Climate change

Climate change.

Do you really believe this stuff?

Really? In your heart of hearts?

You're intelligent. Can question stuff that you're told to believe. If you are allowed to. More here.

Actually, why are we being told what to believe. If the 'science is settled' (BBC) why do we need to be told what to believe? Why are some people suggesting that if we don't believe we should be punished? Isn't 'settled science' tantamount to 'fact". Isn't climate change 'fact' now? If it is, then why aren't we just presented with the incontrovertible facts and then we can all get on with it?

If this was the case with religion, we'd have to consider the facts wouldn't we? And we'd be allowed to have our own beliefs on the subject. And if enough people believed in God, would that make it 'fact'?

I don't think so. Because 'fact' is incontrovertible. Gravity is fact. If you don't take on board enough water you will die. That is fact.

Is God fact? Is climate change fact? I make the comparison because they are extremely similar if you really think about it with an open mind. Religion was 'invented' by man (or men) as a means of controlling people. Before CCTV, God's all-seeing eye could make you think about your behaviour at all times; your thoughts, intentions, deeds all came under His scrutiny. God was effectively a police force without resources. It was also a means of making people do what you wanted: If you don't do this (sacrifice your first child for example) then the crops will fail and we'll all starve. Powerful stuff.

It was also an astonishingly effective means of raising money, without national boundaries, from people who could ill-afford it. Look around you at the churches in every village in the land, funded by people who were on the poverty line, who went without food, but still paid their tithe to the church.

The same is now true of the climate change scam. It is not scientific fact, indeed in any other field of contemporary science if a theory had been proved wrong so often it would have been abandoned by now. No, it is a belief, just like religion, with many followers, but also many leaders who are getting rich on the backs of people who can ill-afford the money they are being forced to pay for it. Individuals and governments.

I've produced a piece on what you should know about climate change - here - so I'm not going to regurgitate the same stuff. Have a read and if you're still not convinced that this is the biggest non-religious scam in history, then goodbye and good luck.

So why are we being forced to accept man-made global warming as fact? It's not fundamental science. There is simply no substantive science explaining cause and effect. All of the IPPC predictions have failed to come to fruition. All of Lord Stern's scaremongering predictions of 2007 have failed to materialise. It is, quite simply, coercion. It has other motives.

And just like religion, it is about raising money (green taxes) for something that will make absolutely no material difference to the planet. Just like religion, it seeks to control that which we cannot control. In this case the earth's climate as opposed to human nature which is the case with religion. In both cases the underlying motive is sinister. It's about controlling people.

Yes religion teaches good deeds and good behaviour, but it is invariably perverted by people seeking to control others, to raise money from them and to subvert freedoms. So too the climate change movement: raising money in the form of green taxes in order to 'save the planet'. What bigger cause is there? Trouble is we cannot control the climate. There is absolutely no scientific evidence that we can. And certainly the UK cutting it's CO2 output when China, the US, Canada, Russia, India et al are not doing so is completely futile.  

I read recently a post from a scientist (in a pro climate change post) who said that, even if you don't accept science, it's still true. That's a brilliant point imo. He didn't intend it to be something that a skeptic could latch onto, but it so is.

The only trouble is that we are now faced with concensus building not science. So warming is about climate change (der) but so is cooling? Drier weather is about global warming. But so is much wetter weather like the recent floods? Melting arctic ice is down to global warming, but so is growing ice-caps?

You starting to see the picture yet?

Is climate changing? Yes of course it is. Has it changed forever? Yes it has. Are we now outside of past variations? No. Not at all. Are rising levels of CO2 (to 400 parts per million in our atmosphere) higher than in the past? No. Does CO2 drive global warming? What, when we have had no surface temperature rise on the planet for 17 years and counting despite increasing CO2 levels?

The IPPC 'thinks' that the temperature rise has gone into the deep oceans. It has no idea how that happened without having any effect on shallow temperatures, but it does know, for certain, that we cannot dispute the theory vanishingly unlikely though it is to have any merit at all.

So to suggest that people who don't believe in man-made global warming should be stripped of their jobs - the greens, here - and to increase taxes on struggling people, in order to pay for a solution in the UK, that is simply not going to have any effect on global temperatures, is pure madness. The people who 'invented' God would approve.

I don't. Tell me I'm wrong.

Thanks for reading.