88 Comments

1. An excellent and fascinating perspective. Thank you both! I am interested in Charlie’s opinion on some graphs I’ve seen showing the CO2 / Temperature ratio over the last 500,000 years where the 2 factors seem to show a slightly negative correlation. One such graph is here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lX1z_6pvM-Q : start at minute 12 for the graph.
   In any case, I very much appreciate the elegant solution of returning to regenerative farming, as something that would tie us back to the real physical world, hollow out the ‘rackets’, and nourish us all at the same time.

   1. Well, John, I’m not sure how the “temperature” numbers were generated. As it happens, we do know the atmospheric CO2 concentrations over that period, but there are no matching temperature records. Temperatures are all inferred, and how things are modeled determines what numbers you get, and how well and comprehensively you know all of the other Earth events that happened over that same period. There’s always that old saying – “all models are wrong, but some are useful.” And in our times, the meaning of “useful” has become rather fungible. One always has to ask, useful to whom? And for what purpose?
      Western societies have been awash in propaganda and marketing, including the marketing of ideas and public policies. For the benefit of whom, primarily? So I tend to put my stock in the few real numbers we have and then be careful about knowing whose model it is in the background and who is paying for the model and modeling.
      I know the fossil fuel companies modeled all of this long, long ago – in the 1960s and 70s. They knew back then that if the world burned all of the oil they knew about at the time, eventually atmospheric CO2 concentrations would rise, and eventually alarmingly so. Amory Lovins, an energy colleague of seriousness and intellect, was talking about this in his public talks in 1976. The fossil fuel industry, including Exxon Mobil and the Peabody Coal Company, by themselves, and as drivers of the Western Fuels Association, have invested hundreds of millions of dollars, first to demonize the idea that climate change was a threat, and when that didn’t work, that humans weren’t responsible for any of it. They’ve spent billions by now, and they’re still spending, and their message hasn’t changed. It’s just been picked up by others, so they’re in the background, promoting carbon capture, carbon credit, and ESG nonsense, in an attempt to monetize the problem and profit from the solutions, real or imagined.
      So in a sea of propaganda, fraudulent science, captured regulatory agencies, censorship of what’s real and true, and the power of immense wealth driving the agenda – what the public is allowed to talk about – whose studies and information and data is one to trust?
      Most of what we need to do to have an impact on the unfortunate climate trends, regardless of what you think they are or whether they’re there or not, is to not do things. Things that squander immense amounts of energy and resources, and things we shouldn’t be doing at all anyway. If we did all those things, we and all life on the planet would be healthier. This is a real problem for the rackets, because they’re making a fortune on creating the problems. Regenerative farming would eliminate industrial agriculture, along with its fertilizer (31% of industrial agriculture’s energy use); its vast array of poisons and all of the energy and resources used to produce, transport, sell and turn loose; a huge fraction of its diesel fuel use, and the management overhead of all of this on a national and international scale. Small-scale, local family farms would feed us. Our animals would be healthy so our meat supply would be healthy and humanely raised, in a healthy ecosystem. If you want to listen to how that works, listen to Joe Rogan’s interview with Will Harris, the farmer who owns and runs White Oak Pastures in Georgia. Extraordinary. It needs to be commonplace.
      We would all be healthier because our food would actually be nutritious and without poisons. So there goes the ill health business model of Big Pharma. And a lot of the healthcare industry would dry up because business would be way down. And then there are the violence rackets, who directly (in War Department operations) and indirectly (to power the arms industry) use almost 15% of our energy.
      When you start unwinding the rackets – the Dark Side’s system – I believe what climate impacts humans have been causing would solve themselves. Living in harmony with the natural world, which is the only force on Earth that reduces entropy, would automatically reduce the harms humans cause to life and its prospects on Earth. All of them, including climate change.
      So let’s talk about how to redesign the system so we don’t have to debate about climate change. Just remember that every single thing the racketeers say about climate change, and everything they say they’re doing in response, is a lie. Part of the tidal wave of propaganda and deceit and Ponzi swindles that we’re swimming in right now. We could design them out. Charlie

      1. The assertion that Exxon and their ilk are funding anti-Co2 science, is at least not what Svensmark has experienced – rather his science is being defunded all around – despite his impressive findings.

2. Not sure of some of the assertions regarding CO2 mechanisms. First of all water vapor is a much more important greenhouse gas compared to CO2, so even if the CO2 response is linear (which can’t be proven), it may not matter much.

   Secondly, CO2 may not be acidifying the ocean because there are massive carbonaceous deposits on the ocean floor that exist in equilibrium with the dissolved CO2, so no matter how much CO2 gets dissolved in the ocean, it may just precipitate into those deposits and have a natural cap.

   Lastly I can’t imagine an intelligent discussion about climate change without mentioning the Milankovic cycles, whose effect was corroborated by the Vladivistok ice core drillings.

   1. Hi, Benjamin. I wouldn’t assert that there is very much going on in the atmosphere that’s linear, and given all of the factors involved (such as the massive increase in leaked refrigerants, each molecule of which is thousands of times more potent than CO2 and hundreds of times more potent than water as a greenhouse gas). And water exists in the atmosphere in a few forms, including ice crystals, liquid water, and H3O2. And I’m not sure all of the science is settled on that factor, either.
      As for the oceans, I don’t believe the problem of acidification would be moderated at all by any sort of carbonaceous deposits – the problem is the formation of carbonic acid in the presence of highly polar salt molecules, which dissolves the calcium in the shells of molluscs, for instance, or doesn’t even allow the shells to form in the first place.
      As I’ve tried to say, multiple times, climate change isn’t the most important reason to change how we conduct ourselves with regard to energy and other technology anyway. I believe we would be smarter to step up and look at more of the current energy system and its many other horrible impacts instead of debating endlessly about only one of the impacts. Charlie

   2. I have to agreee with you and not Charles here.

   3. Agreed other ice core data is available which should be considered. I would expect that vegetation levels would also tend to increase as supported by elevated CO2 levels, which would be absorbed and convert into oxygen and carbon-based food sources. Another equilibrium process.

3. Thank you very much for discussing nitrogen and carbon dioxide. The rackets have lied to us and brought death in many ways to support their profits. I am a student of the Buteyko Method. The Buteyko Method teaches that 6.5%- 7 % CO2 in the lungs is a physiological marker for homeostasis in humans. Since the air we breathe is less than 1% CO2, we don’t get the necessary CO2 for our lungs from the air. If we breathe the optimal 3-4 liters per minute (another physiological marker for homeostasis) our body converts/processes the necessary CO2 to be converted into carbonic acid and other things. Suffice to say, most of us “over breathe”. Dr. Buteyko called most illnesses “ diseases of civilization”. I’m interested in how to reconcile Charlie Stephens’ information with Dr.Buteyko’s method. For example, one student asked a senior practitioner about the effects of nuclear poisoning for students of Buteyko, and there were students living near Chernobyl when that incident happened. They did not suffer great effects. The method helps the body eliminate poison. Sadly, students who took the jab can not detox and some “died suddenly”.

   1. I’m afraid I’m not familiar with the Buteyko Method. And I’m not sure how that might relate to the 0.04% of CO2 that’s in the air we breath, on average. The troposphere is mostly made up of nitrogen (78%) and oxygen (21%), the latter being what we need to fuel our cellular ATP production – the source of our energy. The CO2 in our lungs is mostly a product of what hemoglobin carries away from our cells after it brings oxygen. Chlorophyll does this in reverse for plants and trees. In fact, the only difference between the 136 atoms of a hemoglobin molecule and the 136 atoms of a chlorophyll molecule is the one atom in the center – iron for hemoglobin and magnesium for chlorophyll. Do we think we might be related in some fashion to plants? Charlie

4. The information about the distant past atmospheric CO2 levels compared with current day presented here differ with the presentations of Canadian scientist Dr Patrick Moore which are quite interesting. What is the reconciliation or decisive factor in Mr Stephens’ conclusion on the matter as compared with Dr Moore’s?

   1. I’m afraid I’m not familiar with Dr. Moore’s work. I do know that the Earth is a participant in many sorts of cycles. The CO2 data I’ve relied on comes from the analysis 800,000 years or so of air bubbles formed in the Greenland ice mantle. Analyzing the contents of actual air from that stretch of history is one of the few direct measurements we have of the composition of the atmosphere in those times. Obviously no one was measuring actual temperatures over that same period, so temperature “data” is inferred and not measured, which means the connection between CO2 concentrations and temperatures have to be inferred, or the analysis period has to be confined to the period when both measurements were being taken – not more than a century.
      As I’ll say often here, I long ago came to understand that the impacts of how we conduct ourselves in the energy sector of human civilization have far more immediate and horrible effects than whatever we imagine about climate change. If I agreed that the notion of climate change isn’t a large enough concern for us to worry about, I would still advocate for the same changes when it comes to how we acquire and use energy. Charlie

      1. Although tempereature data is inferred it is corroborated by archeological findings; the medieval warming period is corroborated by findings showing the viking were growing corn in Greenland and the brits were growing of wine in England all the way back to the roman times.

      2. Thank you for the reply. I have no doubt that the vast opportunities to improve energy efficiency in so many ways are a feature not a bug. And that needs to change quickly and conclusively.

5. In the book “Unsettled” author Steven Koonin presents a spectral analysis of what frequencies of radiation atmospheric CO2 blocks. The reason why twice as much CO2 does not equal twice as much warming is because the CO2 was already “opaque” for the forms of radiation it could block. Making it “more opaque” beyond a certain threshold doesn’t have much additional effect. See photo. I’m curious if Charlie Stephens was accounting for this when he commented on the potentially dire consequences of continuing to increase CO2.

   I realize also that Koonin was comparing 400 and 800 ppm, whereas I think Stephens in your interview was comparing 200 and 400 ppm, which is probably a larger contrast.

   1. Exactly. The it’s a square root correlation.

   2. It deleted my attachment. Here is a link: http://files.torchlightsoftware.com/atmospheric-co2-spectrum.jpeg

6. The fact that the racketeers are using climate to forward their agenda caused me to initially discount the validity man having an effect on climate. Also, because climate change has been with us since the world began, I discounted any talk that man contributes to it.

   Now, after hearing Charlie describe how carbon dioxide affects climate, how the energy industry contributes to it, and that CO2 levels are higher than the period covered by ice core readings, I recognize that as man is destroying the environment in every area, why not climate as well? 

   1. But it is not man that is doing this. We have many ways of changing this. The rackets are stopping that change and prefer total control and depopulation. Utah Phillips once said, “The Earth is not dying. It is being killed. And the people killing it have names and addresses.”

      1. Good clarification: It’s not mankind doing the destruction but a subset: the self-appointed, self-exalted, and self-defied.

   2. Hi Richard. I think you’ve touched on an important point – that the system is very complex, and there are number of factors that cause any system to produce the outcomes it does. Obviously, humans, given our current numbers, consumption habits, and predilection for violence on the part of those in control, will obviously have an impact. And if we feel that those impacts are highly negative, it’s reasonable to attempt to reduce or eliminate them, especially if they are a threat to the thriving of life.
      But these impacts, along with a lot of other negative impacts, are the product of the system designed by the criminal rackets who are running it. That’s what we need to change. If we were to succeed in that, I believe most of our most serious problems would solve themselves, including our contribution to adverse climate change. Charlie

      1. If the rackets were phased out over a reasonable period, with a move to regenerative agriculture, would be quite interesting to see what all indicators would then feedback.

7. From a Subscriber:

   How is the Economic Return on Energy metric calculated and when Charlie was speaking about the low return for nuclear, how does he account for Gen IV technology?

   For what we have spent in Ukraine we could have developed a viable Gen IV tech. To your point, new energy tech is being suppressed. Climate change being used to force in the control grid.

   SPAC deals in emerging nuclear tech are continuing. NewScale is a Gen III small modular reactor company – first deal to close. X-Energy and Oklo deals announced but have not closed. There is no other in pre-announce stage. Hopefully you can have Charlie comment on the various Gen IV tech, much of which was tested and proven out in the 1960s at Oak Ridge National Lab (TN) but was not pursued b/c the conventional pressurized water reactors helped with the weapons program. As example. Molten Salt Reactor Project at ORNL used Thorium as a fuel source and worked like a fast reactor on the thermal spectrum which allowed fuel to by burned up producing high heat 700 degrees Celsius with minimal waste.

   1. https://oklo.com/newsroom/news-details/2023/Oklo-Tentatively-Selected-to-Provide-Clean-and-Resilient-Power-to-Eielson-Air-Force-Base/default.aspx

   2. Well first let me say that you no doubt know more than I do about what you call Gen III and Gen IV nuclear technology. I see these generational technologies as part of a larger system, part of which you allude to when you mention the connection between pressurized water reactors’ ties to the nuclear weapons industry. I can offer some of my own observations and you can enlighten me about the Gen III and Gen IV technologies, if you like, in the same contexts.
      First, you ask about how the “Economic Return on Energy” is calculated. Here I need to ask if you’re raising a new metric to discuss – ROI – or if you misinterpreted the term “EROEI” as having to do with financial return. It stands for Energy Return on Energy Invested. At an EROEI of 1:1, a society is expending 100 percent of the energy it uses on getting more energy to use – there’s none left over to do anything else. Nothing.
      A huge fraction of the energy invested in nuclear generating capacity is spent on acquiring, transporting, processing (huge), and manufacturing the fuel for the reactors. The exotic materials and anti-radiation measures inherent in the system are very energy intensive as well. Relative to its output a nuclear plant tends to use a lot of its own generation to run itself, too. When you add it all up, a plant, at any scale, doesn’t produce much more than 5 times the energy it takes to fire up the system and run it.
      You suggest here, probably with good reason, that the newer generation technologies – the ones that may be suppressed – have the advantage of “using up” the fuel and producing “minimal waste.” That’s admirable, but none of the energy or financial costs of dealing with the spent fuel predicament of the current older generation technology are accounted for in the first place, so we can’t really quantify the advantage, in either energy or financial terms. By the way, 700 C (about 1,300 F) is not a particularly “high heat,” which is actually a good thing, if it’s high enough.
      I should add, though, that while EROEI is an important metric to consider (and one that most people just aren’t aware of), there are several other issues that are important to consider as well.
      First, the fuel. Radioactive fuel has to be acquired, in whatever form, and if it’s radioactive in its found state, it has to be handled differently, and more expensively, than non-radioactive fuels. As an example, the Black Hills of South Dakota are more or less a radioactive national sacrifice area. A Fukushima’s worth of radiation is spread into the environment there every year. (see http://truth-out.org/news/item/16752-americas-secret-fukushima-poisoning-the-bread-basket-of-the-world) . In an honest assessment, all of the energy and financial liabilities of the whole nuclear generation system, over the whole life cycle of the longest-lived adverse impact of the system, need to be accounted for. They’re not. Far from it. I advocate the same treatment for all of the other generation technologies, too.
      I say that because there are massive public subsidies in every part of the energy and all of the other predatory industry rackets. In fact, the nuclear business model looks a lot like the pharmaceutical business model. The public purse massively funds all of the basic research and development, and at the last minute, the private sector patents the particulars, and makes all the money. That’s how pharmaceuticals work. And the criminals who have been running our country for many generations are the chief beneficiaries.
      And then there’s the treatment of adverse impacts. Both the nuclear industry and the pharmaceutical industry have near-zero liability for the adverse impacts of their products. Big Pharma’s vaccines are liability-free, thanks to the Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (1986) and the PREP Act (2005, et seq). In the case of the nuclear industry, the public has blindly agreed, without thinking or knowing about it, to assume all of the liability for any adverse effects of nuclear power generation. If the nuclear industry had to pay for its own insurance against occurrences like 3 Mile Island or Fukushima, they would go out of business tomorrow. If they stayed in business by some miracle, the cost of their power would be completely uncompetitive. So the two rackets operate similarly and probably shouldn’t be allowed to operate at all.
      And then there’s your very valid assertion that “new energy tech is being suppressed.” Very true, and has been for quite a long time. One has to be careful, though, to distinguish between suppression and simply failing to invest. “The market,” fully rigged by the rackets as it is, can simply cause a failure to invest and the technology will die on the vine. I know of several of those.
      Then there are end-use technologies suppressed (like certain carburetor technologies for internal combustion engines, or engine technologies themselves – just look up GM’s rotary radial engine technology from the 70s). There has even been suppression of an asphalt pavement design with a 50-year+ structural life (I was personally involved in uncovering that back in the late 1990s). This latter technology had two major flaws – it lasts more than 50 years with no maintenance, and its cost – about 30 percent less than for conventional designs. This was clearly going to go nowhere, and it didn’t. I can explain how and why for anyone interested.
      There are generation technologies suppressed as well, of course. Some of Boeing’s best solar PV technology, with efficiencies in excess of 40 percent and using very little material, has been suppressed. But in the generation category, the most important of those suppressed is what Max Planck called Zero Point energy – the energy that can be easily tapped from the quantum vacuum, if you will. Without knowing exactly what it was, but certain of its existence,Tesla did this over 100 years ago. A team of physicists recently proved that it’s real and that it can be tapped. And if you want to know how much there is to be tapped, just consider the energy contained in a lightning bolt.
      The problem here is that the rackets who are profiting so handsomely from today’s several energy subsectors are the ones suppressing the alternatives, for the last 3 generations. This is in part because it would wipe out trillions in revenue from the current energy system, which they own and control, and partly because they’ve decided to use the better stuff themselves, and keep it to themselves, given its extraordinary advantages (aside from being free). If there were large sums of money to be made in something like this Gen III or Gen IV technology, they would already own it and control it, taking advantage of all the subsidies they could cause to happen in the process. I suspect they’re thinking something like, “Let the chumps invest in that inferior stuff; we already control the most important technologies.”
      In the end, the analogy I come back to for nuclear generation is that generating electricity with radioactive fuels is akin to killing flies with a howitzer. It may seem an attractive strategy when others are paying for the howitzer, its operation, and the clean-up of the collateral damage from its use. But in the end, there are smarter, much less complex ways to generate electricity, and do away with the need for batteries, for that matter. As far as I’m concerned, the era of nuclear power generation arrived with the atomic bomb and was gone not long after. Because of massive public subsidies and hidden budgets, it’s just taking an unfortunately long time to die. Charlie

Comments are closed.