The absolute joke of fearmongering about Methane

Climate fear mongering - the source of the most ridiculous lies humanity has ever seen - just keeps giving! If you could collect the methane emitted by this propaganda, you could power all of humanity.

So they say that methane is dangerous too, hence we must "ban cows", because of cow farts and stop eating meat.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02116-8

So how much methane is there in the atmosphere?

The article says 1875 parts per BILLION or 0.0001875% of the atmosphere. They show a very dangerous looking graph which was scaled so as to make the alleged increase of methane look very threatening.

Or as provided by Wikipedia:

There are about 400 parts per million or 0.04% of CO2.

So it would take 211 times more methane to reach the same level as CO2. But they claim that methane causes 80x (respectively 36 or 72x, they don't seem to be very clear about this) more warming than what they allege about CO2, so 2.6x more methane would be required to reach the same effect as CO2.

At an annual growth of 10% over 2 decades, that level would be reached in about 320 years. 🤔

Except that methane is a chemically highly reactive substance that does not remain in the atmosphere for long, so it could never accumulate to a significant degree.

What influences the climate?

The basic factors are:

• geothermal energy (we are sitting on a gigantic nuclear reactor, surrounded by a thin crust of rock
• the atmosphere; only the atmospheric density matters; the chemical composition is completely irrelevant
• Water in all its forms, as liquid, ice and snow, as fog and as clouds, whereby the altitude and type of cloud will have a huge influence
• the sun, which undergoes its own changes

No such thing as "greenhouse gases"

The entire concept of a "greenhouse gas" is absurd: what climate alarmists claim is that specific gases "retain heat" and thus keep the earth warm "like the glass over a greenhouse". Except that whoever made up that claim does not understand how greenhouses work!

A greenhouse simply prevents the convection of the air that was heated by sunlight. Convection is the process that forces warm air to rise and mix with cooler air. The climate alarmist version says that the glass "reflects" heat rays (IR) and thus warms up the greenhouse. Unbelievable nonsense. The atmosphere does not prevent the convection. And it does not prevent heat to be radiated off into space. Radiation reflected by all sorts of air molecules is by necessity cooler than the incoming radiation, which is cooler than the surface that emitted it. Based on elementary thermodynamics, a cooler source cannot heat a warmer object.

At most, the bouncing radiosity heats a few cold molecules before being sent out to space. This effect will be absolutely minimal.

We know from a 540 million year record of CO2 and temperature that there was never any correlation between them:

A tiny bit of warming can be caused when CO2 or any other gases are added to the atmosphere, increasing the atmospheric density. That effect might have caused 0.01C warm during the 20th century:

One lie is the claim that CO2 levels were much lower during the 19th century. Several studies strongly disagree with this claim. Among them this study by A.E. Fosclos from the Technical University of Crete, who observes that 90'000 measurements of CO2 were taken between 1810 and 1961, while alarmists want you to believe that CO2 levels were not measured before the 20th century. That's because CO2 levels during the 19th century varied between 290 and 430 ppm, destroying the delusion that they were significantly much lower than now:

Interestingly, the data provided by alarmists such as Phil Jones from the UK climate institute destroy their own claims:

That's exactly right: the rate of warming over the last 120 years has been completely independent of the level of atmospheric CO2. They tried to explain away the warming from 1890 to 1940 and the massive cooling from 1941 to 1978, but they mostly just changed the data record to wipe them out.

Alarmists tried to explain the cooling with "pollution particles" which supposedly reflected sunlight. But they never could explain why that cooling effect should have stopped in 1978. Did they really want people to accept that particles were removed from the atmosphere practically over night? And what about the far worse pollution in China, India and Africa which exploded during the 1980s and 1990s? As this was so hard, they just changed the data records...

Don't believe me? I'll give you a particularly bad example - Reykjavik in Iceland, which recorded a heat spike in 1940. NASA simply erased that heat spike and replced it wath an almost record-cold temperature. In 2019, they were forced to undo their "correction", as Iceland insisted that their measurment had been accurate. Here are the original record from the NASA server:

https://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/stdata_show_v3.cgi?id=620040300000&ds=7&dt=1
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/stdata_show_v4.cgi?id=IC000004030&ds=14&dt=1

And here are the coresponding diagrams:

They did this to thousands of records, always cooling the past and warming the present!

https://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/show_station.cgi?id=308860860000&dt=1&ds=1
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/show_station.cgi?id=308860860000&dt=1&ds=14
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/show_station.cgi?id=303825860000&dt=1&ds=1
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/show_station.cgi?id=303825860000&dt=1&ds=12

This can only be called scientific fraud!

The extent of the fraud is far greater, as the Climategate messages revealed - this is the most epic collection of massive scientific fraud information in history:

http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/greenhouse-science/climate-change/climategate-emails.pdf

Conclusion

This was a very short summary about the nature and extent of the climate fraud. Once you went down this rabbit hole, you will never again be able to endure the permanent climate fearmongering.