Dear xxxxxxxx
Let me see if
I can lead you towards a less-accepting and perhaps more sceptical
view of 'Global Warming / Climate Change' ! But you can just ignore
this if you prefer - and I hope it's not too long ........ and bits
in bold aren't 'shouting' but for emphasis and to help break this
up into chunks that are easier to find again if wanted . I can provide
reference for facts or quotes below.
This is a somewhat different, fact and science based, perspective
on 'climate change' to that which appears in the MSM - it is from
areas I have researched for my own interest.
Just look at
this with an open and questioning mind rather than accepting ‘facts’
blindly. Science is about scepticism, questioning, checking and
verifying to ensure that what is claimed can be proven, not just
by the person who makes the claim, but replicated and proven independently
by others.
A key reason
why I feel strongly is that 25 years ago I was a signed-up believer
and advocate of global warming - and very active in all sorts of
environmental areas including TV and radio interviews. But then
about 7 or 8 years ago I began to look into Global Warming / Climate
Change and started to study the science and the published papers
in some depth, both inside and outside of the IPCC. It was something
I hadn't done before.
What I found, and continue to find, took me to an absolute conviction
that this is, as a matter of fact, an artificially constructed scare
for political ends. I later found out that the founder of 'Anthropogenic
Global Warming' (AGW) and also the founder of the IPCC, Maurice
Strong, (and it was he who laid down the IPCC's remit and operating
guidelines) has been widely reported as stating that “Global
Warming” was a deliberately invented scare for the sole, political
purposes of creating an unelected global government and for de-industrialising
civilisation. (some quotes from him below)
Sceptics, and I am one, are people
who have looked at the data and the science with an open, critical
and questioning mind - as anyone, be they layman
or scientist, should. No scientists dispute that the earth has warmed
very slightly (although there are valid and genuine reasons to question
about by how much) or that climate constantly changes, but very
significant numbers of scientists dispute the 'accepted' reason
that it is solely because of CO2.
Some
30,000 'hard sciences' scientists in the USA alone, mainly with
PhDs ,
signed a public statement about 8 or 9 years ago that they do not
agree that man and CO2 is causing warming. More than 50% of professional
meteorologists dealing with weather forecasting on a daily basis
are reported to be sceptics - but neither of those are as headline-grabbing
for the MSM as 'we're all going to fry'. That rather exposes the
'97% consensus' of what is in reality just a few hundred 'climate
scientists' - the '97%' is, in any event, a manufactured figure
and this has been demonstrated in a number of published papers which
analysed it in great depth.
Consensus
! You will know that we are constantly being told
that the “Consensus” is that CO2 causes
global warming and that the “science is settled”
– neither is true and neither is a valid claim as I’ll
explain.
"Consensus
Science" isn't science, it is proof of nothing
- as Galileo demonstrated hundreds of years ago when sent to the
Inquisition because his scientific view that the earth was round
didn't meet the 'consensus' view that it was flat ! The problem
that the climate change hypothesis has is that there is no empirical
evidence (proof) that CO2 levels affect earth's temperature - in
fact the contrary has been demonstrated by both the refusal of global
temperatures to rise as predicted in line with rising atmospheric
CO2 levels during the last 30 years and from paleo-climatic records.
The
'Scientific Consensus’ that CO2 increases
global temperatures is as meaningless and as disproven by events
as was the ‘Flat Earth’ consensus of Galileo’s
day.
There is another
fatal flaw with CO2 = Global Warming. The Paleoclimate records from
ice cores show that CO2 levels Rise long After temperatures Rise
and lag behind by 500 - 700 years. There has never been a period
in Earth’s history where CO2 levels rose Before temperatures
did – but we are asked to believe that has somehow been changed
by CO2 that mankind emits. Al Gore claimed it was the other way
round in his film An Inconvenient Truth but this was confirmed to
be false by the High Court in London in October 2007 as one of 9
scientific errors the film contained.
Earth
has had CO2 levels around 25 times Higher than today but that didn't
cause any global warming at all and even at those
levels there has never been the ‘Runaway Global Warming’
we are constantly threatened with !! So
if Higher CO2 = Runaway Global Warming then we wouldn’t be
here to worry about it as the earth would have been crisped millennia
ago ! Warmer periods
are followed by another ice age – that’s why the warmer
periods are called interglacials, and we are in one at present.
Sceptical Climate Scientists with
world class reputations have been sacked from universities
for speaking out opposing the 'CO2 = global warming' hypothesis,
Scientific Journals have been repeatedly leaned on and coerced to
prevent sceptical scientific research papers being published - "Climategate"
showed 'warmist' climate scientists boasting in emails of how they
achieved this .
World
renowned climate scientists have resigned from the IPCC
process because it was publishing false and even fake science claimed
as ‘peer reviewed’. In one famous instance, under political
pressure, an IPCC report was changed from stating that there was
“No Discernable Influence of Mankind on Climate” to
the statement that there Was a discernable influence of mankind
on climate. This was a key aspect in the political battle towards
getting an unelected world government that the IPCC was set up to
achieve. (See further down)
There is no
doubt in my mind that Global Warming started, and continues, as
pure politics as opposed to science, neither do I doubt that the
politics has now been subsumed into a global business which is making
£ billions every year from 'climate change' and spends a fortune
to keep the frenzy going - and will do both for as long as the demonisation
of CO2 can be maintained. (Al Gore made himself into a billionaire
through it).
As
someone famously quipped, Global Warming / Climate Change is all
about money being taken from Poor People in Rich Countries and handed
to Rich People in Poor Countries .... whilst global business creams
off of the top !
I often find that understanding the underlying motivation and aims
which underpin a subject is illuminating ...... and in this case
that means looking at the politics .......quotes from the IPCC (below)
help to illustrate and explain the political nature of "Global
Warming".
Global Warming / Climate Change and
CO2 started with Maurice Strong of the UN , UNEP and IPCC .
He is credited as the founder of both 'Global Warming' and the IPCC,
and as a matter of fact he did create both. If you check him out
you will see his politics and what the intention was behind the
idea of climate change and how it could be used to create an unelected
world government - this was his second attempt after his earlier
one to create a World Government through the UN failed. Neither
attempt has seen Democracy as having any place in it. He was for
decades working closely with and devising policies for various Secretary
Generals. After some 40+ years involvement at the very heart of
UN policymaking Strong was forced out and had most, if not all,
of his honours stripped away over fraud involving oil money from
Iraq and money disappearing (~$1m in one instance) from UN coffers
into one of Strong’s companies. Worth checking him out .......
Strong then fled
the West and sought refuge in China where his cousin had lived –
she was a member of Comintern and had lived with Chairman Mao for
2 years. Strong was then well looked after in China where he had
business interests and had for many years been close to the leadership
as he had also been to the leadership of soviet and post-soviet
Russia.
What was the IPCC set up by Strong
to do ?
When considering anything about 'climate change' a key is to understand
what the IPCC was set up for and what it's highly restricted remit
is - and perhaps more importantly what is was set up Not
to Do......... You can check this online very easily and
will see that the IPCC was Not set up to find out if Global Warming
was happening and If So What was Causing it , which is what most
people believe the IPCC does.
No the IPCC was established with the
sole mandated task to show how much Global Warming the 'man-made'
emissions of CO2 was causing / going to cause -
Not if CO2 could or would cause global warming because it had already
decided to adopt that position without any empirical evidence to
support it - and the reason for that is made clear by Strong below.
As an aside the amount of CO2 emitted by mankind is a tiny percentage
of the earth's natural CO2 emissions, it is so small that it is
Less than the error bars of natural CO2 emissions, i.e. mankind's
is less than the spread of potential calculation errors of the earth's
own natural emissions ! Yet we are expected to believe that mankind's
emissions drive the global climate and natural ones have no effect
! But that suspension of belief only begins to make 'sense' when
it is viewed through the prism of the underlying intent of 'AGW'.
Nor was the IPCC set up to research and identify what has driven
or controlled earth's climate over the millennia through ice ages
and far hotter times than we have today -that is specifically excluded
from its remit.
Science
accepts that the Minoan Warm Period was around 1.5
- 2 deg C Hotter than today; the Roman
Warm Period was around 1-1.5 deg C Hotter than today
and warm enough to grow grapes as far north as Hadrian's wall; the
Medieval Warm Period [MWP] was
around 0.5 - 1 deg C hotter than today although more recently there
have been attempts to suggest that we are as warm today as the MWP
(which had no CO2 emissions !!).
The
MWP was then followed by the bitterly cold, centuries-long Little
Ice Age - in Elizabethan times and during following
centuries Ice fairs were regularly held on the frozen river Thames
in London with Ox Roasts on ice measured at up to 5 feet thick;
carriages were driven along and across the frozen river ! In some
winters ships in the North Sea are recorded as having been stuck
in sea ice at 2 miles out to sea ! Years of bitter cold were interspersed
with some hot summers but there were many periods of famine and
significant numbers of people dying from the cold across the Northern
hemisphere and into the southern hemisphere.
The Little Ice Age [LIA] continued
through until the late 1870s and finished with a bitterly cold spell
in the 1880s. The IPCC chooses not to work out why those periods
were so much hotter and colder - without man-made CO2 around .....
it also chose to take the comparison period for warming as starting
around 1890 when the earth was finally and quite naturally coming
out of the depths of the LIA...... difficult not to find warming
when earth is recovering from an mini ice age ! so quite a carefully
chosen start point if you want to base claims on a small temperature
increase ......
In much more recent years the IPCC changed the date of the start
of Modern Warming to the 1950s and justifying it by the significant
increase in CO2 emissions as nations’ economies and industries
recovered and rebuilt after the 2nd world war. You might well question
why would that be and a look at temperature records shows the new
start date was also a cold period !! Since then CO2 emissions have
risen every year and we have had periods of warming followed by
periods of cooling leading to the current 20 year 'pause' in which
there has been no 'statistically significant' increase in global
temperatures, as even the IPCC accepts.
A quick caveat as
there have been recent claims of the hottest or 2nd hottest year
ever (etc) - these 'records' are often claimed by just thousandths
of one degree but always fail to state that this temperature is
subject to an uncertainty which might be Plus or Minus 1 degree
C. Unaltered temperature records from the 1890s, 1930s, and 1940s
from all over the world show Hotter temperature records than we
have today. I say Unaltered because in the last 25 years or so NOAA
/ GISS and HADCRUT have revised the recorded temperatures from earlier
years Downwards (Always Downwards) on 5 or 6 separate occasions
- without that today's temperatures would not beat records of 100
years ago ! You can google all of that, and there are a number of
people who have kept and publish the unadulterated original records
so you can check for yourself. Contemporary newspaper articles and
photographs of islands (now buried under ice) show a more ice-free
arctic in the late 19th and early 20th centuries than we have seen
in the satellite era !
Also worth remembering that Greenland
was called Greenland because it was .... well, Green
.... the Vikings had numerous settlements there that they farmed
and fished from for centuries until temperatures cooled and as Greenland
became ice-covered they were forced to leave. That is mirrored in
the current slow retreat of some Alpine glaciers which are exposing
villages which have been buried since medieval times and earlier.
Anyway back to the IPCC ....... and
the POLITICS OF GLOBAL WARMING / CLIMATE CHANGE
The IPCC was set up by Maurice Strong to use 'Global Warming' (seemingly
his own invention) to achieve the aims he spells out below .....
BTW now renamed Climate Change because there has been no statistically
significant warming for the last 20 years - that has now had to
be publicly accepted by the IPCC - all the scare stories about 'projected'
future temperatures are from climate models and every one of those
has been completely wrong over the last 25 years - they have all
failed to be able to model or predict future temperatures as well
as failing hindcast predictive modelling of past temperatures -
I could illustrate and explain that another day.
Below are some quotes from Strong
and other leading figures in the UN and IPCC which show that we
have a 'Global Warming / Climate Change' "crisis" solely
for political reasons. These are widely reported across the web:
Strong's statements as widely reported across the
web, explaining why he set up the IPCC and what it was to achieve
“In searching for a new
enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that .. the threat of
global warming.. would fit the bill…. the real enemy, then,
is humanity itself….we believe humanity requires a common
motivation, namely a common adversary in order to realize world
government. It does not matter if this common enemy is a real one
or…. one invented for the purpose.”
(Maurice Strong - speech to Club of Rome - and "invented"
referred specifically to 'Global Warming')
“Isn’t the only hope
for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t
it our responsiblity to bring that about?” . and
those statements encapsulate what lies behind and is the reason
for 'Global Warming / Climate Change" .
Ottmar Edenhofer, who co-chaired the
U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) working
group on Mitigation of Climate Change from 2008 to 2015. "One
has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate
policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with
the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation
or the ozone hole ...... We redistribute de facto the world's wealth
by climate policy ........... the next world climate summit in Cancun
is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the
world's resources will be negotiated. "
As an aside to Edenhofer's statement if you research the Copenhagan
Climate Conference, which came before Cancun, you will find that
it's proposed Treaty wasn't ratified following the US refusal to
do so - you will find in the Treaty Annex the clauses which would
have created a Global Environmental body, a de facto World Government,
under the UN with the power to set global policies which would over-ride
any national environmental or economic policy .... it was to be
unelected and unaccountable (as was the USSR) and it was this attempt
at creating an anti-democratic embryo World Government that led
the USA and other nations to refuse to sign it.
Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.'s Framework
Convention on Climate Change "This
is the first time in the history of mankind that we are
setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period
of time, to change the economic development model that has been
reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution
" That must be taken in the context of
Strong's statements quoted above and the intent to de-industrialise
which means a return to lifestyles of the 15th and 16th centuries.
Margaret Thatcher enthusiastically embraced the
concept of 'Global Warming' , but did so as a Political Weapon -
following the miners' strike she saw she could use 'Global Warming'
as a way to end the domination of coal in the electricity market,
switch to nuclear and prevent any future prospect of miners holding
the country to ransom. She much later realised the disaster that
this 'fake science' was causing and going to cause but by then she
was in the last months of her political life. Her autobiography
explains this.
The Paris Climate Conference
was heralded and publicised as a breakthrough agreement which would
limit 'Global Warming' to 2 deg C - it was widely touted that this
meant an end to incresing CO2 emissions. But the public hype is
very different to what actually was agreed !
What Paris actually agreed was that
CO2 emissions would Increase by 46%++ between now
and 2030 - that included China Doubling and India Trebling
their respective emissions !! It was agreed that every
nation could set its own future emissions targets through INDCs
(Independent Nationally Determined Contributions), and these can
be modified at will and so are not even legally binding.
That makes something of a mockery of the manufactured and ill-informed
criticism of Trump taking the US out of Paris and praise for China
taking a lead in 'reducing' emissions (not) - and not least because
the USA has reduced its CO2 emissions % far more than other nation
through the use of natural gas. China alone is building some 600
new coal fired power stations alone out of some 1600 currently planned
around the world and plans a massive rise in its CO2 emissions as
its INDC shows. 80% of both China and India's electricity is generated
by burning Coal.
The height of irony is that in the last fortnight, whilst Macron
castigated Trump, the USA and Coal fired power generation at COP23,
the French economy was only kept going and their lights kept on
by electricity generated in 4 UK coal fired power stations and shipped
to them through the interconnector !! France was unable to meet
it's own needs due to nuclear power stations being down or undergoing
safety improvements.
The actual Agreement reached in Paris
should raise the question in your mind - why if CO2 is believed
to cause 'Global Warming' was the Paris Climate Agreement (and IPCC)
quite content to see CO2 emissions Increase by 46% in the next 14
years ? The answer that springs to my mind is that they know it
will have no effect on Global Temperatures and I'll explain and
show you why in a follow up - that is if you would like me to !!
best regards |