A Question I Was Asked:



The UTTER ABSURDITY OF "CLIMATE CHANGE" HYSTERIA;

Can You Clarify?







LEGAL NOTICE:During this ongoing series, nobody's privacy is invaded. We are granted permission to use the question in a completely anonymous fashion. We retain no email address and these emails are then destroyed. In every one of these cases, these people freely chose to email a question to us on the understanding that we might use it (anonymously) in this series.



I was recently asked: "Surely the current 'climate change' stuff is nonsense;

is it not time for some sanity rather than the silly emotionalism which is spreading like a plague? Can you please clarify according to what we actually know about warming, if indeed there is any global warming?"


UK Apologetics Reply:

It is not only nonsense, but a new leader (the very youthful and painfully misinformed Greta Thunberg) is actually even encouraging children to panic and many seem to be encouraging her to continue this foolish approach.

Arthur Sowell, the distinguished philosopher, economist and social and political commentator called it right. He stated this:
"'Global warming' is just the latest in a long line of hysterical crusades to which we seem to be increasingly susceptible."
(National Review, March 15, 2007).

Now, one might well ask, how am I - as a Christian theologian - even qualified to discuss this? Well I studied meteorology and climate - purely as a hobby - for around 25 years and even kept temperature records for my area of Cardiff from 1957 to around 1967 (sadly, lost in a later house move). I also kept up to date with new material on the subject for much of this time. Of course this does not make me any sort of "leading climate expert," neither would I even dare to claim it, but hearing some of the unmitigated trash which is presently being peddled on this topic I do have a right to an opinion.

Okay , so we are being told that our Earth's climate is getting hotter and hotter and that to put a stop to it we need to "act very soon." Indeed, we are now getting so used to these dire warnings that it is having the opposite effect to its apparent intended effect, that is, it is just becoming one big yawn. The quite amazing thing is that just a little research shows that it is often the same voices and "authorities" who were warning us that another ice age was coming around 30-40 years ago!

'Climate change' is now the preferred term for the current hysteria since it keeps one's options open, however all the current protagonists so loved by the BBC and by most of the alarmist leftist thinkers here in the UK believe that the world is suddenly getting much hotter. One might think that this is so heavily backed up by all the data and figures which are available that it is just foolish to deny it, indeed, "climate change denier" has now become a widespread term of abuse. But what is the truth? Can we know? Yes, we can. The truth is it is utterly ludicrous to claim that "the last decade is the hottest ever experienced," (as has been widely claimed, at least here is the UK). Even to state that the last ten years are the hottest on record (slightly different), is extremely dubious and requires one to disregard several very warm years; but why should we? Okay, now let's go a little deeper.


A Recent Typical Barmy 'Climate Change' Report

The alarmist 'report' below appeared in certain UK papers on 8th February, 2020. Frankly, it is quite stupid and somewhat contradictory:

Headline: "Earth's oceans are speeding up: Global warming over the last 20 years has caused strong winds and 'a really huge increase' in the energy of the currents."

Here is some of the article content:

The Earth's oceans are speeding up as global warming has caused strong winds and a 'really huge increase' in the energy of the currents, a study has found.
An international research team found that wind speeds have risen by 4 per cent in the last two decades, churning the ocean faster to depths of up to 1.86 miles.
Current speeds surged on average after the 1990s, they report, with 76 percent of the upper 1.86 miles now moving faster than they were before this threshold.
The team said that there has been a 15 per cent per decade increase in current energies in the period from 1990-2013 — equivalent to a 5 per cent rise in speed.
This, the researchers said, is more than can be explained by the ocean's so-called 'natural variability'.
The findings contradict previous studies that suggested that climate change would instead serve to weaken ocean circulation and in the tropics in particular. The researchers found that — while there were small variations before — the total kinetic energy of the oceans increased drastically at the start of the 1990s.
To verify these findings, the team next turned to measurements of ocean currents made by the Global Marine Argo Atlas between 2005 and 2010.
This was an international project using thousands of so-called floats — sensor-laden scientific platforms — which were set adrift to gather date about the ocean.
While the floats don't measure water velocity directly, they can indicate where winds have piled up water, creating the pressure differences that drive larger flows. [End of article quote].

This entire 'report' is ludicrous and is especially daft since it freely admits to only covering a period of around twenty years, taking nothing beyond that period into account. It triumphantly proclaims what happened in that incredibly short period, but nothing can possibly be established from such short data. It then - apparently unaware of its own foolishness - appeals to the 'Global Marine Argo Atlas' of 2005-2010 in which thousands of so-called floats — sensor-laden scientific platforms — were set adrift to gather data about the ocean. We don't know how many "thousands" were set adrift or in which oceans. We also don't know if this figure is exaggerated, or how many of these later sunk or were destroyed in storms but we do - hopefully - all know that it is undeniable that about 71 percent of the Earth's surface is water-covered, and that the oceans hold about 96.5 percent of all Earth's water. You could not establish anything at all even if this experiment was carried out on just one of the Great Lakes of Canada/USA, but here the claim is that such an infinitesimally small experiment told the team what all the great oceans of the world were doing at that moment! This is ridiculous and unconvincing beyond belief yet is heralded in a leading British newspaper which was (apparently) looking for a sensationalist 'climate' article.

Here the 'researcher's effect' surely quickly came into effect ('researchers tend to "find" what they are looking for). But what would have been found in say, 1743 or 1845 or maybe a thousand years before that? No figures exist for such periods obviously. Yet here it is seriously being suggested that a twenty year period tells us great things about so-called 'climate change.' Rubbish - stop insulting the intelligence of the public! The truth is that all "research" now coming out of the 'climate change' brigade should never be taken uncritically; a huge bias is immediately obvious.

But one thing we can always immediately assert is that no serious long-term data is available to support these arguments: that is a fact of life beyond any dispute.

Such claims and reports are therefore fake news of the highest order.


Do the Records Really Support or Back Up 'Rapid Warming 'of the Earth, or Rapid Changing of the Earth's Climate?

Here the public is being blatantly conned - no such data is even available!

If this world is really 'millions of years old,' as modern science teaches, or even if it is merely 6-10 thousand years old (as many Christians believe), it has to be ludicrous to assert that "the last decade was the hottest of all time," (as has recently been claimed), where is the data to support such an incredible claim? It does not exist! All we have is patchy data going back to around 1925, some other less reliable data going back to 1910, even a few bits and pieces going back to 1841, but absolutely nothing to build any sort of case upon. Beyond those dates we have nothing - I repeat: nothing. So the next time you hear somebody state, "the data proves that this world is getting dangerously hot," call them out, ask them where they get their meteorological data from! I can confidently state this because I know that there is no such data available. Even if truly comprehensive meteorological data covering say, the last 400 years, were available - which it very certainly is not - that would prove nothing at all in a 6,000 year or several milion years scenario! Climate extremists seem to assume that none of us can work out the maths- they are insulting our intelligence.

Okay, so there is insufficient data to make any such claim. The alarmists however are showing a great willingness to duck or avoid inconvenient periods (including the claimed heat of the late 1920s here in the UK). Such years and periods are dropped from serious consideration because we are told that the data is 'too scarce and too unreliable,' not entirely wrong, so forget about the 1920s. Forget about the western European heat of 1947, (funnily enough, no longer discussed). Here in the UK 1959 was also an incredibly good year for weather (still the best, sunniest and driest September ever recorded in England and Wales, for example), weather records were good and reliable by then yet I have noticed that the alarmists never take such years and periods into account. They also sometimes speak of a "99 percent consensus among climate experts" - ignore it, the so-called "consensus" only exists among "experts" already committed to the catastrophe theory (carefully read the quote about this to come up later in this article). The fact that no data is available to consider past climate is why certain "experts" have now taken to counting tree rings in order to find some clues; again, this is stupid and crass to an almost unbelievable degree yet some take it seriously. Tree rings cannot possibly tell you anything about the Earth's climate of several thousand years ago, or even of a few hundred years ago! This should be obvious to all, but amazingly, to a few it is not obvious.

Now, let us understand that the climate has always varied - nothing odd there - but this does not support the 'carbon emissions' theory, it does not support the belief that the industrial revolution seriously damaged the world's climate and that we now need to act quickly to 'fix it.' All the alarmists have here are speculation, hype, conjecture, a subtle juggling of figures, plus propaganda. Oh, and they also have dodgy reports like this: "the level of ice in the Arctic is the least in living memory" - but what's 'living memory'? 40-70 years? It's meaningless. A hundred years ago nobody measured the ice in the Arctic; why should they? And how will you "measure" it anyway? Some of this stuff is such utter and unprovable nonsense, that it is incredible to think that it is being presented as "serious evidence" and drawing devoted followers, as to a new religion, which really is exactly what it is. The alarmist reports may sound 'clever' and informed but nonsense is nonsense and we all need to be more discerning; not all "experts" who are proclaimed to be experts by organisations like the BBC are necessarily meticulous and painstaking researchers.

So again I ask: if indeed the last decade was the hottest ever all over the world, where is the solid data to back this up? It is not available, neither can it ever be, one has to 'fix' the figures in order to get the preferred data one wishes to find. If indeed this Earth is "millions of years old," (as many scientists - but not all - insist), how can we suddenly dogmatically state that the last decade is the hottest ever? We cannot and to do so is an attempt to pull the wool over the eyes of the public! This is to use dishonest tactics in order to make a point, to strongly suggest that the data really is available (which it plainly is not). The figures which are available do not go back far enough. Now here is an interesting quote on the topic which all should read carefully:

'Apostate Greenpeace' co-founder and former president of Greenpeace Canada Patrick Moore [not to be confused with the late Patrick Moore of UK TV fame], told a US Senate Committee unequivocally on 2.25.14, "There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth's atmosphere over the past 100 years."

Patrick Moore exposes the lie of "settled science." He explains how environmental science has been completely co-opted by political science. There is not a shred of credible evidence that manmade climate change exists – but no matter. The truth never stops a determined huckster. Moore further explains:

"When they talk about the 99 percent consensus [among scientists] on climate change, that's a completely ridiculous and false number. But most of the scientists – put it in quotes, "scientists" – who are pushing this catastrophic theory are getting paid by public money, they are not being paid by General Electric or Dupont or 3M to do this research, where private companies expect to get something useful from their research that might produce a better product and make them a profit in the end because people want it – build a better mousetrap type of idea." (quote comes from here: http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/goudsmit/190912).

Here in the UK, the BBC disgracefully isolated and later fired the ever popular environmentalist, the late David Bellamy because he rejected the climate change arguments; he rejected the arguments because he considered them to be just plain wrong. David was a skilled communicator on various BBC television programmes and was greatly missed. It was sad to learn of his recent death.


Australian Forest Fires Caused by "Climate Change"?

It had to happen, the regular and often devastating forest fires of the Australian summer - quite a regular feature for a long period of time in certain areas of Australia - but certainly not everywhere - are now, we are told, being caused by 'climate change.' To deny this is to be just foolish, yet in all the reports coming from the affected areas where are the reports of irresponsible fire-raisers being arrested? An Australian friend tells me that this has been a factor and reaches their local news but not the international news which prefers a more sensationalist approach. Of course, I do not seek to minimize anything here and fire can be an utter tragedy but let us have a fuller report on the international news, not just a sensationalist 'climate change' inspired report!


Now, one should not misread any of this; we should certainly look after, and protect, the environment and it is time that many plastics were banned, but the hysteria on "climate change," make no mistake, is a nonsense which is not (despite what is continually inferred), supported by any meaningful climate data at all; it is simply a flavour of the times. It reminds me of what the Christian writer G.K.Chesterton wrote a long time ago:

"If people stop believing in God the danger is not that they will then believe in nothing, but rather, they will believe in almost anything."

Robin A. Brace. January 26th, 2020.

You May Also Want To Look At This:

THERE IS NO CLIMATE EMERGENCY SAY 500 EXPERTS IN LETTER TO THE UNITED NATIONS (October 1st 2019)


UK APOLOGETICS HOME