Why has Climate Change or Global Warming become the most important environmental issue?
Lets be very clear of one thing from the outset, climate change is happening, it always has and it always will. There has never been a period of steady state climate, it has always been in constant flux and always will be, to believe otherwise would be absurd. There have certainly been periods in history when we have witnessed prolonged trends of rising temperatures, as well as periods of falling temperatures.
If global warming is happening, then it may continue to happen for several years, decades or even centuries and quite frankly there is nothing we can do to influence it in any meaningful way whatsoever. Equally as appears to be happening over the last 15 years we are seeing a cooling effect, maybe that is why this years Bilderberg group were discussing “global cooling”. For those old enough to remember, back in the 1970’s the talk was of global cooling and the fears of heading into an ice age.
The global warming scam has prostituted science into a religion, replacing scientific proof with religious dogma, we are asked to “trust” the scientists, even when a mountain of evidence suggests that faith may be misplaced. The most telling and damning statement from the “warmists” is to state that the science is set and there is a consensus on manmade global warming (MMGW). Science is never set, a hypothesis is made, that hypothesis is then challenged, those challenges are then either proved or disproved. If science had said that Newton’s laws could never be challenged, we would never have had Einstein’s theories. The fact that “MMGW deniers” can be branded along with “holocaust deniers” proves the science is shaky, they just won’t allow dissent or common sense to prevail, this is not how science works.
I could be convinced of the existence of manmade global warming, just show me the proof, the raw empirical data that proves it beyond doubt.
It would seem apparent that the choice of CO2 as the culprit is somewhat bizarre, especially as it is further defined as a pollutant. It may be toxic to many animals, but it is essential to plants, without CO2 plants could not photosynthesise. As a constituent of air, carbon dioxide only accounts for just under 400 parts per million (ppm). To understand what this means in everyday terms, imagine you were told you had won £1 million, but received a cheque for £400. It is true that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, but water vapour accounts for around 95% of the greenhouse gas effect.
Perhaps instead of a carbon tax, we should have a water vapour tax, a tax on clouds, it would at least make more sense from a contributory point of view. The following list are all sources of CO2, the total estimated annual volume of carbon dioxide from all sources is 186 billion tons.
• Human activity – approximately 6 billion tons (3.3 %)
• Animal Respiration and bacteria – 71 billion tons (38%)
• Oceans and sea’s – more than 100 billion tons (57%)
• Other sources – approximately 3 billion tons (1.7%)
Furthermore carbon dioxide contributes only around 3.62% of all greenhouse gas effects, water vapour (clouds) contribute 95%, nitrous oxide 0.95%, methane 0.36% and all others including CFC’s 0.07%. Additionally carbon dioxide accounts for only 0.04% (400 ppm) of all atmospheric gases.
When you see words like could, may or potential in (so-called) scientific reports or media sound bites, this is NOT science, this is speculation, science deals in facts, politicians deal in speculation.
There are many other environmental issues that could and should be pursued, deforestation, overfishing, ivory trade, bush meat, dumping toxins into water courses, lakes, seas and oceans, pumping toxins into the atmosphere, use of herbicides and pesticides in agriculture, reducing unnecessary packaging, reducing food miles, reducing waste and subsequent need for landfill sites.
Billionaire Al Gore, now there’s a man to trust – not!
If the US adopt carbon cap and trade, he more than anyone else stands to gain – massively. Any poll, anywhere asking “who do you least trust?” always comes back with politicians and journalists as first and second, and yet when they push MMGW the public decide they are telling the truth – why? Al Gore won a Nobel Prize for his MMGW film “An Inconvenient Truth”, a film that does not have any corroborated scientific proof to back it up, it consists of contrived and manipulated dis-information, it is nothing more than an emotional kick in the teeth. Most people respond to emotion, who wants to see polar bears die? Who wants to see communities wiped out by floods or hurricanes?
As mentioned earlier, in the 1970’s we were experiencing global cooling and heading into an ice age, then suddenly following some warmer years we were experiencing global warming, caused by carbon dioxide and were heading for global catastrophe. When “real” measurements were showing that mean temperatures were actually dropping year on year the name suddenly changed to Climate Change, it’s harder to argue against climate change, especially if they plan to prosecute “climate deniers”.
To reduce emissions of any type is obviously a laudable aim, the less impact we have on the environment, the better for the planet and all life on the planet, we all get that! Problem is our entire civilization is fossil fuel based, and it’s all finite. We don’t drive cars because we enjoy polluting the planet, we drive cars because we need to get around and there is no realistic alternative. We are completely dependent upon electricity and gas, almost all of our electricity is derived from fossil fuels.
Nuclear power can only ever be a short term solution, it is derived from another finite source. Wind and solar power should be used where it’s appropriate, but it is very limited, covering the countryside with windmills will not solve our energy requirements and they play havoc with grid systems, and they need something more reliable to back them up when output drops, something like a coal powered power station perhaps!
The graph above and the graph below is drawn from the data gathered from the Vostok ice core samples and, unlike the tree ring data, is scientifically sound and uncontroversial. Looking at the above graph, there have been six periods in the last 415,000 years when global temperature exceeded today’s temperature by as much as nine degrees. 10,000 years ago, the global temperature was five degrees higher than today.
Okay lets look at global temperature over the last 16,000 years…
The shorter the time frame, the more compelling the argument for man made global warming becomes, but that is just totally disingenuous, the figures are being manipulated to fit with an assumption. Over extended periods of time the theory of MMGW just does not fit the evidence.
The above graph looks more alarming, but only shows the last 150 years, but an important aspect is the temperature scale on the left, which show changes of 0.2oC, notice also the drop in temperature from 1940 to 1970’s, when industrial output would be rapidly increasing as economies rebuilt following the second world war, and preceding the emergence of the green movement. Notice also that the peak was in the late 1990’s and since then the annual averages have been less. This trend does not support the scaremongering IPPC estimates of a 6 degree rise by 2100. This figure was a result of several computer simulations and represented the very worst case scenario, not an average of results, but the worst one. This is the one the IPCC then printed in its report to politicians around the World.
Michael Mann and his “hockey stick” graph shown below, which featured in Al Gores “An Inconvenient Truth” has become one of the most discredited works of “scientific” study in the history of science.
Overview of the Scientific Method
The scientific method is a process for experimentation that is used to explore observations and answer questions. Scientists use the scientific method to search for cause and effect relationships in nature. In other words, they design an experiment so that changes to one item cause something else to vary in a predictable way.
Even following the scientific method above does not establish an absolute proof, it only proves a specific hypothesis, under a certain set of tests. The hypothesis itself could be flawed, some of the tests could be flawed. The normal process would be that other interested parties would attempt to prove or disprove the hypothesis.
The major problem with the hypothesis of manmade global warming is that first they established the conclusion (mankind’s use of fossil fuels causes warming) and then created the facts to try and fit the conclusion. That emissions of carbon dioxide from burning of fossil fuels are causing global warming (or climate change) cannot be challenged, was the starting point.
No other cause has been investigated, the computer models used to predict climate change use varying levels of CO2 as their only variable, regardless of whether CO2 is the culprit or not, the results will always blame AGW, case of garbage in, garbage out.
To suggest that the science is set, or there is a consensus is just really bad science, it totally debauches science, when the truth comes out many people will lose faith in science, not that it will stop the MMGW movement. They will push this forward no matter how expensive, or damaging, or wrong the whole thing may be. In the meantime there may be something very damaging going on, that does need addressing, which we could do something about. The argument of reducing carbon dioxide “just in case” could end up being very damaging, because we are ignoring something much more serious.
Global Warming Debunked
Let’s establish some facts:
- The planet has been experiencing an upward trend since the 70’s, but despite what the graphs may show, that increase has been less than 1 degree.
- Since 2001 mean global temperatures have actually decreased year on year, the overall trend may still be upward, its too early to say
- Other planets in the solar system, beyond Earth (Mars, Jupiter and moons of Saturn) are exhibiting signs of warming, that sort of hints at solar activity
- Polar Ice has been decreasing, but Antarctic Ice has actually been increasing in the same time frame
- Ice sheets the size of small Countries breaking off the poles is normal
- Carbon dioxide increase lags temperature rise by about 800 years, due mainly to the vast amount of CO2 held in the Oceans – this means increase in CO2 does NOT cause an increase in temperature, it’s the other way round
- Carbon Dioxide is NOT a pollutant, it is absolutely vital for life on Earth
- Water vapour accounts for around 95% of all greenhouse gas effects
- The greenhouse effect is necessary, without it too much heat would escape into space and the planet would be too cold to support life
- Without the SUN we would have no life, how can it not be a factor in climate on Earth. Without the sun the surface temperature of Earth would be around minus 270 degrees Celsius, so how is it not a factor
- Computer models used for climate change predictions, only consider the effect of CO2 increases, what about all the other variables? Water vapour, cloud cover, solar activity, volcano’s
- How can we be so naïve to believe that we could actually stop a global temperature rise if it was happening
- Experts on polar bears, say that mortality rates have not increased
- Experts on hurricanes, say frequency and strength have not increased, if anything they are lower, what has changed is that more people live in the path of hurricanes than previously, and obviously there is more media coverage
- Lake Chad’s water level has dropped significantly, but this is due to irrigation of the lake
- Solar activity has been steadily increasing since the 70’s
- Roman Warming between 200 BC and 600 AD was warmer than now, we had vines in Britain
- Medieval Warm period from 900 AD to 1300 AD Vikings colonised Greenland, and vines returned to Britain
- Little Ice Age between 1300 and 1700 AD temperatures dropped to lowest since the end of the last Ice Age
- 1920 to 1940 temperatures were rising
- 1940 to 1970 the Earth was cooling and Britain experienced several harsh winters – 1946/47 and 1962/63
- More deaths occur in cold periods than occur in warmer periods. Societies flourish in warmer periods and decline in colder ones.
- Greenhouse gases exist in the troposphere at about 10 km above the Earths surface, increases in temperature would be more noticeable there, than at the Earths surface, they are not
- Edward Maunder (1851-1928) observed from records, minimum sun spot activity between 1645-1715 during “The Little Ice Age”, this is known as the Maunder minimum
- Over the last 150 years, the mean temperature has increased by only 0.5oC, and most of that was prior to 1940.
Global Warming – The real cause
Global climate and temperature is completely driven by solar activity, more specifically sunspot activity. Temperature maps very closely to sunspot activity, although it is an inverse relationship.
Temperature on surface of Earth is controlled by cloud formation, cloud formation is controlled by cosmic rays, and cosmic rays are controlled by solar winds resulting from sunspot activity.
Cosmic rays or particles passing through the atmosphere allow water vapour to form clouds; clouds as the major greenhouse gas trap more heat in the troposphere causing temperature to rise. When sunspot activity is low, solar wind activity is low and more particles enter the atmosphere. Conversely, when sunspot activity is high, more solar winds sweep away particles meaning less particles enter the atmosphere, so less are available for cloud formation. Although it may appear sunnier, temperature will actually drop, as more heat will escape through the troposphere as there are fewer clouds. Only at this point would carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases (nitrogen dioxide and sulphur dioxide) have any effect, which at best is miniscule. Of the 400 ppm of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, only a tiny fraction is a result of mans activities (around 3% ~ 12ppm)
Carbon Dioxide plays no significant role in climate change. Mankind is NOT responsible for Global Warming. We are responsible for a lot that is wrong on the planet, but not that!
The environmental movement is not about “saving the planet” its about being against globalisation, corporations and capitalism, all laudable aims (concerning NWO), but they are being persuaded to bark up the wrong tree. The founding members of both Greenpeace and the UK Green party have both come out against MMGW and speak out against their former organisations, they can see how the environmentalist movement has been sabotaged, by the very same globalists looking to create their New World Order – you can’t accuse these globalists of being stupid, they are brilliant.
Governments play lip service to global warming because they can extract revenue by supporting it. Currently on our motorways we have hundreds, if not thousands of miles of unnecessary lighting, all vehicles are fitted with lights, so why do we need those lights? Turning off all rural motorway lighting would save how many power stations worth of output a year? How many tons of CO2 would that be? Cement manufacture produces massive amounts of CO2 yet once again hundreds or thousands of miles of central reservation concrete barriers are being built, where is the joined up thinking here?