Are you a climate denier?

Heresy in an age of deceit

“Are you a climate denier?”

This is a silly question. Climate is the prevailing weather conditions of a given area or era. People don't tend to deny this. Yet this is a question that is often asked of people who oppose the introduction of traffic restrictions across the UK.

What is intended by the question is an inquiry as to whether one accepts the prevailing narrative concerning man-made (or anthropogenic) influence over the weather. The wording of the question is a deliberate distortion of language. It conflates the incontrovertible fact of the existence of climate (ie. trends in weather) with the much more tenuous assumption that man is responsible for dangerously warming the earth through production of CO2.

The word 'denier,' is used by the questioner to threaten the respondent with condemnation if they fail to profess faith in the orthodox climate religion. This cult requires diminished self-regard, self-abasement, restriction, belief in original sin, chastity, confinement, and an ascetic diet that is all locusts and no honey. Rather than being made in the image of God, you are to view yourself as a cancer, a blight upon the earth. It would have been better if you had never been born. Go forth and sterilise.

'Denier,' is a term used to associate the sceptic with their agnostic predecessors who have had the temerity to question established doctrines. It could equally be substituted with the word 'heretic.' Where questioning might be thought of as a necessary precursor to establishing scientific fact, it is an unwanted irritation to the high priests of the canons of orthodoxy. Where truth does not fear inquiry, doctrine requires silence and subjugation. What follows is a heretical tract.

This should not be interpreted as a desire to pollute or despoil the world. A heretic can also wish to live as a custodian of the earth, or as a steward of nature and mankind, but to best fulfil those roles the truth is required, both as sword and shield.

In order to subscribe to the religion of anthropogenic climate change (ACC) we must first accept that man is responsible for adversely affecting the earth's temperature. The proposed mechanism for this is through the production of CO2, but is CO2 a driver of temperature or climate? How would that work? Is it possible? What proportion of CO2 levels does man's contribution constitute?

Heretics argue that CO2 is not causing changes in the climate and that in fact temperatures follow solar activity. As the sun warms the oceans CO2 is released in a process called diffusion. As the ocean cools CO2 is absorbed. On a longer time scale the process involves a lag of hundreds of years. During colder periods the oceans absorb more CO2 and during warmer periods this CO2 is gradually released. Any overall increases in CO2 that may be recorded now are considered to be due to the medieval warming period 500-800 years ago.

Even if CO2 was a potential driver of temperature the heretical position is that there is no practical mechanism by which it might do so. The prevailing narrative asks us to believe that CO2 in the atmosphere returns heat to the earth. Why would it dispel heat only below and not above? How would the CO2 make the earth hotter? In order to increase the heat of the earth the CO2 would have to generate more heat than it receives, becoming hotter than its source. It would also require heat to travel from the coolness of altitude to the warmth of the earth. These proposed processes contradict the laws of thermodynamics. A cold space has never heated a warm one.

But let's play along. Supposing CO2 contributes to global warming, how much CO2 is in the atmosphere? How much is man creating? CO2 constitutes 0.04% of the atmosphere. Of that 0.04% man contributes 4%. That is one 62500^th of the whole atmosphere.

Given the tiny fraction of the earth's atmosphere that is CO2 produced by man, even if one country achieved a complete cessation of anthropogenic CO2 output, the proportion of the atmosphere affected would be infinitesimally small.

Perhaps there is a delicate balance and earth is not resilient enough to accommodate slight increases in CO2?

There have been many periods in which CO2 levels are recorded as being much higher than they are now, including when temperatures were lower.

Temperatures have also been found to have been much hotter when CO2 levels were lower, including phases in the interglacial period since the last ice age 10,000 years ago. This suggests that, at the very least, CO2 is not the sole driver of temperatures.

Far from being a pollutant, carbon is an essential component of life, and carbon dioxide is part of that life's natural cycle. It is used by plants to create carbohydrates and oxygen which living beings require, respectively, to eat and breathe. The carbon cycle operates rapidly through living organisms which produce carbon dioxide through respiration. On a longer term basis carbon cycles through geological processes, such as absorption by the sea and via deposits that form sedimentary rock.

Those who advocate the official line that man is causing hazardous changes to the climate and who then seek to restrict others on this basis must consider the above points and answer them satisfactorily. As Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore pointed out to the US Senate, there is no proof of the contention. It is not enough to defer our thinking to high priests of an assumed consensus that does not exist except in a controlled media. A review of the oft-cited claim that most scientists agree with the ACC position found that where it was mentioned only 0.3% argued that man was responsible for post-1950 warming.

The earth's weather system is so complex and the relevant data and understanding so limited that it seems presumptuous for anyone to claim full comprehension of it.

For example, what role does Earth's magnetosphere play in climate change? Who can say?

It seems unlikely that understanding of the climate cycle can be achieved by reducing considerations to a trace gas.

An argument is often made that failure to act to ameliorate assumed ACC constitutes a much greater risk than inaction -but is this true? If the ACC agenda is correct then the earth will undergo changes that could endanger people -but what if it is not correct? What if that agenda is fake and being pushed by those with nefarious intentions? The supranational plans of the United Nations Agenda 2030 and the World Economic Forum's Great Reset are being implemented based on the ACC model and supposed environmental concerns. What if these concerns have no foundation in fact?

People are being encouraged to limit their fuel consumption, their travel, and their lives, with the objective being an existence within 15 minutes walking distance of their homes in a so-called '15 minute city.' Punitive measures such as fines are being imposed to force compliance with increasing traffic restrictions. A surveillance infrastructure is being built for a check-point society. People are being indoctrinated to believe that the earth is overpopulated and that humanity is a curse upon it, discouraging procreation. Population reduction is an openly stated goal, but if we cease to breed who are we saving the world for? If our movement is limited to 15 minute cities, for whom are we saving the world? If the goal of those pushing this agenda is depopulation and control, what narratives would they use to manufacture consent?

It is noteworthy that those who advocate solutions to the problems alleged to be caused by ACC are those who stand to profit by them. ACC is being used as the covid crisis was used, to implement top-down totalitarian controls.

Carbon forms about 18% of the human body by mass. It is a building block of life. Why would we want to reduce carbon or carbon footprints? What is meant by that? When we breathe we exhale carbon dioxide. Why would we want to reduce carbon dioxide emissions? If ACC is a false idea, in the context of population reduction, these questions take on a different aspect.

As to the balance of risk, those who believe in the notion of man-made climate change ask us to consider that our continued liberty risks creating an inhospitable environment. We are asked to sacrifice our freedom in the present for the 'greater good,' of the future. Yet if the agenda is false and being propagated with ill-intent, in sacrificing our freedom we stand to lose the earth.

The heretical claims made here are expounded upon in the following paper and interview.