Climate change. It's complex. But it's not that complex.

Graphs, statistics. Anyone with a brain can put forward a seemingly convincing point of view.

Essentially on one side it's that we're doomed and on the other it's 'where's the problem?'

Here's the key fact. The NOAA, NASA, the IPCC and especially the BBC all admit that the world has not been warming for the past 18 years. And these organisations are the drivers of 'warmism' - it's not CO2 it's these organisations who either derive their funding from promoting an issue that has no basis in scientific fact, or who are deliberately misleading us for reasons of personal gain, control over people, or the enabling of higher taxation on us all.

They have since 1997 said that increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere will lead to catastrophic global warming, sea level rises, the extinction of polar bears, an increased frequency of extreme weather events.

None of these things have happened. None. Not one. And yet they said, with 95% certainty that they would. And by the way levels of CO2 have been rising in that time to the point where they are now around 400 ppm (parts per million). And as a result there has been a measurable 'greening' of the planet - CO2 is 'plant food' after all - as the planet achieves equilibrium over time, as it always has. You need proof of this? We're here. That's irrevocable proof.

And yet this utterly debunked bullshit is setting global energy policy?

No wonder they want to shut down any form of rational scientific debate. Don't you ever wonder why this is the case? If they are so certain of their 'science', why are they silencing people who take a different view? They're simply not looking for 'truth' inconvenient or otherwise, they're designing computer models that produce results that fit their narrative but which, sadly for them, are not borne out by reality in any way at all. In 1974 many of these same 'scientists' were predicting a new ice-age.

Do you ever wonder why they've now dropped the term CAGW (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming) and now just call it 'climate change'? It's because the climate is changing, always has, always will. But it's no longer warming, not catastrophic and not man-made. The area of contention is whether what we do drives the climate and whether we can control the climate. Even in the 'densely populated' UK we have built on less than 6% of the land. To assume that we can control the climate is Cnut-esque in the extreme. We simply do not know, but instead of trying to find out, the AGW industry is pressing on saying that 'the science is settled'.

An objective view of what we do know (based on the IPCC's own evidence to date) would strongly suggest that we cannot control the climate and that to try to do so is entirely futile. Of course we should not pollute our world. We should protect it and respect life on the planet. But to suggest that we can control the climate is just stupid. Oh and by the way, a few degrees of warming of the planet would be entirely a good thing for most of life on earth.

We do have limited resources; we will eventually need to develop new energy technologies and we will eventually need to have a sustainable energy solution. But we should be moving in this direction not with an Al Gore-shaped gun to our heads but with a science-driven (that's real science not some funding opportunity-driven science) plan, and we should not be leaving our energy assets in the ground or under the sea in the meantime. Green energy defined here.

We should certainly not be doing so in the name of the creation of a single world government that we haven't been consulted on, where 'climate change' is being used as a tool to gain control over our lives. That's just mad. More here.

How many times - and for how long - will we be conned by these people before we wake up?

So what drives temperatures here on earth? Is it CO2 at 400ppm - 'a ping-pong ball in the Albert Hall' - or something else perhaps?

Thanks for reading.