One of the best interviews I have heard about climate change was between Professor Willie Moon, an astrophysicist, and Tucker Carlson. I cannot understand how people, everyday, ignore chem trails, Geoengineering, weather manipulation, which NOAAA, the met office have already owned up and said these events are in place.
Much appreciated Joel! The Sahara/Florida comparison occurred to me as I was writing the chapters about how the climate evolved in our planet's early history. Before the continents formed there were no mountain ranges to pull humidity out of the atmosphere, so surface temperatures hovered between 45 and 85 degrees Celcius despite the Sun being 30% weaker in those early days. Then, once the continents formed, the mountain ranges (and the disruptions to ocean circulation) caused global humidity levels to plunge, making way for a much cooler Earth and setting the stage for the first global Icehouse Climate. I find it extraordinary that so many climatologists dare to pretend that CO2 could do any of that even as they ignore all these other forces!
I find it extraordinary that so many people dare to present such blatant and weak strawman arguments- and other people fall for them. No sensible climatologists are saying that mountain ranges, the presence of plants, solar radiation, orbits, ocean currents etc etc don't influence the climate in extreme and predictable ways. They are the ones studying them not the ones ignoring them.
The range of conditions within which large societies of humans can exist is small and it is very sensitive to small amounts of extra co2 to in the atmosphere that's causing warming. Add to this the pollution and destruction of soils, the deforestation, ocean dead zones and species loss, it ain't looking good.
Thanks Joel for introducing your followers to Julius. His article is a comprehensive review of every question I’ve had on climate change but was afraid to ask!!
Gregg Braden has been talking about climate change for years and he explains that the climate change is cyclic, and the last time was 5000 years ago and it was hotter! Carbon does not cause heat, the heat come before the carbon, He is a geologist and has taken a look at the ice core samples and the sea bed samples that tell us the truth!
I've read the full article on your website. Very good read! Years ago someone pointed Tony Heller's video's out to me. If only everyone would take the time to look at those, they would soon be healed from their climate anxiety.
Thanks Yorianne! I hope you enjoy the book! Tony Heller's channel is my favorite on YouTube - we all owe him a huge debt of gratitude for the colossal effort he has put into this!
Ah! So good to see you back. Your writing on the whole covid scandal was seminal to my understanding of what was going on and how we were being royally hoodwinked. I can't wait to read your analysis of climate catastrophism - the next bid to petrify us all into forfeiting our freedoms and shelling out all our money on putative "solutions" to manufactured "crises". Going there right now!
Kindle book duly purchased (Amazon UK, no reviews yet).
Your phrase “cartoonish oversimplification” chimes nicely with my phrase “their really very stupid deceptions” (h/t Tom Nelson) in my recent effort on debunking the climate change hoax, kindly hosted by Joel Smalley: https://metatron.substack.com/p/debunking-the-climate-change-hoax.
Much appreciated Douglas, I hope you enjoy the book! I'm a big fan of both Joel Smalley's and Tom Nelson's work. I hadn't heard of Richard Lyon so I'm looking forward to reading his post. Thanks for the links!
Very good article though you missed the elephant in the room.
It is called asphalt.
The growing amount of it is perhaps the most contributing factor to the heat we are experiencing.
Some observe that this is also a trick used to justify growing heat around wether stations, which are systematically being surrounded by more and more asphalt.
Cement, is also contributing to the eating factor as it also collects and maintains heat, but black asphalt roads are the most influential in heat generation “next to geoengineering , forest fires, bombs, and microwave radiation.
Thanks Sol! In my book I dive into the heat island effect that you describe. It's shameful that they continue to use weather stations whose data is being contaminated by roads, urban areas, etc.
Absolutely, I must say that as my personal experience, when pointing out to the expansion of asphalt roads and cement structures, even those most staunch supporters of the propaganda narratives come to face something which in most cases, they had never even considered the heat generated and maintained by asphalt and cement in their faulty equations.
Also, let’s not forget the constant destruction of the polar ice constantly conducted by cruise ships and icebreakers.
Yes. Climate change is 100% geoengineered through forest fires, deforestation , cloud seeding, microwave radiation, and ionospheric and direct energy weapons.
More so that combined with we are currently 1 year away from solar peak cycle with sunspots. You are right as the heat outside the asphalt cities is lesser by 3 to 5 deg C during peak day solar and thru the evening
Great article. Your book will be on my reading list.
Canada's PM and other acolytes of "carbon dioxide as pollution" always speak in terms of "tons of carbon dioxide" when discussing their pet theories on climate change. As you allude to in the article, the greenhouse effect of CO2 has nothing to do with its mass, but rather the number of CO2 molecules (expressed as ppm/parts per million) in the atmosphere. Perhaps the "tons" nomenclature makes carbon dioxide sound more menacing than parts per million?
Yet, it is interesting to note that the energy released from hydrocarbon fuels is a result of oxidizing both carbon and hydrogen atoms (all petroleum products, as well as coal, natural gas, etc are hydrocarbons). The simplest and cleanest burning of these is natural gas (CH4), which produces two H2O molecules for every one CO2 molecule during complete combustion. Water vapour is what we see during clean combustion, but is never mentioned as contributing to "climate change" despite the dominant role that water vapour plays in the weather cycles that we experience every day.
My point here is not to demonize water vapour, but to highlight the narrative that CO2 as the only source of climate change is, at the very least, disingenuous.
Hmm. I have understood the process of climate change since I was young child growing up on a ranch in Wyoming in the 1950’s. I had ridden with my father to a town about 80 miles away to pick up some equipment parts. He stopped at a high point to have a cigarette, and the way children do, I was looking around and asking questions. We were out in the Wyoming desert, but I could see a patch of ground that was fenced off into big square fields, quarter sections of greasewood and tumbleweeds. I asked him why. He told me, “Before the First World War, they could dry farm hay in those fields. My father used to buy hay from them to feed the sheep in the wintertime. But, when the great drought of the 1930’s happened, the rains stopped, and they never returned. And the country just keeps getting drier and drier. It’s a problem.” My father was a smart man. In the 1970s, he sold the sheep and started running cows which do better on the range forage that grows better now. He told me, “Look at the way the glaciers are shrinking. Once the glaciers are gone, there won’t be enough water to irrigate, and there won’t be any more hay. Need to plan ahead.” Also, in the 70’s, it was fashionable to blame the ranchers for the poor conditions on the range. I got into more than one argument with government officials who told me, “we should just take all the cows and sheep off the range, and the grass would get better. We should just lease it all for oil and gas production, it’s better for the ground.” Now, all these years later, this conversation is still happening. I suggest your arguments are all paying attention to the wrong things.
The lessons of the Dust Bowl are so important to the bigger climate story. It's baffling how government planners can continue to believe that removing livestock from dry ecosystems will allow the land to "heal" when in reality it's a surefire recipe for desertification as the sod breaks down from the absence of regular grazing. Livestock are one of the most powerful tools for restoring the land - it's the great paradox - continuous grazing (set stocking) destroys land, rotational grazing that mimics the historic grazing migrations restores land because that's what keeps the sod healthy. Farmers are the solution, if only all the government planners and their peer-reviewed pseudo-wisdoms would get out of the way.
Monbiot (like the government planners you describe) simply cannot wrap his mind around what Allan Savory is saying about the role of livestock in healing deteriorating arid ecosystems. Government then builds policies around ideas like those put forth by Monbiot, and then blames farmers and their livestock for why things fall apart even though they are following all the government's "best management practices". My book digs much deeper into all these issues - the challenge is that the current climate narrative completely blinds the public to the deeper issues, so that narrative has to be dismantled on the way to being able to discuss the deeper issues.
Problem is Jo, you drank the coolaid these scumbags left out on the table for you...unfortunately you're now going to die from it. Make sure you go get the updated mRNA jab coming to a pharmacy near you in October.
What would i want an updated mRNA jab for? i’m team no pandemic/no virus mate. You seem to be incapable of separating issues or discerning the influence of big business.
Thank you Irene! I hope you enjoy the book! I'm a big fan of the work put out by Dr. Patrick Moore and the CO2 coalition - both are referenced in my book!
Thank-you for your substack post on this important subject. As a member, please see The Friends of Science website for some excellent information and data.
The most direct refutation of the anthropogenic global warming by CO2 hypothesis is perhaps found in Humlum (2013). Humlum conducted a mathematically basic analysis of the official data-sets for CO2 and global Temperature to verify the causality/sensitivity hypothesis: if CO2 concentration is the primary cause of global warming, then the higher the rate at which CO2 concentration is increasing then, necessarily, the higher the rate of warming. The official data shows that this relationship does not exist: the peaks in the rate of CO2 are not followed by any discernible increases in the rate of warming, which is a necessary condition of the former causing the latter.
Thanks for the heads up about Humlum (2013), I'll check it out. As you say, the alleged link between warming and CO2 is completely bogus. A great example is that temperatures dropped significantly from the 1940s to the 1970s (hence the global cooling scare of the 1970s) even as CO2 levels rose. Only now they are adjusting the historic records to erase the cooling from the 40s to the 70s.
A very useful explanation of climatic processes. I do have one query - Is the Skrable study the last word on the composition of the atmosphere? For many years I've read from "reliable" sources that 78% of the atmosphere comprises water vapour and of the remaining gases, C02 represents approx. 4%. Furthermore, within that 4% only 0.04% supposedly comes from man-made emissions, the remainder being attributed to natural processes. If you're suggesting these figures are incorrect, I think more than one study is required for consideration and debate.
Actually, earth's atmosphere ( the gasses collectively called "air") is about 78% nitrogen. From this article, I believe the purpose of the Skrable study was to differentiate atmospheric carbon originating from the burning of hydrocarbon fuels compared to carbon from organic decay, volcanic eruptions, etc.
One of the best interviews I have heard about climate change was between Professor Willie Moon, an astrophysicist, and Tucker Carlson. I cannot understand how people, everyday, ignore chem trails, Geoengineering, weather manipulation, which NOAAA, the met office have already owned up and said these events are in place.
I hadn't seen him on Tucker yet, but I've watched Prof. Moon on YouTube - he's great!
Sorry, it is Soon, not Moon.
Sahara Desert / Florida comparison is excellent. I hadn't read it before. Even the simpletons should understand it!
Much appreciated Joel! The Sahara/Florida comparison occurred to me as I was writing the chapters about how the climate evolved in our planet's early history. Before the continents formed there were no mountain ranges to pull humidity out of the atmosphere, so surface temperatures hovered between 45 and 85 degrees Celcius despite the Sun being 30% weaker in those early days. Then, once the continents formed, the mountain ranges (and the disruptions to ocean circulation) caused global humidity levels to plunge, making way for a much cooler Earth and setting the stage for the first global Icehouse Climate. I find it extraordinary that so many climatologists dare to pretend that CO2 could do any of that even as they ignore all these other forces!
I find it extraordinary that so many people dare to present such blatant and weak strawman arguments- and other people fall for them. No sensible climatologists are saying that mountain ranges, the presence of plants, solar radiation, orbits, ocean currents etc etc don't influence the climate in extreme and predictable ways. They are the ones studying them not the ones ignoring them.
The range of conditions within which large societies of humans can exist is small and it is very sensitive to small amounts of extra co2 to in the atmosphere that's causing warming. Add to this the pollution and destruction of soils, the deforestation, ocean dead zones and species loss, it ain't looking good.
Thanks Joel for introducing your followers to Julius. His article is a comprehensive review of every question I’ve had on climate change but was afraid to ask!!
Simpletons eh? Nice.
Gregg Braden has been talking about climate change for years and he explains that the climate change is cyclic, and the last time was 5000 years ago and it was hotter! Carbon does not cause heat, the heat come before the carbon, He is a geologist and has taken a look at the ice core samples and the sea bed samples that tell us the truth!
I've read the full article on your website. Very good read! Years ago someone pointed Tony Heller's video's out to me. If only everyone would take the time to look at those, they would soon be healed from their climate anxiety.
I've put your book on my wishlist. 😁
Thanks Yorianne! I hope you enjoy the book! Tony Heller's channel is my favorite on YouTube - we all owe him a huge debt of gratitude for the colossal effort he has put into this!
Jesus. Heller and JP's ridiculous arguments convinced me that there's an agenda claiming that the climate crisis caused by GHGs a hoax and that it's being deliberately pushed by fossil fuel funded groups like the Heartland Institute https://jowaller.substack.com/p/climate-change-hasnt-been-debunked?utm_source=publication-search
Ah! So good to see you back. Your writing on the whole covid scandal was seminal to my understanding of what was going on and how we were being royally hoodwinked. I can't wait to read your analysis of climate catastrophism - the next bid to petrify us all into forfeiting our freedoms and shelling out all our money on putative "solutions" to manufactured "crises". Going there right now!
Kindle book duly purchased (Amazon UK, no reviews yet).
Your phrase “cartoonish oversimplification” chimes nicely with my phrase “their really very stupid deceptions” (h/t Tom Nelson) in my recent effort on debunking the climate change hoax, kindly hosted by Joel Smalley: https://metatron.substack.com/p/debunking-the-climate-change-hoax.
You might find this latest post by fellow campaigner Richard Lyon of interest, and the comments beneath it: https://richardlyon.substack.com/p/uk-renewables-trillion-pound-energy
Much appreciated Douglas, I hope you enjoy the book! I'm a big fan of both Joel Smalley's and Tom Nelson's work. I hadn't heard of Richard Lyon so I'm looking forward to reading his post. Thanks for the links!
Sucker.
Very good article though you missed the elephant in the room.
It is called asphalt.
The growing amount of it is perhaps the most contributing factor to the heat we are experiencing.
Some observe that this is also a trick used to justify growing heat around wether stations, which are systematically being surrounded by more and more asphalt.
Cement, is also contributing to the eating factor as it also collects and maintains heat, but black asphalt roads are the most influential in heat generation “next to geoengineering , forest fires, bombs, and microwave radiation.
Any how thank you for the article Julius.
Thanks Sol! In my book I dive into the heat island effect that you describe. It's shameful that they continue to use weather stations whose data is being contaminated by roads, urban areas, etc.
Absolutely, I must say that as my personal experience, when pointing out to the expansion of asphalt roads and cement structures, even those most staunch supporters of the propaganda narratives come to face something which in most cases, they had never even considered the heat generated and maintained by asphalt and cement in their faulty equations.
Also, let’s not forget the constant destruction of the polar ice constantly conducted by cruise ships and icebreakers.
Any how brilliant work so thx again for it.
Yes cement is also a problem. And?
And Climate change is geoengineered an a hoax
So it's happening, it is anthropogenic but is caused by some chemtrails not the industrial revolution?
Yes. Climate change is 100% geoengineered through forest fires, deforestation , cloud seeding, microwave radiation, and ionospheric and direct energy weapons.
We got tons of patents and documents to prove it.
More so that combined with we are currently 1 year away from solar peak cycle with sunspots. You are right as the heat outside the asphalt cities is lesser by 3 to 5 deg C during peak day solar and thru the evening
Asphalt and cement are the elephants in the room which no one likes to talk about.
Fortunately we need roads so we can have a better quality of life than a 3rd world country
Been saying this for years! Cycles of the sun not co2. Co2 is required for all life.
Yes the sun affects the climate. Yes co2 is required for all life. Any more of the bleeding obvious?
Great article. Your book will be on my reading list.
Canada's PM and other acolytes of "carbon dioxide as pollution" always speak in terms of "tons of carbon dioxide" when discussing their pet theories on climate change. As you allude to in the article, the greenhouse effect of CO2 has nothing to do with its mass, but rather the number of CO2 molecules (expressed as ppm/parts per million) in the atmosphere. Perhaps the "tons" nomenclature makes carbon dioxide sound more menacing than parts per million?
Yet, it is interesting to note that the energy released from hydrocarbon fuels is a result of oxidizing both carbon and hydrogen atoms (all petroleum products, as well as coal, natural gas, etc are hydrocarbons). The simplest and cleanest burning of these is natural gas (CH4), which produces two H2O molecules for every one CO2 molecule during complete combustion. Water vapour is what we see during clean combustion, but is never mentioned as contributing to "climate change" despite the dominant role that water vapour plays in the weather cycles that we experience every day.
My point here is not to demonize water vapour, but to highlight the narrative that CO2 as the only source of climate change is, at the very least, disingenuous.
Hmm. I have understood the process of climate change since I was young child growing up on a ranch in Wyoming in the 1950’s. I had ridden with my father to a town about 80 miles away to pick up some equipment parts. He stopped at a high point to have a cigarette, and the way children do, I was looking around and asking questions. We were out in the Wyoming desert, but I could see a patch of ground that was fenced off into big square fields, quarter sections of greasewood and tumbleweeds. I asked him why. He told me, “Before the First World War, they could dry farm hay in those fields. My father used to buy hay from them to feed the sheep in the wintertime. But, when the great drought of the 1930’s happened, the rains stopped, and they never returned. And the country just keeps getting drier and drier. It’s a problem.” My father was a smart man. In the 1970s, he sold the sheep and started running cows which do better on the range forage that grows better now. He told me, “Look at the way the glaciers are shrinking. Once the glaciers are gone, there won’t be enough water to irrigate, and there won’t be any more hay. Need to plan ahead.” Also, in the 70’s, it was fashionable to blame the ranchers for the poor conditions on the range. I got into more than one argument with government officials who told me, “we should just take all the cows and sheep off the range, and the grass would get better. We should just lease it all for oil and gas production, it’s better for the ground.” Now, all these years later, this conversation is still happening. I suggest your arguments are all paying attention to the wrong things.
The lessons of the Dust Bowl are so important to the bigger climate story. It's baffling how government planners can continue to believe that removing livestock from dry ecosystems will allow the land to "heal" when in reality it's a surefire recipe for desertification as the sod breaks down from the absence of regular grazing. Livestock are one of the most powerful tools for restoring the land - it's the great paradox - continuous grazing (set stocking) destroys land, rotational grazing that mimics the historic grazing migrations restores land because that's what keeps the sod healthy. Farmers are the solution, if only all the government planners and their peer-reviewed pseudo-wisdoms would get out of the way.
Have you ever seen the debate between George Monbiot and Allan Savory? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FihlOvsVkY&t=4089s&ab_channel=OxfordUniversityMuseumofNaturalHistory
Monbiot (like the government planners you describe) simply cannot wrap his mind around what Allan Savory is saying about the role of livestock in healing deteriorating arid ecosystems. Government then builds policies around ideas like those put forth by Monbiot, and then blames farmers and their livestock for why things fall apart even though they are following all the government's "best management practices". My book digs much deeper into all these issues - the challenge is that the current climate narrative completely blinds the public to the deeper issues, so that narrative has to be dismantled on the way to being able to discuss the deeper issues.
'LIvestock' is NOT a powerful tool for dust bowls! Any improvements in the soil are from watering, plants and additions of fertilizers. https://jowaller.substack.com/p/yet-another-unsuccessful-attempt?utm_source=publication-search Allan Savory's claims have been shown to be bogus https://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/2017-2-march-april/feature/allan-savory-says-more-cows-land-will-reverse-climate-change Livestock are one of the biggest causes of toxic runoff and ocean dead zones.
Problem is Jo, you drank the coolaid these scumbags left out on the table for you...unfortunately you're now going to die from it. Make sure you go get the updated mRNA jab coming to a pharmacy near you in October.
What would i want an updated mRNA jab for? i’m team no pandemic/no virus mate. You seem to be incapable of separating issues or discerning the influence of big business.
They are one of the same issue, globalist control and population reduction.
Vaccines and the climate crisis are both globalist control and population reducttion. What if there was no globalist control just big pharma and big fossil fuel? https://jowaller.substack.com/p/the-wef-agenda-of-depopulation-and
Excellent article Julius! Dr. Patrick Moore’s work and the CO2 Coalition https://co2coalition.org/media_category/presentations/ opened my eyes to the Green Lies. Can’t wait to read your book!
Thank you Irene! I hope you enjoy the book! I'm a big fan of the work put out by Dr. Patrick Moore and the CO2 coalition - both are referenced in my book!
I’m sure I will! So glad your back!
Good article. I bought your book to get some more. Thanks again.
Much appreciated! I hope you enjoy it!
Thank-you for your substack post on this important subject. As a member, please see The Friends of Science website for some excellent information and data.
Thanks Eldric! Some of the work published by The Friends of Science is referenced in my book - I enjoy following their articles and YouTube videos!
Friends of Science? Lord help us.
The most direct refutation of the anthropogenic global warming by CO2 hypothesis is perhaps found in Humlum (2013). Humlum conducted a mathematically basic analysis of the official data-sets for CO2 and global Temperature to verify the causality/sensitivity hypothesis: if CO2 concentration is the primary cause of global warming, then the higher the rate at which CO2 concentration is increasing then, necessarily, the higher the rate of warming. The official data shows that this relationship does not exist: the peaks in the rate of CO2 are not followed by any discernible increases in the rate of warming, which is a necessary condition of the former causing the latter.
Thanks for the heads up about Humlum (2013), I'll check it out. As you say, the alleged link between warming and CO2 is completely bogus. A great example is that temperatures dropped significantly from the 1940s to the 1970s (hence the global cooling scare of the 1970s) even as CO2 levels rose. Only now they are adjusting the historic records to erase the cooling from the 40s to the 70s.
Heaven forbid they should not memory hole truth
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257343053_The_phase_relation_between_atmospheric_carbon_dioxide_and_global_temperature
Much appreciated Michael!
A very useful explanation of climatic processes. I do have one query - Is the Skrable study the last word on the composition of the atmosphere? For many years I've read from "reliable" sources that 78% of the atmosphere comprises water vapour and of the remaining gases, C02 represents approx. 4%. Furthermore, within that 4% only 0.04% supposedly comes from man-made emissions, the remainder being attributed to natural processes. If you're suggesting these figures are incorrect, I think more than one study is required for consideration and debate.
Actually, earth's atmosphere ( the gasses collectively called "air") is about 78% nitrogen. From this article, I believe the purpose of the Skrable study was to differentiate atmospheric carbon originating from the burning of hydrocarbon fuels compared to carbon from organic decay, volcanic eruptions, etc.
Yes it is a small amount. A small of amount of arsenic can also kill you.
The story beneath the story beneath the climate story https://jowaller.substack.com/p/what-is-the-heartland-institute?utm_source=publication-search