What Global Warming?

I wrote before that “essentially all climate data has been tampered with over the last decade. Temperature records as well as the records of the rise in sea level have been inflated to show warming that is not there. In the 1990 IPCC report, they showed a 10 cm rise in sea level over the previous century. And yet recent literature shows almost double that rise over the same time period. Unless the “scientists” got a time machine and went back in time to measure the planet again we have to conclude they are lying yet again.” But what about the temperature records? Scientists have tossed many graphs at the public that claim to show the data in pictorial form, and some of the graphs have been notoriously misleading or even fraudulent, but there are many that are very interesting.

We all know that the iconic and debunked “hockey stick” graph, showing temperatures recently shooting up into the stratosphere has been thoroughly discredited and yet millions of people still believe Dr. Mann’s fraud as seen in that horrible fantasy movie by Al Gore who made a billion dollars off of his scare mongering “catastrophic man-made global warming”. There was even a recent “hockey stick” graph by another “scientist” that was published and then debunked within a week. That may have been a record.

But there have been a host of graphs shown to the public and their government masters that are just as important, if not more so, than that famous “hockey stick”. Those graphs, showing how temperatures have changed in recent decades, greatly exaggerate those changes. The “scientists” do this by narrowly focusing just on “temperature anomalies” showing how they have risen and fallen round their average level in the past 30-odd years rather than the actual level of global temperature, as it is measured above freezing point.

Lawrence Solomon recently published in his Financial Post newspaper column a graph showing the temperature changes of the past 15 years in proper perspective. He used figures from the most prestigious of all official temperature records which are compiled by the world famous UK Met Office at its Hadley Centre.

The result is astounding. He included that huge part of the data usually left out and hidden from the view of the public and when he did — his chart shows a line that is virtually flat. Is this the “warming” that we are told will kill us all if we don’t toss Trillions at solutions? Is this the reason we should all live like cavemen to reduce CO2 output? (mother nature generates the vast majority of CO2 by the way)

The actual data show that today’s climate changes are relatively tiny compared with those rises and falls of several whole degrees the world survived in the past. The idea that CO2 is going to kill us all falls victim to the visuals of real world data. Even  Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), James Hansen of Nasa, and the Met Office have all conceded that there has been no warming at all since 1997 while the CO2 levels have continued to rise even faster than before. There has been a small increase in temperature in the last 100 years as the warming started about 200 years ago at the end of the “Little Ice Age”. Simply, we are coming out of the Little Ice Age that began in the early 1300’s.. The warming is a good thing by the way — I want even more of it.

Greenland ice core isotope past 4000 yrs

As this graph shows, modern warming is far below that of the past 4,000 years. Why were the Romans able to thrive in much higher average temperatures and we are now said to be so fragile that we would keel over dead? Follow the money. Government pays handsomely to those who claim that only government can save us from certain catastrophe.

By the way, about 380 to 400 million years ago our earth had an atmosphere with 10 times the present carbon dioxide levels or approximately 4,000 ppm (parts per million). Ten times? Yes, ten times. Those elevated levels did not produce runaway global warming back then so why would we be fooled by computer models into thinking it will happen now simply by our going from 350 ppm to 400 ppm? CO2 is a trace gas.

Plant life thrives under enriched carbon dioxide levels and commercial greenhouse operations provide elevated C02 for better plant growth. Evolution tells us that plants must have evolved in elevated CO2 if they respond so well to increased CO2 concentrations.

The Daily Mail in the UK has a good article today on this issue:

Geology tells us that fossil fuels are predominantly carbon which was part of our atmosphere before being locked away in the earth millions of years ago. At that time, there were more than 4,000 carbon parts per million (ppm) in the atmosphere. Over time this has been as low as 270ppm and is now about 385ppm. It is obvious the world can live with these fluctuations in the level of atmospheric carbon. There is a correlation between temperature and CO2, but some of my colleagues have put the cart before the horse.

The evidence shows CO2 levels follow temperature, not the other way around. Indeed, there may be many factors that determine our climate. Australian scientist David Archibald has shown  a remarkable correlation between the sun’s activity and our climate over the past 300 years. Climate scientists insist we must accept the ‘carbon’ orthodoxy or be cast into the wilderness.

But the scientists behind  the theory have a vested interest – it’s a great way to justify new taxes, get more money and guarantee themselves more work.

The reality is that man-made global warming is a myth: the global temperature is well within life’s limits and, indeed, the present day is cooler by comparison to much of Earth’s history. Perhaps this will be the moment that this fact becomes the new scientific orthodoxy.

It is time to put this fraud behind us and to worry about real environmental concerns. Pollution is still a problem; but CO2 is not pollution. I hope that soon this issue is retired to the trash-bin of bad ideas.


One thought on “What Global Warming?

  1. You’re so dissenting that you take the exact same line that the corporate media does (that warming is a myth). That you have quoted an article from ‘The Daily Mail’ indicates a slight academic incompetence – it’s widely recognised as the most egregiously bad paper in the country, marked by the worst journalism and most spurious misrepresentation of data. The article you quote from has been thoroughly debunked. A cursory internet search will find you several refutations.

    “But the scientists behind the theory have a vested interest – it’s a great way to justify new taxes, get more money and guarantee themselves more work”
    This argument is awful and it betrays a total misunderstanding of how scientific study, or the peer review process operate. If we are going to argue that ‘vested interests’ can be presumed from the predicted revenue streams a venture will yield then there are no arguments as to who stands to profit the most between climate change scientists and climate change skeptics; the skeptic industry has become massively profitable, and as very little climate change skepticism is scientifically articulate enough to warrant being published in a peer reviewed journal (look up James Powell Hewitt’s recent study of all climate related journals published in the last 20 or so years, i which he found >1% of them contained research denying man made global warming). In the face of this, skeptics tend to produce books en masse, which sell by the bucketload and are reviewed favourably in the corporate media. Climate scientists, on the other hand, tend to be academics on average salaries. They have no vested interest in proving climate change to be happening or not, they have a vested interest in research and scrutiny. There is a scientific consensus on climate change, a few rogue scientists (many with unrelated degrees) can be found waving the flag of the denial movement, but as you well know, many of the studies produced by these people were funded massively by corporate interests, ie creating a VESTED INTEREST in producing slanted data.

    Obviously you are someone possessing intellect who is capable of better reasoning than the average person, but having read a few of your blog posts, all you due is spout the same EXACT line that Ron Paul fans do, with a little bit of anarchism for good measure. When talking of foreign policy, you quote Ron Paul as if he is the only public figure to make the claim that US overseas tactics creates terrorism (he isn’t, and others have done so in much stronger terms than him). It amazes me that your skepticism of the state isn’t accompanies by the realisation that no powerful states adhere to the kyoto protocol, or takes the scientific threat of global warming seriously, yet people of the denial school of thought believe that the state and scientists are somehow in cohorts.

    You should be a little more skeptical of ANY story (climate change denial in this case) that is repeated ad infinitum in the most influential organs of societal dissemination. Instead, you argue the precise same line. Not very dissenting, is it? I doubt you’d ever see a left-anarchist faction quoting from ‘The Daily Mail’ as though it was in any way reputable (it’s not).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s