I am getting more and more concerned about the speeches from – and attention given to – Greta Thunberg, the young climate activist. Most recently she was made ‘Person of the Year’ by Time Magazine and it seems she and her ‘Extinction Rebellion’ group is getting more and more financial support from the world’s richest people, e.g. see here:


I have looked at some of her speeches – and it seems they are mostly the same. But, at the end, there is always a clear veiled threat…..like this one at COP 24:

“We have not come here to beg world leaders to care. You have ignored us in the past and you will ignore us again. We have run out of excuses and we are running out of time. We have come here to let you know that change is coming whether you like it or  not. The real power belongs to the people.” 

Here is the last section of her speech at the UN meeting in New York (23/09/2019):

How dare you pretend that this can be solved with just ‘business as usual’ and some technical solutions? With today’s emissions levels, that remaining CO2 budget will be entirely gone within less than 8 1/2 years.”

“There will not be any solutions or plans presented in line with these figures here today, because these numbers are too uncomfortable. And you are still not mature enough to tell it like it is. You are failing us. But the young people are starting to understand your betrayal. The eyes of all future generations are upon you. And if you choose to fail us, I say: We will never forgive you.  “We will not let you get away with this. Right here, right now is where we draw the line. The world is waking up. And change is coming, whether you like it or not.”

You see what I mean? Unfortunately, as far as the science is concerned, clearly, Greta is being trained to say what ‘they’ , – whoever ‘they’ may be – want her to say, and she obviously has absolutely no idea of the intricacies involved in climate science. Long ago, I studied the reports from the IPPC [The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change], especially those from 2004 and 2007. I found the science showing that carbon dioxide (CO2) is making the earth warmer not supported by convincing evidence. It was still the same science as proposed by Tyndall and Svante Arrhenius, ca. 100 years ago. They both performed closed box experiments to show that an increase in CO2 causes warming. However, by looking at a closed box, on earth, you are simply not seeing the whole picture. Let me try to show you what I think is wrong with the theory of manmade warming (AGW), allegedly caused by CO2.

People who have studied chemistry, know that to make a standard solution you need neutral water, free of any dissolved carbonates. Hence, the first instruction is to boil the de-ionized or distilled water for 10 minutes. The reaction can be summarized as follows:

HCO3- + heat = > CO2 (g) + OH- (1)

Understand that there is lot of CO2 dissolved in the oceans plus thousands of gigatons of carbonates and bicarbonates as well, due to earlier and on-going volcanic emissions. In fact, according to Ian Plimer, the volcanic eruption in Iceland not so long ago, emitted in 4 days as much carbonates as was ‘saved’ by all our own attempts at reductions in emissions.

When the UV and IR from the sun strikes on top of the ocean’s surface, not only water vapor is formed (H2O g), but also CO2 (g) as per the reaction (1). Hence, we get clouds and rain and the CO2 is getting into our atmosphere. All of this is responsible for life! Remember that everything we eat and drink depends on rain and the sugars formed during photo-synthesis of which CO2 is the principal ingredient.

At the poles and there where it gets very cold, the reaction in the water of the oceans reverses, and CO2 dissolves back into the water. The summary of this reaction is as follows:

CO2 (g) + 2H2O (l) + cold = > HCO3- + H3O+ (2)

Now, imagine earth as a big vessel with liquid on the bottom and gasses on top. There is a natural balance. I am not showing all the reactions that take place in the seawater, but clearly, as per Henry’s Law, [that is not me!], all the dissolved CO2 and all the bi-carbonates and carbonates in the water of the oceans are at an equilibrium with the amount of CO2 in the air. The net reaction that I propose for that, is here:

CO2 (l, in the oceans) + Heat => <= CO2 (g, in the atmosphere ) + Cold (3)

What it means is that the more heat goes into the oceans, the more CO2 comes gassing out into the atmosphere. If the solubility of CO2, & the atmospheric pressure and the pH of the water stays unchanged, then it follows that there must be a correlation between heat and CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. As it happens, due to the extra heat coming from the sun and /or the inside of earth [who says that the cooling of earth over time, is an absolute straight line?], we have indeed seen that the temperatuur of the oceans is going up:


[especially so in the northern hemisphere]. We only have good reliable data on CO2 in the atmosphere since about ca. 1964, and indeed, as expected, as per Henry’s Law, we note that CO2 in the atmosphere went up from about 0.03% to 0.04%, see here:


You understand what I am saying? Simply put, the IPCC has put the cart before the horse…The correlation is in reverse. The more heat goes into the oceans the more CO2 comes into the atmosphere… It is a natural relationship. It is Henry’s Law. The IPCC never ever proved that more CO2 in the air also causes more heat on earth.

Now, I know that there are those who have said that not all of the increase observed in CO2 in the atmosphere is due to natural balance, i.e. ‘Henry’s Law’ . They developed some signature test to prove that a substantial portion of the observed 0.01% increase since 1960 is manmade. To this I say: Fine. Let it be so. Even if this is true, it does not really change anything. All it means is that maybe we are running a little ahead of schedule on the eventual balance that will set in as soon as the oceans get cooler again. What could possibly be wrong with that? There is no real change in the natural laws that govern the CO2 content of the atmosphere?

But true enough, the other relevant question here is: would more CO2 in the air indeed also cause more warmth, due to a greenhouse effect?

Let us take a shower. We all know that if we keep the doors of the cubicle closed, some heat lingers in the water vapor around us, long after we have closed the warm water tap. It proves that a greenhouse effect does exist on earth. Unfortunately, what Tyndall and Arrhenius could not see [from a closed box experiment] is that both CO2 and H2O not only have extinction in the part of the spectrum where earth emits, but they also have extinctions in the part of the spectrum where the sun emits. To see the proof of this, carefully look at this report here: http://astro.berkeley.edu/~kalas/disksite/library/turnbull06a.pdf

Look at Fig. 6 (bottom), e.g. the green line (CO2) and the blue line (H2O). Clearly you can see that IR radiation from the sun is deflected off from earth by the gasses  CO2 and H2O. So, radiation bounced on CO2 and caused it to go back to space. Note that the radiation (i.e. the peaks between 1 and 2 um) went from the sun => earth (CO2) => moon (i.e. space) => earth. Note that there are also extinctions of CO2 in the UV [this is how we can measure CO2 on other planets!] and between 2.5 and 5 um [I remember measuring CO2 in N2 at around 4.3 um]

That raises the question: what is more: the amount of heat deflected off from earth by the CO2 due to extinctions of the CO2  in the spectrum of the sun 0-5 um [5500K)], namely those in the UV, and those between 1-2 um and 2.5 -5um, or the amount of heat trapped on earth due to the extinction of CO2 in the 14-15 um region of earth’s spectrum[210K]?

Sadly, there is no report on this…at least none that I could find. Nobody has investigated this problem and made an exact balance sheet of all the plusses and minuses in the correct SI dimensions of how much heat is deflected off from earth and how much heat is trapped by the CO2 on earth. I am busy with a complex analysis of the spectrum of CO2 and preliminary results show that the amount of cooling is more or less equal to the warming effect! 

That corresponds with my analysis of all daily data of 54 weather stations around the world over the past 40 years . Namely, if AGW, were true, due to more CO2, would you not expect that the rate of warming would be the same, more or less, everywhere on the world? Clearly, I find this not being the case. I found minimum temperatures dropping in the southern hemisphere whereas it increased in the NH.

That brings me back to Greta. She and her leaders are misguided at best or otherwise willfully engaged in misleading the public. Obviously, she might get more and more support, as in spite of the warming, in the next decade, natural climate change will definitely take its toll:


Surely, this will get more and more people, not having faith in God, nor in the hand of God on climate, to ‘accept’ AGW, and be further exploited on their feelings of guilt. Eventually, that might give her and her friends the absolute power that they are after.

Do you trust her?

It being Christmas time soon, let us look at what a girl of similar age said more than 2000 years ago:

“And Mary said: My soul glorifies the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior,
for he has been mindful of the humble state of his servant. From now on, all
generations will call me blessed……His mercy extends to those who fear him, from
generation to generation….He has brought down rulers from their thrones but has
lifted the humble (Luke 1:46-52).

I wish you a very blessed Christmas season.