Cheng Xiaonong: The Lesser-Known Myths of Climate Policy

On May 6, I wrote “Why has “global warming” disappeared? to explain why the “global warming” hypothesis is bankrupt. This article is a sequel, analyzing how the bankrupt “global warming” hypothesis has a substitute, and how it has fooled governments and people to pay for the so-called “climate policy”.

I. From “global warming” to “climate change”

The term “global warming” has disappeared from the Biden administration’s climate policy because no one believes it anymore in the face of several very cold winters. However, “global warming” as a policy has not disappeared, but it has changed its name and is now in the “hall of fame” at international summits. The new name is “climate change,” and governments and international organizations are now using the term “climate change” and developing a range of related “climate change” prevention and mitigation measures. Climate change” is the new term, and governments and international organizations are now using the term “climate change” and developing a range of related “climate change” policies.

Is there a difference between “global warming” and “climate change”? In fact, the two are the same thing, but the former has changed its “costume” and “face” in the political arena, and is now a “new actor”. “new” face on the stage. This “new actor” is now called the “climate change” theory, which is not substantially different from the “global warming” theory. There is no substantive difference between the “climate change” theory and the “global warming” theory, except that the name “global warming” is no longer used, which is increasingly discredited.

Who are the originators of the “global warming” dress-up? According to Deutsche Welle on February 3, 2007, the term “climate change” was first used by George W. Bush Jr. during his presidency, and the “climate change” theory “made its debut” during his presidency. “The term “climate change” was first used by George W. Bush Jr. during his presidency and has now become a global phenomenon. It is strange that no one has asked, since the “global warming” theory has a bad reputation, to replace the “global warming” theory with the “climate change” theory and continue to promote the “global warming” theory according to the “global warming” theory. “To put it nicely, it is “selling a dog’s meat by hanging a sheep’s head”; to put it more unpleasantly, it is a new endorsement of the bankrupt “global warming” hypothesis. The reason for this is that Obama has been in office for eight years.

Obama has been in office for eight years, probably because the “climate change” theory was originally a “standard” in his leftist ideology, so he accepted all the tricks played by Bush Jr. on the climate issue. President Trump took office and then withdrew from the Paris climate agreement after he unceremoniously said that “climate change” was a hoax. We do not know whether the fact that Bush Jr. has been very hostile to Trump has anything to do with the fact that Trump has punctured the “climate change” theory and made Bush Jr. angry.

Second, the global temperature continues to rise?

The core idea of the “climate change” theory is still the speculation of the “global warming” hypothesis, the reason is that the earth’s temperature is increasing, and it is necessary to adopt various carbon dioxide reduction policies to stop this trend. However, is the Earth’s temperature really rising?

It is true that many parts of the planet were much warmer than they have been historically from 1983 to 2008, but became cold again at the end of 2009. And in January 2019 the average temperature in the Great Lakes region of North America fell to -34°C to -40°C, with many municipalities experiencing record low temperatures. 2021 in early February the United States again several times cooler, ranging to the central region, this cold wave let many parts of the United States to record low temperatures again, the areas severely affected by the cold wave even include Texas, near the Gulf of Mexico.

Research reports found on the Internet show that the change in global temperature from January 1999 to December 2008 was plus or minus 0.07 degrees Celsius, much less than the previous decade of plus or minus 0.18 degrees Celsius, basically stable, and the main factor causing global temperature changes is the El Niño phenomenon of ocean currents.

Gennady Matishov (Геннадий Матишов), an oceanographer and member of the Russian Academy of Sciences and scientific director of the South Scientific Center of the Russian Academy of Sciences, believes that the globe is not warming, but cooling; he believes that climate is cyclical and that the warming cycle is now over and is entering a cooling cycle . In an interview with the Russian newspaper “Российскаягазета” on February 23 this year, he said that what awaits mankind is not global warming, but a mini ice age. Matysov said he has been on an expedition to the Arctic since 1965 and there is no such thing as global warming. If the global warming theory is correct, then the ice in the Arctic would have melted long ago. Martisov also said that Arctic temperatures have indeed risen slightly recently, which is why some people believe there is global warming. He pointed out that the Arctic was in the same warm cycle in 1878 and 1933, but since then it has been in a cold cycle again. Without fail, Academician Martisov mockingly asks, “Is our memory really so short?”

He argues that “to understand climate trends, one needs to analyze at least a hundred years of data, not just focus on the last year or two of events”; Mattisov points out that climate is cyclical, that mankind is becoming a witness to the beginning of a new ice age, that the warm cycle in which Arctic temperatures were rising has ended, and that the climate is turning into a cold cycle The warming cycle with rising Arctic temperatures has ended and the climate is turning cold; the European part of Russia is experiencing cold winters, droughts, heavy precipitation, etc., which supports the point that we are approaching a period of global cooling. Martisov also pointed out that the Antarctic ice sheet is a very stable system and that the idea of “global flooding due to a warming planet” is not worth talking about.

However, the bankruptcy of the “global warming” theory has been obstructed by the “politically correct” faction, who, out of their own political and economic vested interests, have used their political power to suppress criticism of the “global warming” theory, and at the same time, they have used the judgments of the bankrupt “global warming” theory to force various policies to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, and through the organization of global summits, have tried to turn the attempts of this political faction into national policies and regulations.

III. What are the causes of climate change?

Climate change on Earth refers to the fluctuation of climate over a period of time, which may be decades or millions of years; the fluctuation range may be regional or global. Most of the factors affecting climate change are natural, including solar radiation, changes in the Earth’s orbit, continental drift, changes in ocean currents, and mountain-building movements, which are all irresistible to humans; they may also be related to human activities. However, it is not a scientific and reliable judgment to figure out the real cause of climate change and to blame all climate change on human economic activities.

Firstly, the drift of continental plates will cause changes in the location and area of land and ocean, which in turn will affect the global atmospheric circulation, thus producing global or regional climate change. Second, mountain building movements of the earth’s crust may form mountains or canyons that can cause topographic precipitation, which is the main reason for the formation of alpine glaciers. Third, the sun is the Earth’s primary source of external energy, and the sun’s own activity affects the Earth’s climate. Short-term variations in the Sun’s radiation, such as the 11-year cycle of variation in blackon activity and the twenty-year cycle of variation in radiation, have an impact on the Earth’s climate. This 11-year cycle of variability can have a 1.5°C effect on stratospheric temperatures, making higher latitudes colder and lower latitudes warmer. Based on the observation of temperature changes from 1900 to 1950, perhaps this variation is what triggered the emergence of the Little Ice Age. Now humans have not fully grasped the patterns and effects of solar radiation changes. Fourth, changes in ocean currents, such as periodic El Niño phenomena over several years or decades, are more representative of climate change than atmospheric temperatures; and the world-famous Gulf Stream gives off more heat than the world generates from burning coal in a year. There are five famous cold currents in the eastern part of the world’s oceans that affect climate just as severely.

How exactly these natural factors affect climate change, scientists have not yet found a clear pattern, so which climate changes are caused by natural factors and which are caused by human activities is actually a black box. However, since temperature changes can be measured on the ground, some people directly exclude the influence of all these natural factors and use carbon dioxide emissions to explain the short-term temperature changes on Earth. The “global warming” hypothesis proposes a series of inferences, such as excessive CO2 emissions causing global warming, leading to glacial melting, sea level rise, etc. Until the impact of natural factors on climate change on earth is clearly and accurately analyzed, the theory of “climate change” following the “global warming” hypothesis can be questioned in too many ways. This argument is equivalent to seeing a plant grow poorly, without analyzing whether the weather, soil, pests, moisture and other conditions have changed, and then subjectively asserting that the plant is not living well because of the outdoor barbecue of the residents.

Are they right?

Since “climate change” has become a government policy, carbon dioxide emissions have become a rigid indicator. However, there is a serious human error in calculating the impact of coal, oil and other fuel emissions, i.e. only CO2 emissions are counted, but the amount of CO2 absorbed by plants is refused to be counted.

Biology classes in secondary school have taught about photosynthesis, which means that plants use light energy to turn carbon dioxide and water into carbohydrates, a process that absorbs carbon dioxide from the air and expels oxygen, thus maintaining a certain balance of carbon dioxide and oxygen in the atmosphere. It is through this natural function of plants that humans obtain cereal-based foods. In addition to photosynthesis, plants breathe day and night, and when they breathe they take in oxygen and give out carbon dioxide, but the oxygen given out by photosynthesis is much more than the carbon dioxide given out by plants when they breathe. 1 hectare of broadleaf forest can absorb 1 ton of carbon dioxide and release 0.73 ton of oxygen per day. Therefore, it makes no sense to ignore the function of plants to improve the natural balance of carbon dioxide in the earth’s atmosphere. However, when the “politically correct” people who advocate the “climate change” theory talk about CO2 emissions, they either pretend not to understand or deliberately ignore this basic knowledge. By not calculating the amount of carbon dioxide absorbed by plants on Earth, academics who study carbon dioxide emissions are far off the natural equilibrium of carbon dioxide in real air.

Twenty years ago I attended a conference held by a non-profit organization where one of the topics was CO2 emissions causing global warming. During the conference I asked a climate expert how you calculate CO2 uptake. His answer surprised me by saying that it was too much trouble to calculate that way and that we ignored it. I asked him, “Isn’t this the same as completely confusing the natural balance of CO2 in the air of North America, which is highly green, with the African deserts, which are not green? Isn’t it a mistake to calculate CO2 emissions for each country without knowing how much CO2 is actually being absorbed naturally in different parts of each country? He finally replied, “That’s the only way we can do it, otherwise we won’t be able to get research funding.

We can see a lot of statistics on CO2 emissions by country, but not on CO2 absorption by country, and the advocates of “climate change” still refuse to study CO2 absorption. Such a study is a complete violation of normal scientific research procedures. Any scientific research should only put forward some hypotheses before the research begins, but never use a pre-determined conclusion to guide the research process, choose a research method that is favorable to the pre-determined conclusion, and only collect data that are favorable to the pre-determined conclusion, while excluding data that are unfavorable to the pre-determined conclusion. The results of such a study are suspected to be deceptive and harmful to the country and the people. Once this kind of research for the “climate change” theory is included in the category of “political correctness”, it becomes something that cannot be questioned, and this is the basic background of the politicians playing with climate policy that we are facing today.

V. Making it obvious by its faintness

The idiom of “to make others see by his own faintness” means that he is so faint that he believes in claims that are full of holes, but wants others to think that he is consistently correct. This seems to be the group of people who are in charge of the climate policy of each country. In fact, if you want to analyze the relationship between carbon dioxide emissions and absorption in a country, there is a scientifically proposed calculation index called “carbon flux”, which combines carbon emissions and carbon absorption. However, until now, no country has cared about this data, and no paper has even been found that examines this measure. I have only seen a paper published in 2011 by a Chinese scholar at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania on the history of carbon flux changes in peat areas around the world.

The recent international climate summit proposed a goal of “carbon neutrality” by 2050. “Carbon neutrality” refers to the total amount of carbon dioxide produced directly or indirectly by a country, company, product, activity, or individual over a certain period of time, and is achieved through three main approaches to “net zero carbon dioxide emissions. These three methods are: first, planting trees to absorb more carbon dioxide; second, replacing coal and oil with wind and solar energy; and third, paying developing countries to emit less carbon dioxide. The first approach itself reflects the paradox of current climate policy: since climate policy advocates and researchers refuse to calculate the amount of carbon dioxide absorbed by existing plants in each country, which is equivalent to assuming that all plants absorb “zero” carbon dioxide, why should afforestation be the top priority of climate policy? On the other hand, since afforestation is the top priority of climate policy, it means that those who advocate climate policy know that plants can absorb carbon dioxide, so why do they refuse to calculate how much carbon dioxide is absorbed by the various types of plants that already exist on the planet?

It is in this “big fudge” that climate policy proposes a comprehensive alternative to coal and oil, which is so expensive that unless governments force people to pay the huge costs, they will not accept climate policy if they understand that it is unreliable. And the third approach mentioned above does not necessarily guarantee that developing countries will not use coal and oil if they take the money.

In addition, two phenomena are currently emerging regarding the monitoring of global atmospheric CO2 concentrations. One is super-macro, where a global data is given but no data series are provided for each country’s observation sites, so it is impossible to determine whether this global data is representative of the trend in atmospheric CO2 concentration changes in each country. The second is super-micro, where the common global data are often from one observation site in Hawaii, sometimes coupled with another in Australia. But how much of the variation in atmospheric CO2 concentrations at these two sites is due to local human activity, or are there other causes, for example, are the volcanic eruptions in the Hawaii area causing high CO2 concentrations?

There are currently only about two hundred observations of CO2 trends in the world, but the UN report on trends in atmospheric CO2 does not provide data series for each country’s observations, and countries do not publish them. Are the data from these observation sites consistent with the global data published by the United Nations? This is of concern. People in each country should not trust those data from the UN until they see the data from all the observation points in their country, after all, the UN agencies have a record of falsifying the relevant data.

When the leftists are in power in Western countries, they pursue so-called “progressivism” and put all the policies they want to promote into the category of “progressivism”; to prove their “political correctness In order to prove their “political correctness”, they put a “conservative” label on those who disagree with “progressive” policies, imitating the Communist Party’s class division, and artificially dividing Western society into two opposing groups, namely The “politically correct” “progressives” and the so-called “backward and ignorant” “conservatives”. Climate policy is branded as an unquestionable issue just because it is one of their “God’s cards” of “progressivism”. The consequence of interfering in scientific research with “political correctness” is the introduction of climate policy as described above. Some people with vested interests use the global climate change debate to promote “global warming” and cause worldwide panic in order to profit from it, such as selling clean energy, exporting clean energy technology, or using it to promote their so-called “progressivism” to manipulate elections. “to manipulate elections. The public can easily fall victim to such brainwashing attempts.