Source - email
Climate Issues Simply Explained
Erik Bye
August 12, 2025
Here is an attempt to explain climate issues in a simple way:
Topic 1: Global warming.
The temperature changes first The IPCC believes that CO2 in the atmosphere causes global warming, and that CO2 is the cause of the warming.
But it has been shown that the temperature changes before the CO2 level. Then CO2 cannot be the cause.
Can there at all be any doubt about the wrongness of man-made climate change?
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/ S0921818112001658
Topic 2: Climate goals are just a fabrication!
The UN and the IPCC claim that more CO2 in the air causes global warming. They believe it is absolutely necessary to limit warming to 1.5 degrees above the 1850s. But this is a claim for which they have no evidence.
The climate goals are political inventions, taken straight out of thin air.
https://www.allaboutenergy.net/?view=article&id=4408:norway-climategoals-are-political-
inventions&catid=46&highlight=WyJhbWVyaWthIiwia2VyaWsiLCJlcmlrIi wiYW1lcmlrYW5pc2NoZSIsImFtZXJpa2FuaXNjaGVuIiwiamFuLWVyaWsi LCJieWUiLCJieWVzIiwiZXJpayBieWUiXQ==
Topic 3: The CO2 hypothesis has no evidence
The UN and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) claim that more CO2 in the air leads to global warming. This CO2 gas comes from oil production and is called fossil CO2. This production is what humans are responsible for and therefore the climate change is called man-made, i.e. anthropogenic. But they have no evidence for man-made climate change. They are afraid of an extremely high temperature in the future, e.g. in 2100. But no one can do research and say anything about what will happen in the future.
This is Science fiction.
Topic 4: Climate Sensitivity may not exist.
Climate sensitivity is the quantity that says how hot it will be if the CO2 content in the air doubles. But no one has observed this value, and no one has been able to calculate it accurately.
And the strange thing is that the more they calculate, the lower the value becomes. Now it will soon be = 0˚C. If it is calculated to zero, maybe it doesn't exist?
https://climath.substack.com/p/does-climate-sensitivity-exist
Topic 5: The climate hypothesis cannot be tested
For a hypothesis to be valid, it must be testable. This is done using observations. The CO2 hypothesis states that the increased temperature is determined by climate sensitivity. It states how much the temperature will increase when the CO2 level doubles. We start before the Industrial Age, in 1850. Then the CO2 level was around 280 ppm. If it doubles, it will be 560 ppm. Now the CO2 level is 425 ppm. If the CO2 increase continues as it is now, it will double in 2190. Only then can the hypothesis theoretically be tested. That means that the climate hypothesis cannot be tested now, then it is not a proper hypothesis.
Topic 6: The climate cannot be modeled.
This is what the IPCC writes in its main report AR3 (2001):
«The climate is a complicated and composite system that cannot be modeled. Therefore, it is not possible to predict anything about the future climate.»
We can see this in graphs of the model results. The models fail all the time.
Topic 7: Climate models are wrong and are exaggerating
It has now been shown that the IPCC climate models are exaggerating. A Nobel Prize in Physics (2021) has even been awarded on completely wrong grounds. This award is simply a fraud. The incorrect climate models have been used by the IPCC in all of its main reports, AR1 - AR6. The errors are so extensive that we cannot trust the IPCC's reports at all.
https://climatechangedispatch.com/understanding-the-seven-majorerrors-in-climate-models/
Topic 8: Electrification of the shelf
In order to reduce CO2 emissions from oil production, the Government will electrify the shelf. This means running the business with electric power, instead of using oil and gas units. The authorities claim that this is a climate measure, namely, not using oil and reducing emissions. But this oil and gas will be sold to the neighbor, used by the neighbor, and will produce exactly the same amount of emissions. Why don't the authorities understand this?
Topic 9: CO2 is vital for all life on Earth!
Through photosynthesis, sugar is produced from CO2 and water, with the sun as the driving force. Without enough CO2, the Earth will die out. CO2 is not a poison, pollution or garbage. It is vital, and all work to recycle the content of CO2 in the atmosphere is life-threatening. Have Norwegian politicians forgotten photosynthesis?
Topic 10: Henry's Law
CO2 cannot be removed from both the air and the sea! This is what Henry's Law prevents. It is a law that ensures that there is always an equilibrium between the amount of CO2 in the ocean and in the atmosphere. If CO2 is removed from the atmosphere, Henry's Law ensures that the ocean then sees a corresponding amount of CO2, so that the equilibrium is maintained.
The alarmists think they can counteract Henry's Law, but they can't. Henry's Law applies anyway, like other physical laws of nature. Has anyone heard of the abolition of gravity, out in the open?
Topic 11: Climate and models
No one can say anything about the future climate
Our climate system is determined by many natural factors. Many of these we know little about. For example, clouds and underground volcanoes. Even the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has stated that the climate cannot be modeled. It has also been shown that the models used today exaggerate the effect of CO2 gas.
Topic 12: Climate and CCS
Carbon capture and storage (CCS) has no climate effect, it does not affect the climate at all. This is because the gas CO2 has no climate effect. Then it does not matter what you do with it. First of all it is foolish to remove CO2 from the atmosphere, it is necessary for all life on earth. When stored in the underground, it is locked away for ever. In addition it cost a lot of energy to operate CCS, and no effects on the climate will naturally not be obtained. This is a climate measure for those without knowledge about the «gas of life». They are stealing «our food»
Topic 13: Climate and Svante Arrhenius
The climate theory of the IPCC is based on the heat theory of the Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius. It says that global warming is caused by the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Climate sensitivity tells how much the temperature will increase if the CO2 level doubles. However, this theory was rejected already in 2009. No one has been able to demonstrate climate sensitivity, and calculations indicate that the value is 0˚C. Then there is the question of whether this value actually exists. There is a paradox associated with showing that a variable with the value 0˚C is actually real.
https://usercontent.one/wp/fakta360.no/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/ 5
efeito-estufa-fraude.pdf?media=1716408456
Topic 14: The Elephant in the Room!
Climate alarmists do not see the Big Elephant in the Room. The Big Elephant in the Room is defined as an important factor that is overlooked in a central issue. It has now been shown that the CO2 hypothesis is wrong and that the temperature changes before the CO2 level. Then CO2 cannot be the cause of climate change or temperature increases. There cannot be two different theories about the same natural phenomenon. Thus, climate scientists overlook the documentable science of climate change. Climate scientists overlook the fact that there cannot be two explanations for the same phenomenon.
Topic 15: Indoctrination in the school system!
In the school system, there is complete indoctrination about the climate. This means that the entire school management thinks the same way and demands that all students think the same way about climate change. They are human-made, and it is the CO2 gas that is the cause of this. This climate view is determined in the school curriculum that the students must submit to. Such uniformity in school is something quite special. In general, society wants students to be independent individuals when they leave school. They should form opinions based on knowledge and a questioning attitude to difficult issues. This uniformity is enshrined in the curricula, and teaching is organized accordingly. Climate is the only subject area in school where students are imposed on the state's official climate view. Will such an imposed one-sided mindset promote the development of independently thinking, free citizens?
The most disastrous thing is of course that the climate issue is interpreted completely wrongly by the official Norway!
Topic 16: Ocean acidity
The ocean cannot become acidic! The normal range for pH in the ocean is 7.8 - 8.6. When CO2 dissolves in the ocean, it forms the carbonate ions, CO3 2-. These will react with water and form H+ ions. The pH will then decrease, and the water will become less acidic.
A warm ocean will not be able to hold as much CO2, and CO2 will be released. A cold ocean will absorb more CO2. However, the ocean has access to large amounts of Ca 2+ ions from underwater rocks. If the CO3 2concentration becomes high enough, Ca(CO3)2 will precipitate. This occurs through an equilibrium reaction. A lot of CO2 precipitates as Ca(CO3)2, and this means that the ocean cannot have a pH lower than 7.8. The normal variability of pH in the ocean is 7.8 - 8.6.
The ratio between the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and in the ocean is regulated by Henry's law. Those who are trying to remove CO2 from the ocean are clearly not aware of Henry's law. This will lead to more CO2 being dissolved in the ocean. And vice versa. If large amounts of CO2 are removed from the atmosphere, Henry's Law will ensure that more CO2 will be emitted from the ocean.
Have the activists thought about this? Maybe the level of CO2 in the air won't go down? For now, it's rising at a quadratic rate.
https://www.allaboutenergy.net/?view=article&id=4373:the-ocean-cannot-be-
acidic&catid=42&highlight=WyJhbWVyaWthIiwia2VyaWsiLCJlcmlrIiwiY W1lcmlrYW5pc2NoZSIsImFtZXJpa2FuaXNjaGVuIiwiamFuLWVyaWsiLCJ ieWUiLCJieWVzIiwiZXJpayBieWUiXQ==
Topic 17: The climate debate?
Where has the climate debate disappeared?
In a free, open democracy, like the Norwegian one, we are used to fresh and open discussions when there is disagreement about central, important issues. The climate issue is such an issue, not only for Norway, but for the entire world's power holders and the world's population. Until 2015, there was a lively debate, including in the MSM. But then the debate suddenly came to an end. All channels were closed to climate realists. CICERO (The Norwegian Climate Research Center) has even declared that its employees should NOT participate in debates with scientific opponents. The BBC decided that the IPCC's view was the prevailing one. NRK (The Norwegian Broadcasting) followed, and even the Norwegian School of Journalism has decided that the IPCC's view should be the sole authority. This also affects freedom of expression, which means that human rights are threatened.
Topic 18: The King.
Is the King in Norway for everyone, or just for IPCC believers?
Ever since the Nobel Prize was awarded to the UN and the IPCC in 2007, King Harald has given his New Year's speech with strong concerns about the man-made climate. But despite the fact that only half of the population believes this, the King is 100% concerned. Does that mean he is only King for half of the Kingdom?
Topic
19: The critical journalist?
Where is the critical, questioning journalist?
Ever since 1992, when the first main report of the IPCC was published (AR1
or FAR), there has been a claim about man-made climate change due to the emission of fossil CO2. These are emissions of CO2 linked to the production of coal, gas, and oil. Admittedly, there was some doubt about any climate effects in AR1. But from AR2 onwards, this has been read out and adopted as a truth. Climate realists have had a completely different view, namely that it is nature that controls the climate. But what has been striking is that there is not a single journalist who asks a critical question about the message from the IPCC. The digging, questioning, investigating, and critical journalist is absent. The newspapers, the MSM, i.e. the fourth estate, seem to have abdicated. They are actually unanimously carrying the IPCC's message. And the most striking is that the journalists obviously have no knowledge of the climate, despite covering the field in the mass media. Imagine if journalists who cover football, foreign policy, economics or legal matters lack expertise in their field of work? But that's how it is with the climate. Then it is not so strange that it is considered as if the fourth estate has abdicated on the climate issue.
Topic 20: China can increase its CO2 emissions.
In the Paris Agreement, many countries were allowed to increase their CO2 emissions until 2030. The reason was that they needed more energy. One of the countries was China, which currently has one of the highest emissions in the world. This is now being addressed with the development of large quantities of coal-fired power plants, which is the only option in such a short time.
China will probably increase its emissions by 1.2 GT CO2 by 2030. First of all, many countries are allowed to increase their emissions. So it is perhaps not so strange that the global CO2 level is increasing. It doesn't seem like those responsible for this are thinking about this, when they constantly scare people with increased CO2 levels.
Furthermore, Norway is to reduce its CO2 emission level by 55% in 2030. This means 25 MT, or 50 times less than China's increase. Does it make
sense for Norway to pay more than 10 billion NOK for its reduction, when this is 1/50th of China's increase?
Topic 21: Climate Goals
Climate goals can be easily achieved. First, we had the 2-degree target (2009), but this was lowered to 1.5 degrees in 2021. This is the temperature increase we must stay below globally, so that the planet does not become uninhabitable and the population does not experience extreme heat. The limit must be met so that the system does not get completely out of control. At the moment, there is controversy about whether we will be able to achieve this or not. However, if those responsible had considered the annual natural temperature increase and warming since pre-industrial times, they would have realized that achieving the target is possible. In 2019, the IPCC reported that the temperature had risen by 1.07˚C since 1850. According to Dr. Roy Spence (UAH), the temperature increase is now stable and 0.015˚C per year. This means that we will only reach 1.22˚C in 2030 and only 1.52˚C in 2050.
In 2100, we will only reach 2.27˚C, which is far from the 3-6 degrees that the alarmists are scaring about
Another thing is that the whole climate question is a pure fraud. CO2 has no measurable impact on the climate, and the temperature changes before the CO2 level. The climate models exaggerate the importance of the CO2 content in the models, and the whole story is a false narrative.
Who is the first responsible person who dares to admit this nonsense? And admit that The Green Deal is the madness one single Norwegian politician talked about?
Topic 22: The world is spinning around!
The world is spinning around in the climate issue!
In 1992, the first main report of the IPCC was released, AR1 or FAR. At that time, they were not sure that they could see traces of human-made climate change. But already in 1997, with the release of AR2 or SAR, they were sure of human-made climate change. And the cause was the emission of fossil CO2, as a result of the extraction of coal, oil and gas. And up until the latest report, AR6, the IPCC has become more and more certain that the emission of fossil CO2 is harmful to the planet, humans, animals and all life on earth. The IPCC believes that it can show this with its climate models.
However, this is completely wrong. The climate models are wrong time and time again, and predict temperatures far above what is measured. It has been pointed out that there is no documentation for the CO2 hypothesis. The Arrhenius warming theory has been shown to be untenable, the temperature changes before the CO2 level, the climate targets are political inventions without documentation, and the climate sensitivity is low or possibly non-existent. Furthermore, the IPCC has determined that the climate cannot be modeled. Then no one can comment on the future climate, e.g. in 2100.
This shows that the world declaration from IPCC is a complete shame. More documentation for all this is given in the international climate literature.
Topic 23: Lack of competence
Lack of competence by the King, Government, and the Parliament.
There is a striking lack of knowledge in the official Norwegian government on the climate issue. King Harald has demonstrated this in his New Year's speeches since 2007. He is fundamentally concerned about the climate and the existence of the Norwegian people. And not least, he is concerned about the rising generation. He clearly does not think he is scaring the life out of the little ones.
The great lack is elegantly demonstrated by Norwegian politicians. They believe in the UN, in the IPCC, in the Green Deal, in CCS, in electrification of the shelf, and in purchases of Climate quotes.
One would almost think they were in favor of making it as difficult as possible!
Topic 24: Statistical fraud of the worst kind!
0.3% Chicken that became 97% chickens!
This is one of the worst fraud attempts in this climate scandal. In xxxx, John Cook et al. conducted a survey to find out how much support there was for the IPCC among international climate scientists. He conducted a written survey and collected 11,944 responses. According to Cook, a total of 97% supported the IPCC. That is a significant amount of support. It was just that it was all a fraud. Cook cheated on the data and manipulated the sampling methods. In this way, he ended up with 97% support, which turned out to be only 0.3% upon closer inspection. He had deliberately cheated on the methodology. This is one of the most egregious attempts at fraud in the climate case. It is almost on par with Michael Mann's Hockey Stick. Isn't it strange that Cook's behavior has some reported consequences? Is he still in the same position?
https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2014/09/Warming-consensus-
Topic 25: M. Mann's hockey-stick
M. Mann's hockey stick has been exposed as a complete fraud. The most serious fraud in the climate case is undoubtedly Michael Mann's hockey stick. His models have been exposed several times, and each time have shown completely incorrect results.
The first edition of the Model came out in 1995. The result of the modeling was, as we have all heard about, a temperature curve that went straight to the sky, like the handle of the hockey stick. There was only one catch to it all, even random numbers gave the same shape! The model was based on three-ring data, but the model was obviously screwed together incorrectly.
M. Mann corrected his model, but it still gave the same shape. The first revelation was made by statisticians Ross McKitrick and Steve McIntyre. The two must have obviously suspected that there was more wrong with the model. There was a lot of arguing about releasing the data and procedures. When this was done, the two still found that there was a fundamental flaw in the model. The data set used to construct the model, i.e., the calibration, was used twice, i.e., the data was duplicated in the model. When one set was removed, the hockey-stick shape disappeared.
https://www.desmog.com/2015/04/04/how-creation-mann-s-hockeystick-led-counter-attack-climate-deniers/
Topic 26: Scenarios or predictions?
IPCC calculates scenarios and not predictions. What is the difference?
A prediction is a calculated prediction, a look into the future, and is guided
by models and the entered data. Here, the model guides and presents the result.
A scenario is a human-controlled future calculation, where the operator has the model and the data, but the result is different situations, where the operator chooses the scenario that best fits the operator's wish. A calculation may give three different scenarios, and the operator chooses the one that best fits the assumptions and wishes. If a future temperature increase is calculated, it is the expert and not the model that chooses "the best solution". Such determinations and choices cannot be made based on what is most likely. There are no statistical methods that can be used for this choice. If a climate scientist states that one scenario is most likely, it is pure bluff. The operator chooses what suits him best, and there is no probability of that event.
In this way, for example, climate scientists in the IPCC choose the global warming that is presented. And when they say that the certainty is so and so high, it is completely wrong. It is the wish of the climate scientists who govern. It becomes like a show of hands when a scenario is to be chosen by a group of scientists. Thus, no information about the future is given. Those who claim this are bluffing. This is referred to as "Expert judgments". When this is mentioned, it is simply the scientists' perceptions and "scams" that are used as a basis.
https://www.thinkers360.com/tl/blog/members/forecast-or-scenario
Topic 27: Orwell 1984
Is disinformation worse than climate change itself? Does a Ministry of Truth sound tempting? The authorities want control over what we think and say. They are anxious that we think and say what the authorities perceive as disinformation. It sounds as if these will be opinions that go against what the authorities believe. And they will have control over this. There is great skepticism about this: How will
disinformation be determined? It is obvious to think of a different view of climate change than the authorities and the IPCC have.
It may not be enough that almost all MSM channels are closed to the opposition. In this case, freedom of expression is threatened. Should there be further control and restrictions? Should the entire population receive what Norwegian school students receive, complete indoctrination in the climate issue?
It is important to be vigilant here!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Db3-svhC4k&list=PLxhiw5kLelmiEzjkSI0D4CyD_sIniFRX&index=8