Flippin' Nonsense!
Global Warming is flippin' nonsense - and so are carbon flippin' footprints!
Insert body text here ...
Are we really more concerned with how the Polar Bears will cope if some of their ice melts than with our need to heat our homes in winter, to cook our food, to manufacture goods to make a living...?
Forget the Polar Bears. They'll be fine! What did they do in the mediaeval warm period when the Arctic was reportedly free of ice, Greenland was green and Britain was full of vineyards?
When I say Global Warming is flippin' nonsense - I mean that all the scaremongering associated with climate change is nonsense and, in all likelihood, political. Even if it was getting warmer. Would that really be so bad? We've coped with a much hotter climate in the mediaeval years and we've coped with the years of frost fairs on the frozen Thames just 200 years ago. 30 years ago it was reported that the Earth was cooling so quickly that we might well be entering an ice age! Well now we're warming up again*. Yippee! - no but wait - now we're cooling down again!
Concerned about your 'carbon footprint'?
Why? Is it because it's on the telly all the time - news, advertising, documentaries? The release of carbon dioxide into the atmoshere is clearly the greatest evil ever to have beset mankind. It must be real because everyone's talking about it - well at least Al Gore. And then there's the scientists. They can't be wrong! But which scientists are we talking about? - those in the employ of the U.N.? What about the 31,000 scientists (including 9000 Ph.D's) who have recently signed the following statement;
...a fraud on a scale I have never seen... This is not science; other forces are at work.
‘There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.’
“The questions are scientific, but the UN answers are political. The global warming debate is hardly about science.” (1)
click here ! Brilliant pdf
“The temperature has flattened and is actually going down. We are seeing a new shift towards cooler temperatures that will last for probably about three decades.” (2)
“Spending billions on trying to reduce carbon emissions is one giant con that is depriving third world countries of vital funds to tackle famine, HIV and other diseases. A fraction of the money we are currently spending on climate change could actually eradicate those three problems alone.” says DUP Environment minister Sammy Wilson.
“...most of the people who shout about climate change have not read one article about climate change…if you asked them to explain how they believe there’s a connection between CO2 emission and the effects which they claim there’s going to be…they wouldn’t have a clue.”
“I think in 20 years’ time we will look back at this whole climate change debate and ask ourselves how on earth were we ever conned into spending the billions of pounds which are going into this without any kind of rigorous examination of the background, the science, the implications of it all. Because there is now a degree of hysteria about it…”
Spending billions to reduce carbon emissions is one giant con!
reported in Belfast Telegraph
DUP Environment minister Sammy Wilson
“The cause of these global changes is fundamentally due to the Sun and its effect on the Earth as it moves about in its orbit. Not from man-made activities,” (3)
The biggest and most expensive scam in the history of the planet?
reported in EU referendum blog
The Daily Telegraph’s Christopher Booker criticises the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), charting the intellectual and political corruption behind what must be the biggest (and most expensive) scam in the history of the planet.
People are growing increasingly sceptic and weary of the preaching of our rulers, as they come up with even madder ideas to "save the planet".
The IPCC is directly responsible for a huge diversion of resources, on a global scale, sanctioning policies which have no foundation in reality while diverting attention from the nuts and bolts of good public administration that are needed to keep society functional. Policy is totally bogged down by the fantasy of providing for a "carbon-free" future.
“Scientists across the globe are catching on -- global warming is not real science. There is a sucker born every minute who believes in it, and Al Gore is playing the role of P.T. Barnum,” (4)
“Once again we have misleading climate change pronouncements being based on data errors …This is exactly what happens when you base your arguments on ‘consensus science’ and not scientific fact.” (5)
That this group of self-serving politicians and politico-scientists have been able to get away with it, though, is one of those latter-day marvels which defies explanation. So transparent is their fraud that it is almost inexplicable that the perpetrators have not been run out of town. Instead, they preen and posture as they collect their Nobel prizes, while the media laud them and perpetuate their propaganda.
There is something very wrong with this world, and it ain't global warming.
Scientists who disagree are being intimidated!
reported in The New Mexican, Santa Fe, Feb. 14, 2009
“There is no credible evidence of the current exceptional global warming trumpeted by the IPCC…The IPCC is no longer behaving as an investigative scientific organization or pretending to be one." (6)
Dr. Harrison Schmitt, one of the last men to walk on the moon and a former U.S. senator from New Mexico, doesn’t buy the idea that humans are causing global warming.
The 74-year-old geologist recently resigned from The Planetary Society, dedicated to space exploration, after the group blamed global warming on human activity. In his resignation letter he wrote,
‘As a geologist, I love Earth observations. But, it is ridiculous to tie this objective to a “consensus” that humans are causing global warming when human experience, geologic data and history, and current cooling can argue otherwise.
You know as well as I, the global warming scare is being used as a political tool to increase government control over American lives, incomes and decision making. It has no place in the Society's activities....’
‘I don't think the human effect is significant compared to the natural effect,’ he said. ... Scientists who disagree with this scenario ‘are being intimidated. They've seen too many of their colleagues lose grant funding when they haven't gone along with the so-called political consensus that we're in a human-caused global warming.’
"Earth has cooled for almost ten straight years. The cooling trend is so strong that recently the head of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change had to acknowledge it. He speculated that nature has temporarily overwhelmed mankind’s warming and it may be ten years or so before the warming returns." (7)
“Consensus,” as many have said, merely represents the absence of definitive science.
The increase of CO2 will be good for mankind!
William Happer, Prof. of Physics, Princeton University, Feb. 28, 2009
William Happer, Professor of Physics at Princeton University made a statement on Feb 28 2009 to the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. Here are some excerpts;
The increase of CO2 will be good for mankind!
‘I believe that the increase of CO2 is not a cause for alarm and will be good for mankind.’ 'I personally certainly don't believe we are facing a crisis unless we create one for ourselves... Many others, wiser than I am, share my view. The number of those with the courage to speak out is growing.’
Rewriting history
He attacked the IPCC’s attempt to rewrite history by removing the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period to create the now famous ‘hockey stick graph’ which suggested that temperatures have remained flat until relatively recently. ‘We now know that the hockey stick has nothing to do with reality but was the result of incorrect handling of proxy temperature records and incorrect statistical analysis. There really was a little ice age and there really was a medieval warm period that was as warm or warmer than today.’
CO2 is not a pollutant!
‘I keep hearing about the "pollutant CO2," or about "poisoning the atmosphere" with CO2, or about minimizing our "carbon footprint." CO2 is not a pollutant and it is not a poison. CO2 is absolutely essential for life on earth. Commercial greenhouse operators often use CO2 as a fertilizer to improve the health and growth rate of their plants.’
10 years of global cooling!
‘The climate is warming and CO2 is increasing. Doesn't this prove that CO2 is causing global warming through the greenhouse effect? No, the current warming period began about 1800 at the end of the little ice age, long before there was an appreciable increase of CO2. Over the past ten years there has been no global warming, and in fact a slight cooling. This is not at all what was predicted by the IPCC models.’
Fear
‘Many distinguished scientific journals now have editors who further the agenda of climate-change alarmism. Research papers with scientific findings contrary to the dogma of climate calamity are rejected by reviewers, many of whom fear that their research funding will be cut if any doubt is cast on the coming climate catastrophe.’
Consensus?
‘[There is a] frequent assertion that there is a consensus behind the idea that there is an impending disaster from climate change, and that it may already be too late to avert this catastrophe… There are a number of answers to this assertion. First, what is correct in science is not determined by consensus but by experiment and observations. Historically, the consensus is often wrong…Secondly, I do not think there is a consensus about an impending climate crisis.
"If, in some manner, the carbon-dioxide content of the atmosphere could be increased threefold, world food production might be doubled."
H.Brown.
You are viewing the text version of this site.
To view the full version please install the Adobe Flash Player and ensure your web browser has JavaScript enabled.
Need help? check the requirements page.
Comments
A healthy tree stores about 13 pounds of carbon annually and cost $1(about 61p) to adopt. We COULD HAVE adopted 4 918 032.79 tree's and removed 63934426.27 lbs of CO2 ANNUALLY and made some squirrels very happy in the process. we actually encouraged consumers to throw out their perfectly good appliances and buy new 2green2 ones. typical british wit. (Sorry about the imperial figures-do your own conversions). NB not buying the climate change bullshit-just thought i'd point out the intellectual calibre of the IPCC brigade ;)
Thanks DPT. For you & anyone else - follow links to Global Cooling page for evidence.
There's a lot of opionion here - where are the figures which show the decrease in global temperatures?!
You're not doubting the Clarkson are you Liam?
Is that Jeremy Clarkson comment beneath actually true?