My Personal Observations

Is the climate changing …YES… always has always will. Can we control it … NOT until we can control –

Gravity, Ocean currents, Planetary movements, Plate tectonics, Suns output, Volcanoes.

Do we have an influence… YES… but minimal, Nature always wins.

I’ve seen no evidence of CO2 being the major controlling influence on the climate, but I have seen overwhelming evidence of the climate being driven by the sun & controlled by the water cycle.

I’ve seen that temperature & CO2 are linked, as any change in temperature is always followed ~ 800 yrs later by a change in CO2 . See Ice cores & Tree ring data.

I’ve yet to see any credible scientific proof of a Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming, although I have seen vast amounts of data pointing to natural temperature fluctuations.

I have also seen evidence of science being manipulated, by politics & politicians who don’t even understand the basics of Chemistry & Physics.

I am sick and tired of those so called ‘climate scientists’ who make alarmist junk science predictions (but wont show their data or methods or discus),  without ever being held accountable for them. They tarnish the whole of the scientific community.

This is as stupid as a stupid thing can get. It’s Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Alarmism CACA at it’s best !!
James Hansen (Ex NASA): ‘The Runaway Greenhouse Effect’ – 5mins

He agrees the earth has been 9°C hotter in the past ( it’s actually been much more, possibly 14°C & life still prospered) but yet he thinks that 4°C would entirely wipe out all life on the planet.
He really does say – “Ice sheets disintegrating”, “that’s it for all the species on the planet” “Oceans boiling”, “snowball earth”, “more & bigger storms”, “100 of city’s drowned”…. !!!!

But Mr. Hanson has a history –

Hansen has become just another money grabbing doomsday preacher, just like Harold Camping !

Discussion here –

80% (should it be 97%??) of what he says is science fiction …(but then he is trying to flog his books)

I am equally sick of the third rate hacks that just cut and paste such statements in the New Scientist, BBC, Guardian etc, without even attempting to check a few basic facts.

It demeans science that we can no longer trust the data that is presented.

The public are mislead while a few wealthy political cronies consume enormous amounts of energy & fly around the world in private jets telling the poor they can’t have energy that will lift them from poverty.

CAGW alarmists still obfuscate the fact that CO2 levels are still at very dangerously low levels.
At the end of the last glacial period, just 12,000 years ago, CO2 levels were at 170ppm, which is just 20ppm from photosynthesis shutting down and most plant, animal & insect life on earth going extinct….                     ( vast concentrations of life have been found at the midocean ridges and deep in the earths rocks where extremophile bacteria practice chemosynthesis based mainly on sulphur chemistry, the alternative to photosynthesis in the dark hot depths. Many other life forms then live of the bacteria. It is now thought that this form of symbiotic life was the precursor to our sort, i.e oxygen breathing/photo synthetic  )  maybe the meak will inherit the earth.                       We should be celebrating that manmade CO2 emissions have managed to beneficially increase CO2 to safer levels.

I also find it amusing that CAGW alarmists are still beating the “ocean acidification” dead horse, when all scientists know that from the Cambrian to the Devonian (600~400 million years ago), CO2 levels were around 4,000ppm, and oceans thrived with corals, plankton, shellfish and fish, even with 10 TIMES more CO2 dissolved in the oceans as carbonic acid and oceans were STILL alkaline at a pH of around 7.6…

Historians will eventually laugh at this generation for believing in such an absurd hypothesis when all empirical evidence so overwhelmingly showed CAGW to be an impossible premise.

• Members of the Warmist cult are not nice people – They’ll make a pronouncement based on junk science, then refuse to discuss ( If the alarmists are correct why are they so reluctant to debate ??), and they call anyone who questions their ideas – “criminal”, “fool”, “idiot”, “denier”.

In 1475, the word “Denier” meant those who did not unquestionably accept all church doctrine.

Five hundred years later, not much has changed.

Socrates said – “When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.”

And my old granny used to say –

The only reason someone starts slinging mud is because they’re out of real ammunition”

The alarmists also try to gag anyone with an opposing view.
The science is not up for debate” !!

  • Environmental activist Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (nephew of the late president) recently said ‘Deniers’ are “treasonous” and should be in jail with other criminals.
  • Similarly, climatologist James Hansen, who was seen as NASA’s top climate ‘expert’ for over a decade, said questioners of the hypothesis should face criminal trial for “high crimes against humanity.”
  • For Richard Parncutt, a professor at the University of Graz in Austria, prison is not punishment enough. In 2012, he said: “I propose that the death penalty is appropriate for influential GW [Global Warming] deniers”.
  • Californians Governor Schwarzenegger, wants skeptics locked in a room with a car with its engine running !!
  • Barack Obama “It’s time to expose climate change deniers – add your name, and join the team that’s calling them out, one by one.”

A few points to ponder –

1. Temperatures have risen since 1850 by ~ 0.8 °C and nothing bad happened.

Why would another 0.7 C be dangerous?

2. We are constantly told “97% of climate scientists believe …”: BUT data shows they’ve been 97% wrong!!

3. IF the ‘97% of all scientists’ figure was true, surely they could find a few Warmist scientists capable of debating & demolishing the 3% ‘deniers’ with some facts & data, so I wonder why that hasn’t happened ??

4. If any idea / belief / hypothesis is so weak that it can’t be questioned or held to account, & its supporters refuse to debate, but demand (often with menaces ), that we blindingly accept it; then our society is rapidly heading back to the dark ages.

5. In 1930s Germany, people were ‘encouraged’ to report anyone questioning the party line to the Gestapo. Scientists were forced to deliver ‘evidence’ (any dissenters just disappeared) to back up the pre-written political consensus; scary propaganda stories were constantly spread by the media, laws were passed that prevented criticism or questioning of the ‘party line’, the political consensus ruled – we all know what happened after.

Same happened in Stalin’s Russia, Tito’s Yugoslavia, Mao’s China …..Costing of millions of lives.

As Yogi said “Its dejavu …… all over again” !!

Is history repeating itself ?? I fervently hope not.

It is a very dangerous world, when politics tries to trump science.

Addendum: 13 Dec 2015 COP 21 the UN climate conference in Paris has just finished with-

A worthless piece of paper that’s cost us dearly in more than just cash, just to save the face & boost egos of some corrupt politicians who have at last seen the mistake, but can’t publicly acknowledge they were wrong.
In contrast to the Kyoto Protocol, the 2015 Paris deal removes all legal obligations for governments to cap or reduce CO2 emissions. – The UN Paris climate agreement has no teeth. It does not require nations to do anything meaningful.

Which suits China, India, Russia and others just fine.

The Paris Conference Cost for 40,000 attendees was ~ $1,146million of our money.

(Carbon footprint including travel ~ 300,000 tons CO2

Next years COP 22 jamboree is in Morocco,
(If the worlds heating up, why don’t they go to Skegness or Murmansk or Greenland ??…… To bloody cold that’s why.)

This agreement will not alter the temperature of the Earth, even according to the UN’s own computer models.

The formally accepted final draft of the Paris Agreement is intended to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 degrees Celsius. Such an ambitious goal would require a zero level in emissions sometimes between 2030 and 2050. However, no concrete goals for emissions were stated in the final version of the Paris Agreement.
The Paris COP 21 Agreement. 32 pages.

Article 4 includes:
1. In order to achieve the long-term temperature goal set out in Article 2, Parties aim to reach global peaking of greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible, recognizing that peaking will take longer for developing country Parties, and to undertake rapid reductions thereafter in accordance with best available science, so as to achieve a balance between anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks of greenhouse gases in the second half of this century, on the basis of equity, and in the context of sustainable development and efforts to eradicate poverty.
2. Each Party shall prepare, communicate and maintain successive nationally determined contributions that it intends to achieve. Parties shall pursue domestic mitigation measures with the aim of achieving the objectives of such contributions.

The article 28 of the agreement is hilarious:
1. At any time after three years from the date on which this Agreement has entered into force for a Party, that Party may withdraw from this Agreement by giving written notification to the Depositary.
2. Any such withdrawal shall take effect upon expiry of one year from the date of receipt by the Depositary of the notification of withdrawal, or on such later date as may be specified in the notification of withdrawal.
3. Any Party that withdraws from the Convention shall be considered as also having withdrawn from this Agreement.

Now remember, we have been told ad-infinitum, (for years) – “we are at a tipping point”, “we have just a few months to save the planet” & this urgent historical hysterical document is “the key to human survival”: Yet –

  • It doesn’t get signed until April 2016.
  • It allows every single country to make up its own targets, and they have until November 2016 to do so (although there’s a reference to a “report” on their target planning due by the signing ceremony in April).
  • And even those targets are temporary. They have until 2020 for any long-term plan.
  • They have until November 2018 to submit and recommend approval of a plan to raise at least $100 billion in a plan to be committed to and implemented by 2025.
  • All they’re doing prior to 2025 is “urging” the parties to try to reduce their emissions.
  • No individual cash or CO2 levels are called out in this document. And they’ve already planned to cut slack to the developing countries ( they call it flexibility) in meeting goals that haven’t even been set yet.
  • No binding Agreement to do anything or pay anyone. (Because it would archive nothing & cost £1.2 trillion/year.)
  • Anyone can leave at any time

The bad news is that it plants the seeds of a new UN climate regime that left unchecked will swell into a bureaucratic behemoth.
The good news is that the agreement’s soft commitments, lack of penalties for noncompliance, and long dates buy time for more scientific data to come in. Because Nature moves at it own pace.
The more scientific evidence we examine, the weaker the case for economy-wrecking global warming policies becomes.

& My final sarcastic comment (honest)
What great success! In the ‘hottest year ever’;
The data shows this global agreement has already started to reduce temperatures. (see graph at bottom of “The Hottest on record”)
We are so lucky to have such great & glorious leaders to protect us, we should be glad to pay bigger bills & taxes, perhaps we should also sacrifice a few virgins & slaughter some chickens as well. Sarc button off !!

This may be comedy….but it’s uncannily close to the facts;

It’s hilarious, absolutely to the point, and a must watch.