While much maligned for its cavalier attitude towards global warming, could China actually be saving the planet rather than destroying it?
This claim isn’t made because China is supplying most of the world’s solar panels and wind turbines, rather it is the world’s largest emitter of carbon dioxide (CO²).
China is opening a new coal-fired power station every few days, making a mockery of many countries’ pathetic attempts to de-fossilise their energy grids at the expense of low energy prices and a viable manufacturing base.
For life on this planet to grow and develop, having CO² in the atmosphere is essential. If the CO² levels drop below 150 parts per million (ppm), then all life on this planet would cease.
However, with a higher percentage of CO² in the atmosphere, plants thrive and, in many cases, multiple crops can be harvested in a single year.
Farmers growing their crops in enclosed areas, like hothouses, often artificially increase the CO² levels to above 1,000ppm to access these extra harvests, required to feed a growing global population.
The current level of CO² in the atmosphere sits at around 420ppm and is slowly increasing but, with the push for ‘net zero’, this growth could be arrested or even reversed.
But, as has been argued, could an increase the CO² in the atmosphere cause global warming?
The theory of greenhouse gasses causing global warming was originally presented by French scientist, Svante Arrhenius, in the early 1900s.
Svante noticed that whenever there was an historic rise in temperature, there was a corresponding rise in the levels of CO².
From this he deduced CO² was causing the rise in temperature and, from the limited scientific resources of that era, it was a logical assumption.
However, further research showed that there was a lag of up to 850 years between the rise in global temperatures and the subsequent rise in CO² levels.
It was determined that oceans, which hold enormous quantities of CO² in suspension, release stored CO² when the ocean warms (for whatever reason), and this is the reason for the delay between a warming planet and increasing levels of CO² in the atmosphere.
Therefore an increase in CO² can be caused by a warming planet, rather than it being the cause.
However, the climate changes due to various factors, possibly the most important being the output from the Sun – especially the frequency and ferocity of solar flares.
Over the past 2,000 years there have been two previous warm periods (the Roman Warm Period from about 200 BCE to 400 CE, and the Medieval Warm Period from about 950 to 1250) followed by a period of severe cooling, with increased glacial expansion.
This cooling period was called the Little Ice Age, which went from 1300 to 1850.
At the peak of the Little Ice Age, the CO² levels dropped to about 280ppm – getting down to a dangerous level where plant life is threatened – and these levels have been slowly rising ever since.
It is interesting to note that most proponents of manmade global warming start their temperature statistics from 1850, implying that the recent global warming started with the Industrial Revolution in England, and was therefore entirely human-induced.
In fact, the planet has been warming for over 300 years, since the coldest part of the Little Ice Age, and we have yet to return to the same temperatures enjoyed during either the Roman Warm Period or the Medieval Warm Period.
Rather than either of the two ‘recent’ Warm Periods causing ‘global boiling’, or even significantly increased ocean sea levels, they were periods of plenty for the inhabitants of that time, and the world’s population increased dramatically under their influence.
This was to dramatically change when the Little Ice Age became dominant, with mass starvation, people freezing to death, and plagues, like the Black Death, decimating the population – all climate-induced, or climate-influenced.
Historically, warmer weather has led to an improvement in the lifestyle of mankind, and colder temperatures to mass starvation, reduced lifestyle, and mass deaths.
Statistically, extreme cold weather causes more than 10 times the number of deaths than extreme heatwaves.
It is also interesting to note that the coldest part of the Little Ice Age coincided with the ‘Maunder Minimum’, a period of dramatic reduction in solar (sunspot) activity.
The next forecast reduction in sunspot activity is between 2030 and 2040, indicating that we could be moving into a period of extremely cold weather, rather than a period of global warming.
If the proponents of global warming had their way, and we really could reduce the amount of CO² in the atmosphere, we could be putting the planet into a death plunge – especially if the forecast reduction in solar activity locked up even more CO² in the oceans.
On the other hand, if we increased the amount of CO² in the atmosphere to an even higher level, it could possibly counter the reducing CO² problems in the projected cool period.
It would also mean that our crops would be more productive, and we could more easily feed the increasing population of the planet.
A warmer planet usually means better rainfall, while cooler weather tends to reduce rainfall and create more extreme weather events.
A warmer planet is therefore a ‘win-win’ – more food, better lifestyles, fewer deaths due to extreme weather events, fewer medical problems, better rainfall, etc.
As the above information is well known to climate scientists, why then should they get on to the global warming bandwagon?
The sad truth is that any scientist who speaks out against the theory of manmade (anthropogenic) global warming is likely to have their funds cut and be ostracised by their fellow scientists who are getting rich on the global warming subsidies and who are, themselves, worried about being ostracised.
Likewise, many businesses are booming through subsidies offered by various governments around the world – they don’t have to be efficient, they don’t have to be profitable, they just have to hold out their collective hands for more money to ‘save the planet’.
This tends to make a lie out of the claim that ‘most scientists support anthropogenic global warming’.
Why wouldn’t they?
If so-called renewable energy was really the cheapest form of power – as sprouted by our leaders – then why must we provide subsidies to energy companies to produce more renewable power?
They can’t have it both ways…
We pay for subsidies – it either comes out of the taxes we pay, or it is added to our power bills.
Just because ‘everyone says it is so’ does not make it true.
Some of the well-known ‘truths’ that have proven to be false include:
The Earth is flat
The Sun revolves around the Earth
Deoxygenated blood is blue
Mother birds will abandon their babies if touched by humans
Cracking your knuckles causes arthritis
The Great Wall of China is the only man-made structure that can be seen from space
Sugar makes a child hyperactive
We could also add that our teachers (and parents) are not infallible – they can, and do, make mistakes.
Climate sceptics are often called ‘climate deniers’ even though the vast majority acknowledge that the climate does change and has been changing since the Earth was created.
It is the cause of this change which has been in debate.
As there is no scientific evidence of anthropogenic climate change – it is an unproven theory – and there is considerable evidence that supports solar activity being the main driver of climate, to abandon fossil fuels in an attempt to ‘save the planet’, could cause disastrously low-CO² levels.
This could, if not kill all plant life on the planet, at least cause massive problems with low plant growth, and much reduced agricultural productivity.
The push for ‘net zero’ could be the most disastrous move since man stepped foot on this planet – worse than all the wars of the 20th Century put together.
Just be thankful that China is still pumping out significant quantities of CO² – they could really be saving the planet.