Apocalypse Not Today

I have to admit that I am a bit skeptical when I hear political figures speak. I see the world through the lens that everyone is trying to sell you something. And political figures are just the top sellers. 

The Western world has completely embraced the green narrative, joining forces against climate change. If the narrative were to be correct, our politicians would, for the first time, be on the side of the collective well-being. 

This seems too good to be true, and my spidey senses tell me there has to be something fishy here. So let’s do a bit of research and see where we get to.

Average Global Temperature Is Rising

Since the 1800s, coinciding with The Industrial Revolution, human activities have been increasing the average global temperature. This rise is caused by burning fossil fuels (coal, gas, oil) that generate CO2, a greenhouse gas.  Poles are melting, and the climate is becoming more unstable, causing droughts and storms all over the globe.

If the temperature keeps rising the consequence would worsen. That is why, most Western Countries have committed to stopping the temperature from rising above 1.5°C. In 2022, we were at 0.89°C so we have a 0.61°C margin before things get much worse.

This summarizes the position of the United Nations on What is Climate Change and conveys what I feel is the mainstream narrative. As proof, you can see below the global average temperature variation graph, from the NASA website. It displays the measurements from different reputable organizations.

You can see the temperature rising for the last 200 years. The story makes, so what’s the catch?

Intellectual Dishonesty Wrapped Up In A Good Story

We have an explanation for the phenomenon, data to back it up, and historical events to reference that temperature increase. The narrative looks quite convincing.

However, this way of presenting the story is intellectually dishonest. According to Wikipedia, modern humans have been around for at least 260,000 years. It is statistically incorrect to draw conclusions of 260,000 years of history based on just the last 200. You are missing most of the information.

So before accepting a graph like the one above, one should ask what about the rest of the data. And that is where the nuance starts.

A Very Telling Graph Of Greenland’s History 

To go that far in time, and get approximate values of temperature, we have to go to ancient blocks of ice. They store air particles that scientists can measure. There is a relationship between the amount of particles trapped and the temperature at that point in time.

So below, you can see the temperature variation in Greenland for the coordinates Latitude: 72.6 Longitude: -38.5 for the last 10,000 years. The raw data that represents the graph below, can be found on the website of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Notice we are speaking about temperature variation. That means increments or decrements from a reference point. We are not talking about absolute temperatures. After all, that’s what the mainstream is focused on.

We can see that temperature in Greenland has changed considerably during the last millennia. This is a graph for a specific region, so we cannot say it is for certain a representation of the rest of the planet. But it seems reasonable to think that what happens around the globe would somehow impact the climate in Greenland. 

Especially if we accept the idea that the poles are melting. Greenland is not that far from the pole, so I will use Greenland’s temperature as a proxy, to extract some conclusions.

Climate Has Been Oscillating For The Last 10,000 years

You can observe in the graph that the temperature oscillates between -1.5°C and +2°C and that in recent history, we have been in the lower part of that range. This implies that with or without human action, the temperature in Greenland was most likely headed to increase.

The United Nations claims that humans have been responsible for virtually all global heating over the last 200 years. That might be true, but not in Greenland 🙂

For the Greenlanders, climate change is at most, partially caused by human action, so the mainstream narrative doesn’t fit them.

Climate Changes So Slowly That We Don’t Have Time to Asses Our Actions

Another conclusion would be that climate is in constant change. But that happens so slowly, that we don’t have enough time to evaluate if the measures implemented work or not.

This translates into, the governments would take action, but won’t be able to understand if those actions were right or wrong. Because the impact that they will have on the climate will happen a couple of decades afterwards.

It is like launching an uncontrolled rocket on a 20-year journey. You will calculate the trajectory, but until it arrives 20 years later, you don’t know if your numbers were correct.

This means that everyone should be very critical with policies that address climate change. They risk to demand sacrifices from people for the next 20 years, to find out in the end it was for nothing.

What About The Rate Of Change?

Some say that the problem is the rate at which the temperature is increasing. If you look at the graph from NASA from above. You can observe a rate of change of

(0.8+0.5) °C / (2022-1880) years= 0.0091 °C / year.

For the period 6279 b.c to 5901 b.c, in Greenland, we had a variation of 3.65 °C. This means a rate of change of 0.0092 °C / year.

Both rates have a similar magnitude. It is true we are comparing global temperature to a local temperature. But this gives at least a sense of proportion when it comes to evaluating how much the climate can change without human intervention.

In the case of Greenland, the natural rate of temperature 8,000 years ago is similar to the rate of change today under climate change conditions.

So you should ask yourself, if this rate of change can happen naturally, how can I know that this time is not natural but human made?

To finish up our reasoning, we should point out that the graph from above is not up to date, so where can we find the missing data?

The Shown Graph Goes up to 1885, Why Don’t You Show The Most Actual Data?

Fortunately, the NOAA has a portal where you can plot the data according to your desired coordinates.

See below the temperature variation for the study’s coordinates:  Latitude: 72.6 Longitude: -38.5.

The same location has seen an increment of approximately 1.3°C over the last 150 years. If we were to add that to our original graph, Greenland would be on a +0.5°C

I have plotted that level in red, in the graph below. Also in yellow you can see the UN target from a Greenlander point of view.

This is very important because Greenland is just experiencing what it did, 2000, 3000, 6000, and 8000 years ago. A cyclical temperature increase.

Also for the last 200 years, Greenland has experienced an increase of 1.3°C while the rest of the world has experienced 1.5°C. That is correlation of 86%

So you should ask yourself, why is the Greenland climate experiencing something that looks within reason, while at the same time the rest of the world is experiencing something abnormal? And how is it possible that both phenomena correlate to each other?

Probably we won’t get to know the answer.

A Balancing Act Between Trust And Own Research

The mainstream claims that climate change is 100% human-made and that the consequences of it are imminent. I believe this is not true. Climate change is not 100% human-caused. Also, the consequences are not imminent nor apocalyptic.

As said before, politicians are top sellers, and they are selling you a narrative wrapped in an apocalyptic tone. That hides a psychological trap that you should be aware of. If you believe in the apocalypse, which is the most scary thing you can think of. 

You would agree to any potential political measure to address that problem. Because what is more important than saving the world from ending? That puts you in a position, where you have to give yourself away and trust the institutions completely.

That opens the door for the politicians to take advantage of your trust for their own benefit. That, I think, is the reason why politicians are so fond of the climate narrative. Regardless of the real severity of the problem, they have a good excuse to support their personal interests.

So we, citizens, should make a balancing act, between trust and doing our own research. Even if we are limited by the complexity of the problem. No matter what, we will almost always be wrong. But at least, it would serve as a barrier if someone tries to abuse our trust.

I invite you to consider alternative points of views. Listen to Bjørn Lomborg and Brian Gytt. They are an environmentalist and a nuclear energy advocate. They challenge the mainstream narrative, with a constructive and positive framework.

I leave you with a question: Assuming that we are not able to know the truth by ourselves. And that no matter what, most likely, we will be wrong. What is more probable? 

That the world is heading to a real climate emergency, and politicians have become good and honest? Or that climate change is something we can deal with and the politicians are selling an idea?

I would love to read your answers in the comment section. Also, subscribe/connect so you know when I publish the next piece 🙂

Bonus Track

When you see headlines saying that we have reached the hottest year ever. Remember that in Greenland, at least, that has been the case every day for the last 10,000 years.