Crockford shows how polar bears are flourishing and communities are either stable or increasing. Polar bears in part of the Barents Sea increased by 42 percent between 2004 and 2015; in Baffin Bay where bears were predicted to decline by 25 percent they increased by 36 percent; and in Kane Basin they more than doubled. The global average had risen to more than 30,000 bears which Crockford says is ‘far and away the highest estimate in more than 50 years’. Crockford exposes the BBC’s climate change propagandist David Attenborough for misleading the public on polar bears and much else in an Internet video Attenborough’s Arctic Betrayal (Fig 267 ). Greta Thunberg said she became an activist on climate change after watching reports of polar bear decline that isn’t happening. The same BBC of course gave her a TV programme (program) to promote her propaganda.

• Images show belching chimneys pouring out ‘dangerous’ carbon dioxide: CO2 is invisible to the human eye and what they are showing you is pollution and not CO2 which is the gas of life and without it there would be no plants and so no humans or animals (Fig 268 ). They show you pictures of pollution to make you believe that carbon dioxide is a pollutant. Most of the ‘journalists’ who do this don’t know the difference themselves in yet another exercise in the blind leading the blind.

Protecting make-it-up mythology

How could a hoax based on so many lies become accepted fact in the minds of so many – especially the young – and drive much of government policy? The hoax has been possible by control of information to indoctrinate a belief system underscored by the fear that ‘we’re all going to die’. I’ve said that once you implant the orthodoxy of ‘everyone knows that’ the rest follows largely unaided. Older people are more sceptical of the climate claims because they’ve not had a lifetime of climate propaganda in the schools and universities. The young have and it’s clear why many children and young people believe the lie pedalled through all Cult institutions of government, ‘education’, and crucially the media. Unless people seek out information beyond the Mainstream Everything they live in a one-track world. Without alternative sources of information the population is only being told what the Cult wants them to think. Pictures of distressed polar bears have been explained as the consequences of ‘global warming’ when the cause of their distress and emaciated state were later revealed to have had other origins unrelated to climate. Show a bear in trouble and say it is climate change and most people believe that to be true when it fits the narrative they have already been suckered to believe in. I read an excellent book by American meteorologist and weather forecaster, Joe Bastardi, a vehement and outspoken exposer of the climate lie. He describes in The Climate Chronicles how he has studied weather patterns going way back to show that weather now being blamed on human-caused climate change has happened in a recurring sequence long before the industrial era. The difference is that before the climate hysteria the same weather was just weather. Today it’s always caused by global warming (which became ‘climate change’ when temperatures stopped rising and then the ‘climate crisis’ as the scare was ramped up). It’s so easy to be scammed if people don’t check the facts. We have a hurricane – it’s global warming!; tornado – it’s global warming!; drought – it’s global warming!. It’s hot – it’s global warming! It’s cold – it’s global warming! Bastardi calls them Climate ambulance chasers. He says: ‘What happened before naturally is happening again, as is to be expected given the cyclical nature of the climate due to the design of the planet.’ Bastardi presents many examples of these cycles now blamed on human activity and this is one relating to droughts in the United States:

… Major US dry periods are a product of a cooling tropical Pacific. In the decades such as the 1950s through the 1970s, when the tropical Pacific is cooler overall, the US is drier than normal in much of the nation.

It is exactly the opposite in the years the Pacific warms, which, by the way correlates nicely to an increase in global temperatures until the atmosphere adjusts to the warming tropical ocean and temperatures level off. But the idea that global warming causes droughts here in the US is the opposite of the facts! It’s when the Pacific starts to cool and global temperatures start to drop that we see it dry out.

Bastardi’s book is highly recommended as is The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change by Republican insider Marc Morano who charts the blatant political manipulation behind the climate hoax. A good website for hoax-challenging information is the Global Warming Policy Foundation at thegwpf.com . We should not forget that all the projections upon projections about climate Armageddon don’t come from observing the climate. They result from putting data and assumptions into computer models and believing what they tell you is going to happen. The fact that they have been wrong by shocking margins so many times might have given them a clue by now that this doesn’t work due to a simple cause and effect: If you factor in shit the computer will process that shit to produce ‘predictions’ that are nothing more than a feedback loop of shit-in and shit-out. Assume something with your input and you’ll get the answer you want, but rarely the truth. There are so many variables and influences that affect climate that long-term predictions are a mug’s game anyway. Follow the cycles that have happened before if you want to predict the climate. There’s another angle to this that we should be constantly vigilant about. Technology to manipulate weather is now highly-advanced and there would not be international treaties agreeing not to manipulate weather if it was not technologically possible to do that. See Everything You Need To Know for detailed background about how extremes of weather can be made to happen and we can expect the Cult to continue to strike in this way around the world to convince people climate disaster is at hand.

The gas of life

Figure 269: Carbon dioxide is the gas of life and the natural world’s version of oxygen. I know – let’s demonise the gas of life and transform society into the global centralised tyranny to make sure we have less of it.

The Cult takes facts and inverts them to become the very opposite of the truth before selling the inversion as ‘conventional wisdom’. This way the public perception of reality becomes the opposite of actual reality. We are told we face ‘catastrophe’ when if what the Climate Cult demands are followed through we will have a real, not imagined, human catastrophe in economics, food production and energy supplies (this was written before the ‘virus’ lockdowns which have had the same effect). Global society would be devastated by plans to be ‘carbon neutral’ by 2025 to 2030 or 2050. There can, however, be no better or more blatant example of inversion than carbon dioxide (CO2) itself. This is the gas of life without which we really would all be dead and yet CO2 has been thoroughly demonised (Fig 269 ). If it was human it could sue for libel. You’ll find interviews at Davidicke.com with professors at Princeton University emphasising both the central role played by carbon dioxide in human life and that far from having too much in the atmosphere we don’t have enough . This will be amazing to people who have bought the carbon-is-a-pollutant narrative and it reveals the scale of inversion that we are dealing with. William Happer, Professor of Physics at Princeton University and long-time government advisor on climate, is one scientist who says the planet has a CO2 deficiency and needs more for optimal plant growth and food production. Such views have made him a big hate figure for the Climate Cult as the truth always does. He says that most of the warming in the last 100 years happened as we emerged from the Little Ice Age and was over by 1940. Happer points out that in a peak year for warming in 1988 there was a ‘monster El Nino’ which is a natural and cyclical warming of the Pacific that affects global weather patterns and temperature and has nothing to do with ‘climate change’. He says the nature of the CO2 effect can be likened to painting a wall with red paint. Once two or three coats have been applied it doesn’t matter how much more paint you add the wall will not get much redder. He explains that almost all the effect of the rise in CO2 has already occurred and the amount in the atmosphere would now have to double for even a single degree increase in temperature:

I know a lot about CO2 compared with most climate scientists … there’s an interesting thing about CO2 which is unique to CO2 – it’s not true, for example, of water vapour, methane. This is that if you get one degree of warming from doubling CO2, so going from say 400 parts per million for simplicity to 800 … then to get another degree of warming you have to double 800, you have to go to 1,600. So it gets harder and harder to warm. Technically they call that the logarithmic dependence of temperature rise on CO2 concentration.

Happer said that this fact was realised early in the climate hysteria and to overcome such a demolition of the orthodoxy we had advocates of the hoax inventing theories about ‘feedback loops’ amplifying the CO2 effect. These are the doom-laden predictions that you constantly hear parroted by climate activists including Greta Thunberg. Happer said he laughs when he hears about ‘carbon pollution’ given that people, plants and animals are made of carbon and without it there would be no life. He said that an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere would make plants more drought resistant because when plants open holes in their leaves to absorb CO2 they leak water and the holes have to be open for longer to take in enough carbon dioxide amid what he calls a ‘CO2 famine’. Happer emphasised that CO2 increases since industrialisation have had a ‘huge effect’ on plants and increased their growth: ‘When people talk about the social cost of carbon it’s absurd. The social cost is negative of CO2.’ He said climate computer models don’t look at the world as it is, but at other computer models . How much funding would the modellers get, by the way, if their predictions did not support the Climate Cult hypothesis? Imperial College in London which has produced many of the ridiculous ‘climate change’ models was also responsible for the computer models warning of insane numbers of ‘Covid-19’ deaths in the UK, United States and other countries which led to the lockdowns that have destroyed the lives of billions. Needless to say the insane ‘projections’ did not materialise, but provided the excuse for global house arrest.

Too much CO2? We don’t have enough

The central importance of CO2 was a theme developed by Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore in a presentation to the Global Warming Policy Foundation. Scientist Moore left Greenpeace in 1986 and has criticised the green movement for scare tactics and disinformation with particular emphasis on climate change. He makes the point that other scientists have made about how dangerous it is to have low levels of CO2. Plants start to die at 150 parts per million and Moore says that even when CO2 fell to 180 ppm 18,000 years ago plants began to starve. This only turned around when the temperature went up for reasons I will shortly explain. Calling for a reduction in carbon dioxide is the plant equivalent of humans demanding a reduction in oxygen – CO2 is, in effect, plant oxygen. Today Moore says CO2 stands at around 400 ppm and plant life is still ‘relatively starved of nutrition’ with the optimum levels for plant growth five times higher at 2,000 ppm and in some periods of the Earth’s history the ratio has reached 4,000 ppm. These facts explain why since CO2 levels began to rise with industrialisation the Earth is getting greener as CO2 has risen from 280 ppm in an 1880 measurement in Hawaii to 413 ppm in 2019. The Climate Cult that claims to be ‘saving the planet’ wants to reverse that process! Why do they think people pump extra carbon dioxide into greenhouses?? The Climate Cult contends amid its mass-hysteria that we face extinction when the gas of life is at way below optimum planet-growth levels and 500 million years ago there was 17 times more CO2 in the atmosphere than we have today. Patrick Moore said levels have been falling for hundreds of millions of years as it was absorbed from the atmosphere and locked away by many and various sources. Over the last 150 million years CO2 levels in Earth’s atmosphere had reduced by 90 percent . By the time humans began releasing carbon dioxide through fossil fuels Moore said we were at ‘38 seconds to midnight’ in terms of threats to plant life (thus all life) through plummeting levels of CO2. Not only aren’t humans causing extinction they are preventing it. ‘Release of CO2 has turned around the constant fall’, Moore said, and in this sense ‘Humans are the Earth’s salvation’. Moore also noted that only half the CO2 emitted by fossil fuels ends up in the atmosphere. You read these facts about the fundamental importance of CO2 and then hear as I did an interview with ‘carbon footprint expert’ Mike Berners-Lee, a professor at the Institute for Social Futures at the UK’s Lancaster University, and brother of Tim Berners-Lee who is credited with inventing the World Wide Web. The interview was on the London-based TalkRadio in which Mike Berners-Lee told an unchallenging host how emails add to carbon emissions and that ‘a low-carbon world is better than a high-carbon world’. Breathes deeply, shakes head, moves on. Some other information in Patrick Moore’s speech that the Climate Cult should know: The Earth has been in a major cooling period since the maximum of 50 million years ago when it was as much as 16 degrees warmer. Today’s poles were ice free and covered in forests. The ancestors of today’s species came through that temperature period fine, but a two percent rise is now supposed to threaten mass extinction! Even in our current interglacial period we are experiencing one of the coldest climates in the Earth’s history. The Medieval Warm Period (long before fossil fuels) was still cooler than temperatures in the last 10,000 years, Moore said.

Temperature doesn’t follow CO2 – it’s the other way round

Figure 270: CO2 is a tiny fraction of greenhouse gases which are almost entirely water vapour and clouds. What’s more the great majority of that CO2 is naturally-occurring and nothing to do with humans.

Oh, Climate Cultists may say, higher CO2 might be better for plants, but it will cause the Earth to heat catastrophically. I mean, Greta Thunberg says we should believe that our house is on fire and she wouldn’t mislead us, right? Well, if she has been mercilessly mislead herself I think she probably would. In fact, temperature rises don’t follow increases in CO2 – it’s the other way round as the records clearly show. In the last 400,000 years CO2 has lagged temperature by an average of 800 years. As Patrick Moore rightly says carbon dioxide cannot be the cause of rising temperature when the increase in temperature comes before the increase in CO2. How can the effect come before the cause? It can’t. So here’s a shocker for New Wokers … temperature must be affecting CO2 levels and not vice-versa. Here we have yet another classic Cult inversion of the truth. How could temperature increase CO2? The ocean contains 45 times more CO2 than we have in the atmosphere and the ocean releases carbon dioxide in warm periods and absorbs it in colder periods. The lag between the two is around 800 years and look what was happening 800 years ago …. the Medieval Warm Period . Carbon dioxide does not cause the Earth to catastrophically warm. The history of CO2 correlation with temperature shows that for immense periods the two have been completely out of kilter. Temperatures have risen and remained high as CO2 went down. Carbon dioxide is also only 0.117 percent of what are called greenhouse gases while more than 90 percent of those gases are water vapour and clouds (Fig 270 ). Only a fraction of that 0.117 percent is CO2 caused by human activity and the rest happens naturally. Professional conman Al Gore tried to obscure this fact by saying that if you ‘take water vapour out of the equation CO2 is 30 percent of greenhouse gases’. Don’t buy a used car from that man or even a new one. How can you ‘take water vapour out of the equation’ when that together with clouds makes up close to the entirety of greenhouse gases? To deceive – that’s how. Calculated demonisation of CO2 is so transparent. Professor Leslie Woodcock, Emeritus Professor at the University of Manchester, fellow of the Royal Society of Chemical Engineering, a recipient of a Max Plank Society Visiting Fellowship, and former NASA researcher, said:

Water is a much more powerful greenhouse gas, and there is 20 times more of it in our atmosphere, around one percent of the atmosphere, whereas CO2 is only 0.04 percent. Carbon dioxide has been made out to be some kind of toxic gas, but the truth is that it’s the gas of life. We breathe it out, plants breathe it in and it’s not caused by us. Global warming is nonsense.

British scientist James Lovelock was a one-time Green icon with his Gaia theory of the Earth as a living entity (true). He became even more acclaimed by climate alarmists when he predicted in his book The Revenge of Gaia that ‘billions will die’ and humanity was doomed. Lovelock wrote that any survivors would have to live in the Arctic which would be one of the few habitable places on Earth. Then reality dawned and to his enormous credit he had the courage to publicly change his mind. Humanity was not in imminent peril after all. Lovelock now says that climate alarmism is not ‘remotely scientific’, computer models are unreliable and anyone who tries to ‘predict more than five to ten years is a bit of an idiot’. A single volcano can make more difference to global warming than humans ever could, he has stated. He accuses the Greens of exaggeration and behaving ‘deplorably’. Weather Channel founder John Coleman has said human-caused global warming is a myth and the list of scientists saying the same is getting longer by the week. Such honesty often comes at a cost, however, in the form of lost jobs and income. Dr Judith Curry, a respected climatologist and tenured professor at Georgia Tech University, left her ‘dream job’ when she refused to pledge unquestioning obedience to the Climate Cult. She told Fox News:

I’ve been vilified by some of my colleagues who are activists and don’t like anybody challenging their big story … I walk around with knives sticking out of my back … In the university environment I felt like I was just beating my head against the wall.

Curry is a target of an establishment-promoted ‘climate advocacy group’ called Skeptical Science which operates a ‘blacklist’ of scientists who won’t comply with Climate Cult orthodoxy. Dana Nuccitelli, one of the principals of Skeptical Science, wrote of Curry: ‘If you look at the statements we cataloged and debunked … it should make her unhirable in academia.’ Judith Curry is a former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Tech and a Fellow of both the American Geophysical Union and American Meteorological Society. She was only ‘unhirable’ because the Climate Cult made it so. Curry was asked to step down by her university for her views on climate and had ‘numerous inquiries from academic headhunters encouraging me to apply for major administration positions, ranging from Dean to Vice Chancellor for Research’. She didn’t even make the shortlist. Curry said in a Forbes interview:

They thought I was an outstanding candidate, looked excellent on paper, articulated a strong vision, and interviewed very well in person. The show stopper was my public profile in the climate debate, as evidenced by a simple Google search.

Figure 271:Refuse to sing from the song-sheet and you’re gone.