Factually Examining Climate Change

Most of the world’s leading economic powers – excluding China Russia and Iran – are legitimizing misguided energy and electricity policies based on global warming/climate change (GWCC); the World Health Organization says, “climate change is the number one health threat.” This led to the 97% consensus of scientists believe in anthropogenic global warming “Cook et al. (2013 paper),” which has been “thoroughly refuted in scholarly peer-reviewed journals,” and over ninety seven different articles here.

GWCC is now a political movement guided by environmentalists rejecting science showing the reduction of most pollution. Laws, regulations, environmental awareness, and increased technological gains lowering emissions have done their job. But climate change enthusiasts persist when China, India and Africa are dirtier, and ignore, “U.S. energy-related carbon dioxide fell by 2.8% in 2019, slightly below 2017 levels,” according to the U.S. Department of Energy’s Energy Information Administration (EIA).

Using critical reasoning the catch-all question to ask is whether or not carbon dioxide (CO2) is killing the planet? A report from WiseEnergy.org titled, The Defense of CO2 says no. A second report from Wise Energy objectively analyzes and refutes The Four Pillars Supporting Climate Change Claims from the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the 97% consensus (already debunked in the first paragraph), climate-based computer models (debunked here and here); and extreme weather events.

What if GWCC was viewed as a hypothesis instead of a consensus generating controversy based off faulty modeling? Overhyped consensus and models without empirical evidence makes for poor energy policies. Particularly, when there are multiple variables affecting:

“Differential rotation between the earth’s surface and earth’s core, and the entire solar system’s magnetic field and gravitation interaction.  There are (then) thousands of (changing variables) that affect future temperatures and climate.”

Then soberly examine decades of government monies corrupting universities, scientists/climatologists, and corporations. No wonder skeptics abound in the GWCC debate. A group of mostly retired engineers and scientists from NASA’s Johnson Space Center calling themselves The Right Climate Stuff issued a report questioning the legitimacy of anthropogenic global warming. Without serious debate “science (is) mis-used in environmental policy.” It’s why climatologists like Dr. Judith Curry are maligned and driven from academia over basing climate and energy policies on science instead of non-normative outcomes.

College professor’s become GWCC-whistleblowers opposite the global debate, and peer-reviewed studies showing a majority of scientists skeptical of GWCC crisis foment hateful mobs. Meaning, science is ignored, our leading institutions become corrupted, and energy policy becomes an emotional affair. Leading environmentalists such as Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus have argued the GWCC movement has nothing to do with the climate. Greenpeace co-founder, Patrick Moore, echoes these same sentiments.

Sensible environmentalists are left behind replaced by neo-Malthusian, anti-human doctrines who take the GWCC consensus, as an environmental-shibboleth. When once and for all there is not a 97% consensus about GWCC (this 4:00 video explains it succinctly).

Energy and electricity policy proposals that deem anthropogenic global warming/climate change an “existential threat” to mankind is based on the fear that carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from fossil fuels causes irreversible destruction. This existential threat is “highly questionable according to 31,487 American scientists (9,029 have Ph.D.’s)” who have signed the Global Warming Petition Project.

Then add from 2019 The Climate Intelligence Foundation (CLINTEL), a group of 750 scientists and professionals who sponsored the World Climate Declaration to the United Nations and EU stating: “Climate science should be less political, while climate policies (energy policies) should be more scientific. There declaration also said: “Natural as well as anthropogenic factors cause warming.”

On top of the 750 scientists, another group of 500 prominent scientists led by CLINTELL co-founder Guus Berkhout, from an organization called Friends of Science, a Canadian-based “non-profit organization comprised of active and retired earth and atmospheric scientists, engineers, and other professionals;” sent a registered letter to the United Nations Secretary-General stating “there is no climate emergency and climate policies should be designed to benefit the lives of people.”

Without proper vetting of the GWCC issue from over 32,000 scientists harmful policy proposals such as the American and European Green New Deal that will cause unimaginable harm to “the environment, humans and wildlife” become the norm. No advocate for green new deals has ever explained how to rid the world of fossil fuels or decarbonize when over 6,000 products originate from a barrel of crude oil.

Then why push GWCC? Because of taxpayer monies, feed-in tariffs, and subsidies governments in the U.S. and elsewhere provide to unstable, chaotically intermittent, environmentally toxic, and grid-destroying renewables (solar panels and wind turbines). Michael Moore’s anti-renewables documentary, Planet of the Humans tells the “dismal,” factual story about renewables.

Additionally, the linchpin of renewables are electrical-grid scale battery energy storage systems (BESS), which are not sustainable or technologically advanced to store enough energy to electricity for hours, days, weeks, or months ahead of time when the wind isn’t blowing, or the sun isn’t shining. The only source of carbon-free energy to electricity that is reliable, somewhat affordable, scalable, safe, clean, and abundant are nuclear power plants.

Our world is still “85% dependent on oil, natural gas and coal.” But GWCC-advocates push for billions every year from taxpayers for wind turbines, solar panels, biofuels, and BESS’. Men like Arnold Schwarzenegger see a “gold mine in the (California) Mojave Desert, Al Gore envisions profits, Koch Industries rake earnings from solar and biofuels, groups like the Sierra Club and Union of Concerned Scientists extoll climate doom and renewables for million dollar donations; and 350.org found Bill McKibben made untold monies from left-leaning, political-environmental foundations pushing the GWCC narrative.

Billions of people globally are still in squalor, disease, poverty, malnutrition, and unreliable electricity without examining all the facts in the GWCC narrative. Their lives resembling the dark ages over climate policies without the other side being heard, debated, and included in making energy policies. Instead – examine the power and trillions – behind GWCC and renewables; billions of lives are counting on this false, church-like muck being cast into the dustbin of history.

Todd Royal is a geopolitical risk and energy consultant based in Los Angeles.


  1. mark ross says

    Doomsday cults are particularly seductive … because they offer to release people from the drudgery of ordinary life. Meanwhile, ALL of the carbon in fossil fuels was originally extracted from the atmosphere … albeit over time. Also, carbon-dioxide continues to ooze out of the bowels of the Earth into the atmosphere.

    • Dale Parsons says

      Thank you Todd for speaking out and offering FACTS and REPUTABLE REFERENCES!

      My reference backup is the Bible that tells me that Christ will return to this earth and rule and reign for a 1000 year period just prior to the planet actually going up in smoke.

      Some might say I’m crazy but I’m willing to bet MY LIFE on those facts!

      Best Regards to ALL, Dale

  2. Has there ever been any analysis whether the earth is warming for natural reasons, perhaps from being at a 23 degree angle tilt to the sun at this time (range is ~21-24), or from the slight cyclical, variable heat output of our sun, and each molecule of warmer air can ‘hold’ a larger amount of CO2, therefore warming precedes the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere; versus whether CO2 pollutants ejected from man-made energy production into the air cause the earth to warm on a global scale? There are reliable studies that the ocean temperatures around the globe are warming [which may also be cyclical/natural], so perhaps the issue is not so much whether warming is actually occurring or not, it is whether human activity has ever been a significant cause of any warming of our planet. “Global” warming is a different issue from human activity admittedly causing an increase in visible pollutants in the low atmospheric levels above urban areas, primarily from cars–which pollution has been decreasing steadily with newer cars on the road.

  3. Humans breathe out about 2.3 pounds of CO2 per DAY! Take this number times 7 billion of us times 365 day a year and you get 2.94 billion TONS of CO2 a year. Never mind the 700+ volcanoes under the oceans and the largest contributor of all, wait for it: termites!!
    There have been many times in history where the CO2 level was a lot higher than now. And surprise, the CO2 level FOLLOWS a temperature rise, it is NOT a cause for a temperature rise! The liberals stupidly got CO2 listed as a POLLUTANT where it isn’t. It is nothing but a trace gas that hardly does anything EXCEPT grow forests, vegetation and food!! Take a 100 yard football field. Go to the goal line and back up a little over an inch. This is the amount of CO2 that is in the atmosphere.
    And let’s do away with fossil fuels and go back to killing whales, cutting down our forests for fuel and streets covered in horse manure. Oh wait, I’m not talking about San Francisco or Los Angeles. And solar and wind will never replace our needs for electricity or food for hungry people. And those pushing “solar” etc, have given up their cars, their cell phones, disconnected the gas lines into their houses and are using whale oil in their lamps for reading? Whiny, liberal hypocrites, all of them.

Speak Your Mind