Juno News - December 03, 2024


Carbon dioxide is NOT WARMING the planet： Nuclear scientist


Episode Stats

Length

15 minutes

Words per Minute

158.28142

Word Count

2,456

Sentence Count

117

Misogynist Sentences

1

Hate Speech Sentences

2


Summary


Transcript

00:00:00.000 What if everything you've been told about the dangers of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere
00:00:06.780 by mainstream media journalists and by politicians was actually just complete nonsense?
00:00:13.040 Well, a new paper published by York University Scientist and Princeton University Scientist
00:00:18.020 actually shows that carbon dioxide is not responsible for raising global temperatures.
00:00:24.400 It's the kind of thing you would want to learn more about,
00:00:26.800 given that carbon dioxide in our atmosphere seems to be the source of all the climate hysteria
00:00:32.500 coming from the Canadian government.
00:00:34.380 It's the reason why we have to have a carbon tax.
00:00:36.800 It's the reason why you won't be allowed to drive or buy a new gas-powered car in the future.
00:00:43.020 Joining us now on the show is Dr. Jim Mason,
00:00:45.960 a nuclear scientist with an extensive background in analyzing complex data,
00:00:50.820 particularly in the context of climate change.
00:00:53.960 Dr. Mason, you recently published in C2C Journal an article called
00:00:58.340 A Planet That Might Not Need Saving, Can CO2 Even Drive Global Temperatures?
00:01:03.640 First, just take us through the points that you're making here in this very interesting article.
00:01:09.600 Well, the article was actually based on two papers that I came across in the scientific literature.
00:01:15.700 One in particular seems to be quite compelling to me.
00:01:18.920 It's an experimental piece of work that was done in Poland by three researchers
00:01:24.160 that actually measured the amount of radiant energy that was absorbed in a column of air
00:01:31.060 as they controlled the level of carbon dioxide in that column,
00:01:36.300 using a source of energy that was very reflective of the long wavelength radiation type of thing
00:01:45.680 that would come from the Earth's surface.
00:01:46.920 And they found rather a remarkable thing.
00:01:50.920 Rather than the amount of energy increasing indefinitely, as you will,
00:01:55.520 as the concentration of carbon dioxide increased in the air column,
00:02:00.380 it actually tapered off very quickly and started to approach asymptotically to a maximum
00:02:06.520 so that eventually you get to a point where even though you're increasing the level of carbon dioxide
00:02:12.100 in the air column, it's not absorbing any more energy.
00:02:16.480 And in fact, they've taken some measurements off their graph.
00:02:20.700 They determined that the concentration at which 95% of the incident energy
00:02:27.180 that was eventually going to be absorbed, that's 95% of this maximum,
00:02:32.540 occurred at a concentration that was less than one-tenth of the current concentration in the atmosphere,
00:02:40.240 which means really, since that time, additional carbon dioxide has really had very little impact on the climate.
00:02:48.580 So I find that pretty interesting because it's kind of nice experimental physics.
00:02:54.000 And so that's why I wrote the article.
00:02:56.740 So essentially, the idea that carbon dioxide is going to kill the planet,
00:03:01.700 what we've been force-fed by the Canadian government and many of these NGOs, the United Nations,
00:03:07.440 that's not exactly accurate, is it, after this?
00:03:10.840 Well, according to this experimental results, that would be the case.
00:03:16.380 Yeah, that adding more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere is having essentially no effect
00:03:23.040 on the amount of additional energy that's being absorbed into the atmosphere
00:03:26.820 from the radiant energy coming off the Earth's surface.
00:03:31.200 So it can't be having the impact on the climate that we've been led to believe it's having.
00:03:37.800 So if this is still being pushed on us, I guess the next question is,
00:03:43.260 is this the result of scientists being wrong?
00:03:46.220 Or is there another motivation behind why they're pushing this ideology regarding carbon being destructive for the planet?
00:03:54.200 Well, that would be pretty speculative and kind of as a scientist, I prefer to deal with facts and evidence.
00:04:04.200 And I think one of the things that people may not understand is that scientific disciplines often get captured
00:04:11.660 by something that a philosopher of science called Thomas Kuhn referred to as a ruling paradigm.
00:04:18.620 And it's basically a presupposition about the nature of things that scientists use as the framework for interpreting their data.
00:04:28.460 And it just never gets questioned.
00:04:29.880 Probably the classic example of that is the paradigm about the geocentric nature of the universe
00:04:38.360 that was formulated by Aristotle and prevailed for like hundreds of years.
00:04:42.880 Even in spite of all of the evidence that it didn't work, people still made the evidence fit in that ruling paradigm.
00:04:50.100 And so I think possibly that's what's happened for whatever reason, we, the scientific community, people in general,
00:04:59.920 got fixated on this idea that carbon dioxide, particularly carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels,
00:05:06.900 because if you look at all of the UN documentation that surrounds the IPCC,
00:05:13.920 that's a very fundamental premise right from the start, that climate change is caused by humans
00:05:19.780 and the cause of that is fossil fuel that is burned by humans.
00:05:23.820 So we became fixated on that and we, in effect, forced all of the evidence, all of the data,
00:05:30.720 all of the observations to fit that particular premise and interpreted them in various and sundry ways
00:05:37.380 to make sure that that happened.
00:05:39.120 So why we got there, that's really another question.
00:05:44.900 Right.
00:05:45.080 The next question I have for you is regarding the idea behind why we're being forced into EVs
00:05:50.660 and why the government is, is mandating that, you know, all vehicle sales will be electric vehicle sales
00:05:56.560 in really a short period of time.
00:05:58.380 This seems like a significant change being driven by, by being driven by science,
00:06:04.660 which as you pointed out and through this experiment, doesn't seem to be accurate.
00:06:08.020 Why do you think that's happening?
00:06:09.260 Well, I think it's just a knock-on of this, you know, we've got to stop emitting carbon dioxide
00:06:16.100 and internal combustion energy emit carbon dioxide.
00:06:20.080 Therefore, they must be stopped.
00:06:22.380 And the only alternative at the moment really is, are these EVs.
00:06:26.440 And they seem to be becoming less and less attractive to people.
00:06:30.460 The EV market is kind of flattened now.
00:06:34.200 I think we've got past the stage of all of the people who want to have one for virtue signaling
00:06:39.580 or status seeking or whatever is past.
00:06:43.100 And the rest of us just can't afford them.
00:06:46.720 So why the government is forcing, I think, is just a natural extension of this view that carbon dioxide,
00:06:55.780 we must stop putting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
00:06:59.060 And if this Polish work is correct, then it's not actually going to make any difference.
00:07:03.120 Now, an interesting thing about the mandate for EVs, I've just done an analysis on this,
00:07:08.440 and it looks to me like the real effect of that between now and 2035 is going to be a collapse in the new car market.
00:07:19.960 People are just not going to be able to afford to buy EVs.
00:07:24.160 And then the number of total vehicles that can be sold is going to be driven by the number of EVs that are sold.
00:07:31.880 And therefore, the total number of vehicles will not keep up with what historically has been the evidence.
00:07:39.700 And the new car market is just going to disappear.
00:07:44.740 How significant is this study in your field of study and in the world of climate science?
00:07:52.600 Is this getting a lot of attention from people at that level?
00:07:57.580 Has it made an impact?
00:07:59.940 Not that I've been able to see, actually.
00:08:02.580 I haven't been able to find much of anything.
00:08:04.580 Now, the paper to which I referred was only published in March of this year.
00:08:09.820 So that's kind of relatively new paper.
00:08:12.300 There was another paper published in 2020 by a couple of physicists, one at York University and one at Princeton,
00:08:21.700 that approached the problem from a different perspective, actually.
00:08:25.140 They sort of started from the details.
00:08:29.460 They looked at the radiation absorption spectrum of carbon dioxide and, indeed, all of the other greenhouse gases,
00:08:35.780 and looked at the spectrum of emission of long wavelength radiation and kind of did a cross multiplication of those two and then added them up.
00:08:46.640 And they found much the same thing.
00:08:49.180 They found that this forcing function that is used in climate change analysis for greenhouse gases was overstated, in their words, by a factor of four,
00:09:02.500 by an order of four orders of magnitude.
00:09:04.600 Sorry, not a factor of four, but four orders of magnitude, which is a factor of 10,000.
00:09:10.120 So the degree to which we have been saying that carbon dioxide and the other greenhouse gases is causing climate change has been overstated by a factor of 10,000,
00:09:22.780 which means it's become pretty insignificant already.
00:09:26.920 You know, I feel like a lot of people who are advocating for climate change solutions have their hearts in the right place.
00:09:34.600 You know, they want to see the planet do better.
00:09:37.180 And they are concerned about the future of the planet.
00:09:39.240 With this information, what do you think would be the best way to protect the planet going forward?
00:09:46.620 It appears as though, you know, EVs is not the solution.
00:09:49.260 Also, we know that EVs aren't really good for the planet either, right?
00:09:53.340 Well, yes, there's a lot of issues with the production of EVs.
00:09:57.940 But in terms of, if you like, I can't remember how you just put it, but in terms of protecting the planet or saving the planet,
00:10:04.620 we need to figure out what it is we're trying to protect it from.
00:10:10.500 The sort of premise of climate change, the current climate change narrative is we've got to protect it from overheating and burning up.
00:10:18.800 And the way to do that is to stop emitting carbon dioxide.
00:10:22.920 But, you know, there have been periods in the past when the climate, the planet, the climate has warmed up and then cooled off.
00:10:33.700 We've got the Roman warm period.
00:10:35.240 We've got the medieval warm period.
00:10:36.860 And then we've got the period when it did it in reverse.
00:10:38.840 It cooled down in the Little Ice Age and then warmed back up.
00:10:42.200 And all of that really happened without carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels because it was well before that.
00:10:51.360 And so something's going on other than that that would appear to be causing climate change.
00:10:56.440 And if we're going to try and protect the planet from that, we've got to understand what that is.
00:11:00.180 And maybe there isn't anything we can do to protect the planet from that because it's just happening.
00:11:06.160 And what we have to do is take necessary mitigation measures to protect us from the consequences of that.
00:11:13.740 You know, like don't build in floodplains and stuff like that.
00:11:18.400 You know, one of the things that I found to be very interesting is the fact that we know this government that we have right now is very strong on climate change.
00:11:27.840 And they're really concerned about increasing carbon levels from Canada.
00:11:32.280 That's why they want to have the carbon tax.
00:11:33.740 That's why they want to have all these policies.
00:11:35.740 But, for example, when it comes to when it came to the forest fires in Canada, the forest fires emitted so much carbon into the atmosphere that it accounts.
00:11:44.020 The forest fires alone were one of the largest polluters in the entire world in 2023.
00:11:50.420 Do you think that this government has it all backwards on climate?
00:11:55.320 Well, yes, that's an interesting point.
00:11:56.820 And you really have to look at Canada, I think, at Canada's contribution to the problem, if we want to call it that.
00:12:04.820 I mean, you do a simple Pareto analysis, which is done all of the time, and you find out we're a pretty insignificant part of the problem.
00:12:12.520 In fact, this net zero electrical grid that they're on about, our electrical grid emits 47 megatons of CO2 annually.
00:12:21.680 China, since about 1990, has been increasing its annual emissions by 350 megatons every year.
00:12:30.200 And that shows no sign of stopping.
00:12:31.860 So, between now and 2035, China, if it keeps on that trajectory, China's emissions will increase by something over 4,000 megatons a year, compared to the 47 megatons we're going to save.
00:12:46.160 And in fact, between now and 2035, if China keeps on this trajectory, they will emit enough carbon dioxide to increase the level in the atmosphere by about 23 parts per million.
00:12:59.760 So, that's where the real problem is.
00:13:01.980 I mean, and nobody seems to be talking about that.
00:13:04.700 I mean, if you're going to make a reduction, you've got to start with the big emitters and reduce those.
00:13:13.220 Yeah, you know, it seems as though focusing on our own country when China and India and other large polluters aren't actually changing their practices at all is a complete waste of our time.
00:13:26.600 It's not useful at all.
00:13:27.620 And it may even have detrimental impacts on our country.
00:13:30.360 We've seen the carbon tax measures have been really difficult for the Canadian economy, and they're going to be even worse going forward.
00:13:38.780 We've heard even very vocal supporters of the natural gas and oil industry, like Danielle Smith, commit to reaching net zero, net zero carbon emissions by 2050.
00:13:51.500 Again, I guess this idea for reaching net zero is completely misplaced.
00:13:58.240 And hopefully, as your reporting has pointed out, that maybe politicians should take a look at this and realize, hold on, this net zero idea isn't going to do anything for the planet or for Canada.
00:14:08.260 Well, I think they should at least have a look at this recent paper that was published.
00:14:14.180 You know, have we really got the right handle on this?
00:14:16.920 Are we really doing something that's going to have an effect?
00:14:19.160 Or, you know, is our 47 megatons really worth the cost to people?
00:14:25.220 Just read that Vancouver or British Columbia or Vancouver have outlawed natural gas furnaces in all new construction.
00:14:33.160 So they all have to have electric furnaces now.
00:14:35.980 So that's going to have a big impact on people's home heating costs.
00:14:39.400 Is this the right thing to do?
00:14:43.180 I think we need to take a serious look at this recent paper and find out if it is.
00:14:50.820 Absolutely.
00:14:51.600 It could it could have some seriously positive implications if our leaders perhaps change their approach on this and put and put the Canadian people first and not and not be swept up with this with this climate hysteria that appears to be taking place.
00:15:06.960 That's all the time we have.
00:15:08.640 Dr. Jim Mason, thank you very much for joining us.
00:15:12.240 If you want to read Dr. Jim Mason's article in the C2C Journal, you can find a link to it in the description of this video.
00:15:19.080 It is a planet that might not need saving.
00:15:21.420 Can CO2 even drive global temperature?
00:15:24.960 With that, Dr. Jim Mason, thank you very much for joining us.
00:15:28.200 Thank you very much for having me, Harrison.
00:15:30.100 Pleasure talking with you.