Climate truths and climate lies

01/29/2022 20:24 - Posted by Tom van Leeuwen
In recent years, a very worrying situation has arisen regarding the climate issue. Western politicians seem to have lost touch with reality and are trying to outdo each other in political correctness, which is in no way supported by science. Scientists are silent for fear of losing their reputation and job.
The time seems to have come to put things straight.

Climate truths
The CO2 greenhouse effect is saturated and adding more CO2 to the Earth's atmosphere has no measurable effect on its temperature or on the climate in general.

This is apparent from the way in which the greenhouse effect works. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, it absorbs infrared radiation emitted by the Earth to cool it, but of the entire electromagnetic spectrum it has that property for less than 1% of the frequencies. This means that 99% of the radiation is radiated into space unhindered by CO2. The 1% of the frequencies that CO2 can absorb represents a finite amount of energy. At a certain concentration of CO2, all that energy is absorbed, there is no more absorbable energy left and adding more CO2 has no measurable effect on the temperature. That is the saturation point of the greenhouse effect.
It now appears that this saturation point was already reached at the beginning of the Holocene, when the warming after the previous glacial period stopped about 8,000 years ago. Since then, the CO2 greenhouse effect has existed, but it works at its maximum absorption capacity, so adding more CO2 no longer has a measurable effect.
This theoretical approach is empirically confirmed in two ways. These are scientifically based, replicable experiments and calculations:
1.- Measurements of the radiation balance at the top of the atmosphere, carried out by NASA's CERES program, indicate that there is no growing CO2 greenhouse effect despite the increasing CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.
Read more: The fingerprints of the greenhouse effect.

2.- The CO2 added to the atmosphere by man is caused by the combustion of fossil fuels. These fossil fuels contain the isotopes 12C and 13C, but not the naturally radioactive 14C. Now it turns out that the balance of these 3 carbon isotopes in the atmosphere is changing, in a way that can be calculated that only 12% of the added CO2 is caused by humans. The remaining 88% has a natural origin.
Read more: We are innocent! CO2 measures make no sense.

Climate lies
We are experiencing a climate crisis. Humanity must end CO2 emissions as soon as possible to stop the warming that is caused by those emissions.

The only way this claim is defended is a supposed correlation between the rise in CO2 in the atmosphere and the rise in temperature since the 1980s. The temperature graphs quoted are not undisputed, in much more reliable satellite measurements the correlation is much less apparent and for certain periods the correlation is absent or even reversed.
It ignores the fact that a correlation does not indicate a causal relationship and even if there was a causal relationship, it could just as well be that the increase in temperature causes the increase in CO2 and not the other way around.
Furthermore, this claim is not confirmed by scientific evidence. There is no known experiment or measurement that provides scientific proof.

The situation in the world
The infatuation that has taken hold of the Western World (Europe, North America and Australia) seems to be absent from the rest of the world. Russia and China are quietly watching as the West shoots itself in the foot, India has no intention of jeopardizing its development into a modern economy and Japan doesn't seem overly enthusiastic.
In South America and Africa, the climate is a non-issue. It is checked whether money can be obtained, using the situation, but other matters are much more important.
So the West remains, where people seem willing to risk the prosperity and economic future to "solve" a non-existent problem. Nobody wonders anymore whether the basis of the whole story is actually correct, people are completely blinded by sharpening the objectives every year, without for a moment wondering whether this all makes sense.

The climate plans
From this point we will observe the concrete situation in Holland, but surely a similar text can be created for any western country.
The western governments are falling over each other to present as far-reaching reforms as possible to solve this non-existent problem. The aim is to reduce an increasing proportion of CO2 emissions in increasingly shorter terms. CO2 is presented as the main culprit, a polluter. This, too, is far from the truth. As a plant food, CO2 is the basis of all life on Earth.
In the Netherlands, now the Rutte IV cabinet is taking office, the current promise is a 60% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2030. In order to achieve this, plans are being made in many areas; Hardly any concrete steps have been taken, and there is still no sign of any reduction.
1.- Replacing the vehicle fleet
Combustion engines are banned and all vehicles must be replaced by electric ones. A solution for air traffic is still being sought.
2.- Replacing the power plants
Coal and natural gas plants are banned. As alternatives, work is being done on expanding the wind turbines and solar panels. It is highly questionable whether these alternatives can provide sufficient energy, especially given the fact that the demand for electricity will increase sharply as a result of the other plans. Nuclear energy is also mentioned as an alternative.
3.- Homes and businesses off gas
While governments of other Western countries strangely see natural gas as a "clean" alternative (of course there are CO2 emissions when burning natural gas), and the Dutch natural gas network is the best in the world, the Dutch government from the outset to prohibit homes and businesses from burning gas any longer. The alternative are heat pumps, where homes are heated by warm groundwater pumped up with electric motors or residual heat from the air. There are also hybrid heat pumps that only replace natural gas when it is not too cold; on winter days, gas is then fired again. Unfortunately, the distribution of heat within the buildings is different, which means that major renovations to every building are necessary, such as underfloor heating, wall heating and HR++ double glazing.
4.- Expansion of the electricity grid
Climate plans 1 and 3 will put an extra burden on the existing electricity grid, which it was not designed to do. Far-reaching innovations and extensions will therefore be necessary.

The total costs of this package of measures are difficult to estimate. The government is trying to fool the population by setting up a climate fund of 35 billion euros, as if that were enough. A sober consideration of the facts reveals the following. There are 8 million households in the Netherlands. If, for example, the adjustments and renovations needed to remove a household from the gas network alone cost 30 thousand euros, the total costs of point 3 of the climate plans are 240 billion euros. And then we are not even talking about the vehicle fleet, the electricity grid and the power plants. This is a rough estimate, but it is perfectly clear that the total investments needed to implement all climate plans will quickly reach 1000 billion, or the total Dutch Gross National Product for one year.

An entirely different question is whether it is in fact possible to realize all those renovations and adjustments within the prescribed period. Are there sufficient trained personnel (plumbers, masons, electricians, etc.) on call to perform these tasks?

All in all, this is an ideal situation for the collectivists. There is a lot of money to share. Other people's money. The population is afraid, even people who suspect that something is not right are afraid to speak it out. Everyone seems to want to follow the plans obediently, so as not to suffer the social consequences that a critical attitude could entail. It is hard to imagine that this is an unfortunate coincidence of chance. It just suits them too well. There seems to be a perfect plan behind it.

The great danger is that these plans will be laid down in laws and international treaties that could be enforced by the judiciary at a later date, even if new insights indicate otherwise.

That's why it's so important to sort these things out. Look at the facts objectively and try to form and live up to your own point of view.

Tom van Leeuwen, January 29, 2022.


Please donate

Fighting the climate hysteria is time-consuming! If you think I'm on the right track and you want to support my efforts I would be more than happy to receive a small donation that will help me to maintain this site.


The fingerprints of the greenhouse effect

The hypothesis of "man-made climate change" tells us that the increase in the concentration of CO2 enhances the greenhouse effect of the atmosphere and has global warming as a final result.

Since the beginning of the industrialized era around 1850, man emits relatively large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere through the use of fossil fuels. The consequence of these emissions is that during that period, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere increased sharply from about 300 parts per million to more than 400 ppm, an increase of almost 40%. The average temperature increased in the same period more or less 1.5 °C with a small variation depending on the data source used.

Why did the warming stop?

The political reports of the IPCC are based on the hypothesis that CO2 is the most important control knob of the Earth's temperature. The problem is that this hypothesis does not correspond at all with the empirical data available to science. Forecasts are made using models that are not capable of 'predicting' the past.

Temperature versus CO2 – the big picture

When discussing “Climate Change” it’s good to have an understanding of how the Earth’s climate has changed in the past. That will give us a reference to decide whether the current changes are normal or not.

Global temperatures have varied a lot over the last 500 million years. Depending on the timescale used, the current temperature is either cold or hot, so when you want to know the “normal temperature” you’ll have to indicate what timescale you’re using.

Video - Who are the real climate deniers?

The climate has shown many fluctuations during the Holocene. The difference between the highest and lowest average temperature of the past 10 thousand years is about 3 °C.

Climate alarmists, led by the IPCC, are trying to deny this, and understandably so. This variation means that without human influence there was climate change as well.

This undermines their hypotheses and often their jobs depend on it.

Climate change seen from a historical perspective.

Satellite Earth temperature February 2022

The satellite temperature departure measurement for February 2022 is exactly 0° C.

This means that Earth temperature during February 2022 was exactly the same as the average from 1991 to 2020.

Satellites are the best way to have insight into the short-term temperature variations. They measure the whole surface, independent of weather station distribution, Heat Islands, measurement failures, surface condition (land or water).

There is a step-wise increase in temperature, triggered by two very strong El Niño events (1998 and 2016.) The energy that welled up from the deep oceans established a new level in these two ocasions, where the warming paused. This is a natural phenomenon and has nothing to do with CO2, or human activity.

Where is the Climate Emergency? It just does not exist.

Wake up and spread this information to your government!

Tom van Leeuwen, March 1st, 2022.

The H2O greenhouse effect

The IPCC's CO2 hypothesis, with which Western governments try to incite their citizens to group-think, panic and unnecessary measures and taxes, rests in large part on the belief that there is a positive feedback effect between the greenhouse effects of CO2 and water vapor (H2O). A small increase in temperature, caused by the increase in CO2 concentration, would lead to an increase in water vapor concentration and thus increase the H2O greenhouse effect.

This is a misconception. First, positive feedback effects are extremely rare in nature. Furthermore, there is no sensible word to say about the effect that an increase in the H2O greenhouse effect has on the temperature.

Below are three reasons why it is impossible to model this effect.

Rob Jetten, Minister of Climate and Energy

Rob Jetten is the new, brand new Minister of Climate and Energy in the Dutch cabinet Rutte IV.

This is a new ministry, but unfortunately it is characterized by the same ideas as in previous cabinets. The idea that humans, by burning fossil fuels, are responsible for the recent warming of the Earth.


This article is partly based on the thorough research done by Freek van Leeuwen on the scientists Valentina Zharkova and Willie Soon and their work on sunspots.

As we have seen in recent weeks, new research indicates that there is no increased CO2 emissions. global warming, and that only 12% of the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration is due to human action.

Good news, then, but then the question arises where the heating comes from, which many people feel and which can also be seen in the monthly charts of the satellite measurements.