6 Graphics that explain climate change - BBC

The world has not been getting warmer for 18 years and 7 months. According to RSS data - see here. 

This is why the very subject itself has been renamed even by the warmist media & IPCC; first from CAGW (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming) to AGW (same terms) and now simply to 'Climate Change'. Because there has been no warming, catastrophic or otherwise and the predictions that climate is driven by the activity of humans ('Anthropogenic') has now been almost definitively disproved by real measurements rather than computer models which were programmed to 'prove' that AGW was real. 

These predictions, based on computerised climate models which make the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere the sole driver of global warming (rather than taking account of the many other elements that influence earth's temperature and climate) have been shown to be utterly incorrect. Neither surface temperatures nor ocean temperatures have been rising at a rate that suggests that CO2 is the driver. That is a simple fact.

And nor, despite the way that the MSM jumps upon any evidence to the contrary, has there been an increase in 'extreme' weather events since 1950, which is the date at which most of the 'records began' calculations come from. Indeed the reverse is true, there have been fewer extreme weather events globally since 1950 than occurred before that date.

So how come 13 of the 14 hottest years since records began have occurred in the C21st? Well it's simply not true. Unless one refers as they do, to records for this issue in particular beginning in 2000. 

And the amount that they claim 2015 is warmer than 2014 is less than the variability in the data. This is being spun and is not accurate in any way.

Here's the RSS data and above the black 'real' temperature line is the IPCC prediction data in pale blue.

Does 2015 look like the warmest year on record to you?

So the BBC's next explanation:

It is not happening. Yes CO2 levels are rising - man-made CO2 accounts for a vanishingly small percentage of overall CO2 on the planet. 

And CO2 has existed on the planet in much greater quantities in the past without driving global temperatures. Cutting our CO2 emissions is an entirely futile exercise that is much more about controlling people and collecting more 'green taxes' than 'saving the planet'. Yes we should be looking to develop the next generation of sustainable energy supply, but the notion that cutting man-made CO2 emissions will enable us to control the climate is risible.

Rising levels of CO2 is causing the 'greening' of the planet, particularly in Asia but elsewhere too as plants thrive in a more productive atmosphere. CO2 is plant food. Without it we would not exist. And the rise in recent decades, from 374 parts per million (ppm) to today's 400 ppm is an increase the size of a ping-pong ball in the Albert Hall. And yet we're potentially doomed because of it. Madness.

And so the next BBC scare story:

Well here's the data:

Sea ice extent in the Arctic has declined in the past 20 years but not in a way that could be described as catastrophic. And at the other end of the globe, the Antarctic sea ice extent was at record levels in 2014. In the north the Polar Bear population is thriving and growing and healthy. There are some melting glaciers around the world, but there are as many growing glaciers and the net extent of glacial content on the planet is not in decline. One would expect that it would be in serious decline if 'global warming' were real.

And the 4th:

'Complicated'. Probably all you need to know, but there has not been an increase in 'extreme weather events' over the past 50 years and there is simply no evidence that (non-existent) global warming is driving more extreme weather. It's all about stats in the end and not about reality. Some warmists point out the stats that the global cost of repairing the damage caused by extreme weather is rising. If you don't understand the fallacy of this argument, you're wasting your time reading this blog.

And fifthly..:

The UK emits about 1.7% of global CO2 by the way.

These emitters of CO2 (man-made emissions which are, remember, the square root of fuck all in terms of overall global CO2 which is not driving any warming anyway) are not going to bind themselves to any sort of real action. China is building a new coal-fired power station a week at the moment as it's industrial and economic development continues apace. The warmists are championing the fact that China has agreed to begin to reduce its emissions. By 2030. And, when we reach that date, what exactly is the world going to do if China then reneges on that commitment? India will turn up at COP21 hoping that it can screw some money out of the UN to 'help' it's 'greening process' but it will not be making any sort of contribution.

If we in the UK cut our CO2 emissions to zero, having, in order to do so, virtually eliminated any kind of wealth generation or industry in our land, our saving would be rendered meaningless on a planetary scale by China's growth in CO2 emissions in about 6 months. Think on that.

Where do they get this shit from? The IPCC's own current predictions - and bear in mind that the IPCC derives it's massive funding from being at the extreme end of this whole business, is for warming of 1.7 degrees centigrade per century. That prediction does not factor in cuts in CO2 emissions globally, so the 4.5, 3.6 and even the lowest 2.7 degree predictions are wildly above what even the alarmists are now saying.

But 97% of scientists agree - is often the argument. My guess is that most real, genuine scientists are utterly embarrassed by this whole faux science idiocy. This climate change issue is not about science. It is about controlling people, screwing more 'green' taxes out of them on the 'difficult to dispute' basis that it's all about saving the planet.

The 97% figure is derived from a survey of 79 scientists who were not actually asked about their beliefs but whose articles were assumed to mean that they were 'on board'. Several have since refuted this assumption. You can read more here, but it is abundantly clear that the figure of 97% is utter bullshit.

So what do I conclude about the Paris Climate Change summit? In plain terms it has nothing to do with saving the planet and everything to do with controlling the population. It is an initiative that came out of the UN in the late 1980s when, following the breaking down of the Berlin Wall and the failure of communism and The Soviet Union, the UN faced an existential crisis - what was it for, how could it retain some influence on the world (before terrorism had replaced the Cold War and given it a new lease of life).

It came up with a plan for a New World Order, a single world government and it called it Agenda 21 - an agenda for achieving a new world order in the 21st Century. And in order to achieve this it needed to focus on an issue that affected everyone on the planet in order to get them signed up for this new order and in order to get them cooperating on a planetary level. Unsurprisingly it chose climate and unsurprisingly it didn't set out to say that 'the world achieves climate equilibrium over time so we're all OK'. That wouldn't have grabbed the world's attention now would it? Instead, via the IPCC, the UN 'created' the story that a changing climate is a massive threat to us all so we must do whatever it takes to save the planet. And at the time (post 1977) the world's temperature was actually on one of its regular upward spirals, so the concept of global warming was born.

The above graph is essentially where we are - we have a world whose temperature rises and falls on a cyclical basis and has done, and will do forever. Sometimes the peaks and troughs will be higher and lower but not by much. What we have now is global energy - and more importantly tax - policy being formulated on where we were in the above graph in 1997, when actually we are now in 2015 on a downward curve. There is absolutely no indication that there is any kind of warming that is outside the parameters of the above long-term trend. Indeed, we are now in a prolonged period of cooling which may well be exacerbated by reduced solar activity. 

And of course the curve will rise again in due course - God help us when that happens because then we will be presented with 'Global warming' as fact rather than as part of a completely natural long term trend with ups and downs.

Interestingly, just a few years before the UN / IPCC came up with its Catastrophic man-made global warming theory, many of the same people who are now 'convinced' that AGW is real, were predicting a new ice age.

And so the global warming concept was created and the systems and bodies were set up (mainly the IPCC) to prove that it was real. It isn't. How do I know this? Because we're here. Because the planet achieves equilibrium over time. Because we exist. If the planet did not achieve equilibrium over time, we would not exist. It really is that simple.

And this whole initiative has now spun out of control and become tantamount to a religion. An issue that relies more on belief and faith than it does on science.

And week by week the claims of the alarmists diminish as the facts emerge. Almost nothing that the IPCC has predicted has come to pass. We were told that the polar ice caps would be gone by now. We were told that there would be 10 million climate refugees by now. We were told that low lying islands in the Pacific would be under water by now. None of this has happened.

If this was real science the IPCC would have been ridiculed and thrown out of town by real scientists by now. But this has the support of the UN and, in particular the USA and it has endless budgets to spend because the end goal - a  New World Order and a new way of controlling the world's population, is much more important than whether the science is real or not.

And the science is not real. Palpably not real, palpably fabricated and reproduced by the mainstream media for some reason. Because money talks would be my guess. And very little mention of Agenda 21 which is the driver behind this whole scam. If a New World Order is so necessary, and so good, why aren't we being told about it?

You can make up your own mind about this of course, perhaps do some research - I'm not making any of this up. But what I am telling you is that AGW or 'climate change' is a total scam, and it is one that is being perpetuated by Prime Ministers and Presidents around the world who all care much more about controlling the people than saving the planet.

Just so you know, before you go on a march and make a complete idiot of yourself.

You can read more about the origins of this climate change scam here. And more about the long-term geology that warmists must absolutely hate, here. 

Thanks for reading.