Must… fight… global… warming… (even if it doesn’t exist)

Somebody explain this to me.

Source: BBC

The UK’s Royal Society is to investigate whether ambitious engineering schemes could reduce the impact of global warming.

Several “geo-engineering” schemes have been proposed including putting mirrors into space and iron filings in oceans.

The society says these must be properly assessed – however fantastical.

But environmental groups warn that technological solutions should not divert attention away from reducing emissions of greenhouse gasses.

No, everything must be done, even if it involves the extraction of trillions of pounds of wealth from us commoners, to fight global warming, as the article states. I mean, after all these years of propaganda, calling it fighting climate change sounds fucking idiotic. Like humans can control the planets’ climate. No, it’s global warming. Maybe someone should send them these articles…

There IS a problem with global warming… it stopped in 1998
Br-r-r! Where did global warming go?
Global Cooling? [1998-2005 data shows cooling trend]
Global cooling: the new kid on the block
Sun Spot Cycle Prompts Fears of Global Cooling
Is There Global Cooling?
National Post: Thirty years of warmer temperatures go poof

It took me about one minute to pull all of those links up. One fucking minute. I guess the climate change/ carbon tax industry is too big a cash cow to just let go. I mean, you can’t monopolise the ‘solution’ when people don’t believe there is a ‘problem’ to solve.

Although most don’t believe the official theory (where have I heard that before).

Only 18 percent of survey respondents strongly believe that climate change is real, human-caused and harmful.

Disproof of Global Warming Hype Published

Source: The People’s Voice

(Extract)

A mathematical proof that there is no “climate crisis” has been published in debate on global warming in Physics and Society, a scientific publication of the 46,000-strong American Physical Society.

Christopher Monckton, who once advised Margaret Thatcher, demonstrates via 30 equations that computer models used by the UN’s climate panel (IPCC) were pre-programmed with overstated values for the three variables whose product is “climate sensitivity” (temperature increase in response to greenhouse-gas increase), resulting in a 500-2000% overstatement of CO2’s effect on temperature in the IPCC’s latest climate assessment report, published in 2007.

The article, entitled Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered demonstrates that later this century a doubling of the concentration of CO2 compared with pre-industrial levels will increase global mean surface temperature not by the 6 °F predicted by the IPCC but, harmlessly, by little more than 1 °F. Lord Monckton concludes –

“… Perhaps real-world climate sensitivity is very much below the IPCC’s estimates. Perhaps, therefore, there is no ‘climate crisis’ at all. … The correct policy approach to a non-problem is to have the courage to do nothing.”

Larry Gould, Professor of Physics at the University of Hartford and Chair (2004) of the New England Section of the American Physical Society (APS), has been studying climate-change science for four years. He said:

“I was impressed by an hour-long academic lecture which criticized claims about ‘global warming’ and explained the implications of the physics of radiative transfer for climate change. I was pleased that the audience responded to the informative presentation with a prolonged, standing ovation. That is what happened when, at the invitation of the President of our University, Christopher Monckton lectured here in Hartford this spring. I am delighted that Physics and Society, an APS journal, has published his detailed paper refining and reporting his important and revealing results.

“To me the value of this paper lies in its dispassionate but ruthlessly clear exposition – or, rather, exposé – of the IPCC’s method of evaluating climate sensitivity. The detailed arguments in this paper, and, indeed, in a large number of other scientific papers, point up extensive errors, including numerous projection errors of climate models, as well as misleading statements by the IPCC. Consequently, there are no rational grounds for believing either the IPCC or any other claims of dangerous anthropogenic ‘global warming’.”

Lord Monckton’s paper reveals that –

► The IPCC’s 2007 climate summary overstated CO2’s impact on temperature by 500-2000%;
► CO2 enrichment will add little more than 1 °F (0.6 °C) to global mean surface temperature by 2100;
► Not one of the three key variables whose product is climate sensitivity can be measured directly;
► The IPCC’s values for these key variables are taken from only four published papers, not 2,500;
► The IPCC’s values for each of the three variables, and hence for climate sensitivity, are overstated;
► “Global warming” halted ten years ago, and surface temperature has been falling for seven years;
► Not one of the computer models relied upon by the IPCC predicted so long and rapid a cooling;
► The IPCC inserted a table into the scientists’ draft, overstating the effect of ice-melt by 1000%;
► It was proved 50 years ago that predicting climate more than two weeks ahead is impossible;
► Mars, Jupiter, Neptune’s largest moon, and Pluto warmed at the same time as Earth warmed;
► In the past 70 years the Sun was more active than at almost any other time in the past 11,400 years.

OFFICAL: IPCC computer model is WRONG

Ground-breaking admission by member of the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change: major contributing factor to the balance of the climate not taken into account.

It would appear that, as many of us right-thinking people have known for some time, global warming caused by CO2 output is, at best, sensationalist fantasy.

It seems that everal facts have now come to light that debunk the idea that we’re killing the environment with CO2 emissions:

The predicted tropospheric hotspots that had been predicted by the IPCC failed to appear. When climatologist Dr David Evans and Christopher Monckton found an error in the way that the IPCC had interpreted the Stefan-Boltzmann equation and applied a revised (corrected) factor to the workings, they discovered that the temperature rise was as little as a third of what the World’s government think tank had predicted.

The IPCC’s computer models, used to predict the effects of global warming, it appears, failed to accurately predict the influence that water vapour has on the temperature of the earth. At the global climate change summit in Bali late last year, Dr Roy Spencer presented a paper to the IPCC, saying that rather than CO2 driving the formation of water vapour, which then drives up temperatures as a greenhouse gas, water vapour actually washes excess CO2 out of the atmosphere, dampening and balancing its affect as a greenhouse gas. This discovery was made thanks to weather satellites that showed water vapour forms a lot lower in the atmosphere than was initially suggested. Shock horror, the finely balanced system that is the global ecosystem is able to keep itself in balance… who’d have thought it?!

Apparently the lead author of the IPCC chapter on feedback (the word used to describe what effect – negative or positive – a gas has on the temperature) has written to Dr Spencer, agreeing that he is right.

CO2 output has a point of diminishing returns anyway, apparently the common analogy is painting over a window: the first layer of paint has a big impact on the amount of light let through, while each subsequent layer has a less obvious impact. Meaning that, even without the dampening effect of water vapour, a ‘tipping point’ so often spoken about by alarmists like Al Gore, is actually a scientific impossibility.

Global Warming?

This article has a part 2, which can be viewed here.

Firstly, I do not disagree that the Earth’s temperature is rising. (Edit: I should say ‘changing’). I do disagree that it is being caused by carbon dioxide emissions created by humans. Consider this article in the context of a court presentation. To convict someone you need to be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the allegation is true. Beyond a reasonable doubt.

If there is any doubt that humans are directly altering the latent temperature of the planet then all of the taxation, depopulation and energy price schemes that are being pushed through are being done because of another reason.

The main thrust of this hysteria about man-made global warming stems from the UN IPCC report. In order to give their report credibility to the ignorant masses, the UN frequently mentions that large majority of scientists endorse the report.

This is a lie.

Majority Of Scientists Do Not Support Man Made Warming Theory

…Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers “implicit” endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no “consensus.”

The introduction and the summary of the IPCC’s report was written entirely by politicians under the mandate of the UN, the input of actual scientists was minimal. In addition, all sections that were written by selected scientists were edited to comply with the report summary.

Some of the scientists involved even admitted that the IPCC models failed to accurately predict climate change and that “none of the climate states in the models corresponds even remotely to the current observed climate”.