The scientists (who derive their funding from perpetuating the man-made global warming myth usually on behalf of green-tax-raising governments and the green energy companies who are raping us all) have a 95% certainty that man is responsible for global warming.
So, people who get their funding from trying to prove something (even though there are almost no scientific facts to support their arguments) have this 95% certainty. They are, in effect, 95% certain that they want to make money out of this scam. They do not derive their funding from finding out the truth - that climate change has nothing to do with man's activities and nor can we do anything to control the climate - but from coming up with 'results' that perpetuate their funding stream.
And they use computer models to support these 'findings' not real world data (which simply does not support their predictions [No global surface temperature rise in 17 years despite increasing levels of CO2]). So they programme the computer models to support the answer that they have already (previously) arrived at. The answer that they want to get, 'proved' by computer models that they have programmed to do just that.
Anyone else getting a faint whiff of dead rodent here?
I have blogged, endlessly (you might think) on this subject: About how it is all a UN scam to promote itself and to achieve a sinister single world government. About how futile it is for the UK to go it alone to save the planet when the world's major emitters of CO2 are not and have moved on. About the highly sinister 'science is settled' bullshit being pedalled by the greens and the media and our government on this issue.
Some stuff you should know about climate change here.
The Greens want you sacked if you don't sign up to climate change? Here.
More climate change bollocks here.
All of which stands up to scrutiny. Take a look sometime.
I have challenged the science, the failed predictions, the sheer failed science that is ignored by policy-makers at the behest of the IPCC. Actually, not at the behest of the IPCC. The IPCC is delivering its results at the behest of the UN which is, in turn, delivering the results to governments who can then, based on their pre-determined results, tax us more to address the problem that they have created and designed.
But it is relatively easy to take pot shots at a theoretical standpoint. In many ways my stance is similar to 'theirs'. You can't 'prove' that what you say is true, and nor can we. Therefore if we can make more people believe in this stuff than you can, we'll have won the argument. That's essentially where we are. But to say that the science is settled, as the BBC does, is simply not the case. Why are they doing that? Why are most of the proponents of AGW trying to stifle any debate on this issue. Doesn't the fact that they are make you a bit nervous about the whole thing? Making more people believe that something is correct does not make it correct or factual.
Perception, 'belief' is not science. It's not 'fact'. And so the whole routine goes on, and on, and we're being fleeced, in terms of 'green taxation' by people who I would describe as crooks and Charlatans. Certainly not scientists worthy of the name. The whole AGW scam is very like religion in so many ways. There is not empirical proof that God exists, but because so many people believe it, it has resonance and influence and power. The same is true of this climate change nonsense.
Like religion, it is about control and influence. Making people do what they don't necessarily want to do (part with their hard-earned money usually). Paying more for energy than they need to in order to fund some economic 'widget' that delivers more money to 'them' from you.
And in economic/marketing terms it's good. Amazingly powerful: It has people advocating saving the planet, willing to pay more than they need to for this noble cause and actually fighting for the cause dismissing the 'deniers' as 'flat earthers' seemingly being happy to hand over more of their hard earned money to governments as part of the process.
To describe this as stupid, is akin to saying that handing over your money to a chronic gambler and expecting some payback is, at best, 'reaching'.
But people don't like to be 'found out' as being stupid. Which is of course part of the plan. Once one has 'invested' stupidly, in this scam, one doesn't want to be made to look foolish so one will perpetuate the validity of the investment. It's the emperor's new clothes all over again.
Anyway that was a much longer preamble than I'd hoped for.
To cut this down a little, (and if you're still with me on this subject), there is a simple answer that you can give to anyone who is an advocate of the man-made global warming scam. It's a single word actually.
And that word is 'Geology'.
It's like pouring salt onto a slug. Unless you're a member of some 'save the slug' group, which many AGW proponents might well be as it has the same irrational basis. It is decisive. It's not a hint or a warning, it is a bullet to the brain. It is not a 'maybe', it is a fundamental, 'sorry old chap but you've been rumbled' thing.
It is incontrovertible scientific fact that what you (they) espouse (AGW) is utter bollocks.
Here's the data. It's not theory. It's globally accepted fact. It is not something that the AGW proponents can dismiss. It is a fundamental building-block of science and how we view the world.
It is, quite simply, irrefutable fact. And it does not support, in any way, what the AGW scaremongers, including government and the BBC are telling you.
You see geology looks at the longer term. The earth has been around for 4.7 billion years. It is, amazingly, at just the right distance from the sun, able to sustain life - water, oxygen, nitrogen, CO2 etc, which is why we're here. There is an almost infinitesimal number of other suns in our universe, with similarly distanced planets. It's almost inconceivable that we are alone as a life force in the universe. But that is another (interesting I think) subject.
The reason that the earth can sustain life, is that it can achieve an equilibrium in terms of energy. It has plants that grow because there is enough CO2 for them to flourish. It's their food. (this is not all CSE biology, bear with me). And plant life enables other life forms to exist - reptiles, invertebrates (not just politicians), insects, fish and mammals. We eat the plant life (and each other) and release CO2 as a chemical result, and this goes back to 'feeding' the plants from which we derive our sustenance. It's a circular equilibrium and the proof that it works is you. If it didn't you wouldn't exist.
The study of long term (seriously long-term) aspects of the planet is called geology. It takes account of thousands of years. Millennia. Millions of years too. It takes account of long term parameters and is therefore immune to short term 'blips'. It is a much more reliable picture of how the planet is behaving over time. It does not focus on a single issue such as CO2, but the overall 'performance' of the planet over a seriously long period. And what does this irrefutable science tell us? Remember that this is historical fact, not conjecture, not models, not supposition. Fact. It is in short supply these days, but it remains bulletproof in terms of science. Because it has happened and can therefore be proved.
So what does geology tell us about where we now are?
Well it tells us is that the climate has been changing. Forever. Or at least since the earth was formed 4.7 billion years ago. I'd kinda hope that's a long enough period for you to spot a trend? It's all we have to go on, but it's pretty robust. Particularly compared to claims that this has been the 'hottest/wettest/coolest/groovyest' year since records began.. last Tuesday week.
You see, when we're told that the ten hottest years since records began (I'm making this up but it's quite close to what we're being told) have all been in the last decade or so, people tend to think: 'oh my God, we're all doomed, where can I send my money and first born child to help save the planet?'
Because we think - and are never told otherwise - that this 'when records began' time-frame means 'ever'. It usually means 1974, or 1989 or 1850. All of which are less than a second ago in terms of the evolution of the planet. Last Tuesday week, is being extremely generous. It's more like less than a millionth of a second ago in Geological terms.
And we're told that any changes to the climate that have occurred within that millionth of a second are catastrophic and down to man's activity on the planet?
Who (the fuck) do we think we are?
Reluctantly I'll do graphs. Everyone does graphs and just like statistics, one can prove or disprove anything with graphs/stats. Consider this (before I do): the police in the UK state that 25% of car crashes are directly associated with alcohol. People who have drunk not wisely but well, and have got into their cars and subsequently caused or been involved in, an accident. Anyone who drinks and drives is an idiot. Plain and simple.
But one in four? Wow.
So just to play devil's advocate here, I could, using these exact same statistics, suggest that if you're pissed at the wheel, you have less chance of being in an accident than if you're stone cold sober. By a factor of three - 25% versus 75%. Think about that for a minute. And never trust statistics again!
So I'm not going to just put up a graph and expect you to understand and accept it. Everyone does that. And for every graph I use there are others that contradict it. Especially if one wants to manipulate the time-frames and make use of differing starting points which mean that the end result is either a warming or a cooling trend. It depends upon where you start from. Der.
The trouble for the scaremongers is that if you go back beyond where 'records began' and beyond where they like to start from (usually around 1850) the periods of warming and cooling tend to cancel each other out and that pattern is continuing today - there is absolutely nothing out of the ordinary happening now, as indicated/proved by real world geological data.
If one starts from 10,000 years ago the world has been warming, very slowly and marginally, but warming nonetheless. Less than a degree in that time by the way. If one starts from 16,000 years ago, it has been cooling, equally marginally. You get the picture?
And during that time there have been periods when the planet has been warming quickly, followed by periods when the planet has been cooling quickly. The overall trend is upwards (10,000 years) or downwards (16,000 years) but either way it is extremely marginal and points much more to planetary equilibrium in its complex eco-system than anything else. As I say, it's why we are here, flourishing, existing, living. Arguing! Exploiting.
All climate graphs have a similar profile almost regardless of the time frame. They look like this:
The only difference they have is the spacing between the peaks of warming and cooling depending upon where one starts from.
So if you zero in on a long term temperature graph you will see this.
If you take a longer-term view of that same picture, you will see this.
What the scaremongers have latched onto is a close-up of where we are now (or where we were in 1997) which is one of the regular upturns in temperature. Which are always followed (at least they have been for the past 4.7 billion years) by an equally precipitous downturn. You'll notice that the graph above shows a downturn at an inconvenient time for Mr Gore et al?
It's the overall trend, measured over the long-term, that is important here.
Are we moving outside previously measured parameters? Are we changing that long-term trend? Is man's activity really making a difference?
Is the planet now moving away from its long-term trend into a new area where we can see a marked difference from the past?
Is man's activity (increasing CO2 output) taking the planet out of its 'comfort zone'. Are we out of control now? Can we control the planet's climate by reducing our emissions?
Well take a look at this, it is a long-term graph. And it shows clearly where we are right now on a much longer scale than we are used to seeing in this debate.
So are we heading for armageddon? The peaks and troughs are measured over millennia.
The Polar Bear must have died out by now surely? because he's gone through several of these peaks. What he's still there? and thriving? Wow. And man has also gone through several of these peaks. And it looks like we're now about to enter a period of cooling. That will be bad for humans. It will kill many of us. A warmer world would be a great thing for humans in terms of population and life expectancy, but it's not gonna happen sadly. And we're trying to cool the planet by reducing CO2 emissions?
There were of course times in the past in which the peaks rose higher and the troughs fell lower. But the overall conclusion that one gets from looking at this issue of the longer, geological time-frame, is that the planet's temperature cycle is pretty-much uniform and very closely related to the activity of the sun. Who knew?
What's happening at the moment is that the world's 'establishment' is trying to exploit the figures for 1990 (on the graph above) to suggest that we should all be paying green taxes so that we can control the global temperature. How totally stupid are we that we're falling for this scam?
And the fact is that we're now over the peak and coming down the other side into a cooling period. Anyone want to make a bet as to where global temperatures are now going?
And yet there are still so many people telling us that Climate Change is a major issue? Cameron. Miliband. The BBC. Why? Oh yes, they can raise more taxes if they can perpetuate the myth.
Wake up people for goodness' sake.
Anyone - tree hugger, scaremonger, green party leader, BBC policy-maker, Mr Harrobin, Ed Davey, Ed Miliband, any of you idiots want to bet me that we're not now in a cooling cycle whatever we do to CO2 emissions? It's about the Sun, it always was. It has nothing to do with CO2.
Sadly, because if we could control the climate and make it warmer, more of us would survive. But then if men could control the climate, we'd be exploited even more than we are now: The very air that we breathe would be taxed. We're getting quite close to that now.
Tell me I'm wrong. Chastise me for calling you all idiots. Because you all are, without exception.
I wouldn't mind but you're charging me for this crap. Can I sue you when the wheels come off, as they are now doing? For the blight of wind farms that deliver nothing. For the £billions of subsidies to green energy companies?
For your abject fuckwittery? I hope so.
Tell me I'm wrong.
You're raping us for no good reason other than your own interests.
There will be a price to pay for that. And soon. I hope.
Thanks for reading.
Good points. It strikes a chord with me, on most of the stuff you have written. Mind you, I was expecting some idiot comments along the lines of "burn the heretic" from the sheep who's gullibility knows no bounds. (the save the planet tree-hugging fraternity)
ReplyDelete