saw newspaper reports about a very long period of drought in Australia in the 1830s and early 40s. I know, this is only an example, so how about another one? In the 1930s the USA was also affected by an extremely long period of drought.
And the influence of the sun? It is never even considered by activists.
At this point I would also like to mention the famous hockey stick graphic by the activist Michael Mann, which has duped a large number of people with ease, although it has been debunked many times over. If something so complex as the Earth’s climate can, with the aid of a few data manipulations, be reduced to an easily recognisable symbol, then surely everybody must understand that. But seriously, if the scientist refuses to provide the raw data for the purpose of testing and challenging his findings, that itself suggests something is amiss.
The IPCC would be a chapter in itself. I have read bits of the first and the fifth report. Even in the fifth report there is still a lot of uncertainty expressed, which doesn’t exactly indicate to me that scientists are of the same opinion at all. But of course in the summary and in the media everything is been presented in a more simplistic, clear-cut, and very skewed way.
About holy Greta Thornburg I would only like to mention the name Nayirah al-Ṣabaḥ, who in 1990 was used as a propaganda tool to ensure public support for the Gulf War.
Also very suspect are the images that are used to put fear into people. A search for the term “climate change” or similar will conjure up a large range of sometimes grotesquely manipulated images. Just a small remark here: polar bears are excellent swimmers, and since the hunting has been prohibited they are doing quite well.
And then there is also Climate Gate…
I’m quite aware that politically and economically I am not on the side of most sceptics. That bothers me too, and I find it regrettable, if not surprising, that many of those leaning to the right try to use the climate debate to further their political agenda.
But for me the most important thing is the seemingly long lost scientific question whether a slight average increase in the average temperature of the Earth (to the extent that this is even real or meaningful) can be brought home to human CO2 emissions, and in that respect the arguments of the sceptics are more convincing, whilst the activists, also through their dogmatic approach and especially for the number and kinds of inconsistencies are completely unconvincing.
I am worried also about the propaganda that we are facing. I am wondering why the arguments of the sceptics are being suppressed, so much so that they don’t even appear in the mass media any more. Possibly for the same reason why not that long ago a new report on the collapse of WTC7 on 11 September 2001 was completely swept under the carpet, similar to other news on that same subject the year before.
So, what forces are at play here?
It is crazy: those people who are spreading propaganda don’t even need to counter arguments, but they can simply ignore them, or simply repeat their arguments ad nauseam until practically everybody believes it. Well, it is obviously that simple to hoodwink a large part of the population. It is clear that untruths and misinformation only need to be repeated often enough until they are finally accepted as truth – and that has happened in history a few times already, hasn’t it?
Let’s make a little thought experiment. Let’s assume that one day a team of scientists comes up with a completely new theory. They can prove that the models which they have created are absolutely in accordance with historical data, the models are also proven correct going forward. All the material and data is freely accessible, and a few other scientists have also been able to confirm the results and conclusions. This makes it clear that the arguments of the activists are completely false. What would be the chances that those scientists would even be heard in today’s climate catastrophe cacophony? They would be decried as heretics, belittled, they would lose their jobs, they would be silenced, their careers would be over.
It is also highly unlikely that in the next years or decades anything will change, considering that by now a whole generation of young people have been brainwashed to be climate activists.
Sooner or later it will become clear that the climate hysterics was just that, and I will be curious to see how this little faux pas will then be explained. When in the 1970s and early 1980s there was talk about forests dying, and us being on the bring of a new ice age, the whole thing fizzled out eventually. But that was before the time of the internet. It will probably be a lot more difficult to make the current climate hysterics simply disappear when it does become obvious that mistakes have been made. The political left/green will in any case be completely discredited, and the only winners will be the neoliberal elite, which will then have nothing to fear from that side of politics for quite some time.
My conclusion: it is obvious that the climate is constantly changing, but nobody can even come remotely close to describe all the influences on the Earth’s climate system, let alone make predictions for the future.
Environmental protection? Yes, of course. I will continue to be a pedestrian, a cyclist, I will continue to use public transport, avoid using a car. I will continue to use as little resources and energy as possible, and I will continue to reduce my use of plastic.
But I’ve definitely jumped off the climate change bandwagon.
