Man-made global warming is melting the planet. Unless we change our profligate ways, we are doomed. So claim armies of politicians and environmental lobby groups. ( ELG’S)
What hard scientific evidence do they have for these claims? None whatsoever.
Man-made global warming exists only as a theory; it lurks in flawed, incomplete computer models of climate known as General Circulation Models (GCM’s) which periodically produce story-lines of possible future climates. The whole circus is organised by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ( IPCC), a United Nations organisation.
We are told that 2500 of the worlds leading climate scientists are all in agreement on the damaging effects of carbon dioxide (CO2). This is not true either. Whilst scientists write the full reports, the Summaries for Policy Makers, (SPM’s) are written by government approved reviewers who are often accused of editing out the uncertainties expressed by scientists in order to present a: “scientists all agree” report which politicians then use to support their “climate change” taxation policies.
In his book, a former vice chairman of the IPCC revealed that there was initially much debate and disagreement between IPCC contributors on the degree of certainty which could be attached of the many and varied story-lines produced by the models; the SPM’s disregard these doubts and a united front: “orchestrated by the IPCC”, is presented as a true summary of the science.
Turning logic on it’s head, the SPM’s are written before the main scientific report is completed and the IPCC tell us that if the main report does not agree with the SPM, then the main report will be altered! Bizarre.
As an example of political interference in the reports, we have seen letters from IPCC lead authors that state the A1/F1 scenario which suggested the most extreme warming: “was inserted into the process at a late stage at the request of a few governments”. Several climate scientists have resigned from the IPCC as they claim the science is being disregarded for political purposes. If the science is sound, why are governments interfering and adding alarming storylines?
Bizarrely, the IPCC is also on record as saying that if the real world does not behave as their flawed models say it should, they ignore it. At a presentation in Ashville, North Carolina on August 13th 1991, IPCC supporter and Hadley Centre scientist Chris Folland of the UK Met Office, on being challenged that the real world data did not agree with his story-lines on future climate said: “We are not basing our recommendations to government ( for reductions in CO2) on the data; we are basing them on the models”.
A most venomous thing in the making of sciences; for whoever has fixed on his cause before he has experimented, can hardly avoid fitting his experiment to his own cause… rather than the cause to the truth of the experiment itself .
Writer Thomas Sprat on Aristotelian experiments, intended to illustrate a preconceived “truth” and convince people of its validity. A History of the Royal Society; 1667.
If this was a critique of the Royal Society all those years ago, have they amended their ways? In a letter dated September 4, 2006 and published in a newspaper, the Royal Society’s Bob Ward accused ExxonMobil of misleading the public by daring to question the link between human activity and increases in global temperatures.
A founder member of Greenpeace, Canadian Dr Patrick Moore, was so incensed at this, he wrote a strong letter of condemnation. He said the Royal Society: “should stop playing a political blame game on global warming and retract its recent letter that smacks of a repressive and anti-intellectual attitude. Certainly the Royal Society would agree there is no scientific proof of causation between the human-induced increase in atmospheric CO2 and the recent global warming trend, a trend that has been evident for about 500 years, long before the human-induced increase in CO2 was evident”. Read the full denouncement here.
Global warming activists, environmental lobby Groups and politicians are now advised to treat the argument on climate change as having been won; that climate change is so clearly caused by human behaviour, it need not even be discussed. The Institute for Public Policy Research ( IPPR) has produced a document entitled: “Warm Words” which gives that advice on page 8.
Conclusions and recommendations
Many of the existing approaches to climate change communications clearly seem unproductive. And it is not enough simply to produce yet more messages, based on rational argument and top-down persuasion, aimed at convincing people of the reality of climate change and urging them to act. Instead, we need to work in a more shrewd and contemporary way, using subtle techniques of engagement.
To help address the chaotic nature of the climate change discourse in the today, interested agencies now need to treat the argument as having been won, at least for popular communications. This means simply behaving as if climate change exists and is real, and that individual actions are effective. The ‘facts’ need to be treated as being so taken-for-granted that they need not be spoken.
It is significant that they highlight the word: ‘facts’. Read the whole sorry document here Please download the pdf. at the bottom of the page.
Notice that alarmists have now stopped referring to global warming. Because there has been virtually no net warming since 1979, they have now resorted to the term: “climate change”. So, a drought: “climate change”, A flood: “climate change”, Warmer: “climate change”, Colder: “climate change”, More hurricanes: “climate change”. Fewer hurricanes: “climate change”. Warmer oceans: “climate change”, Cooling oceans: “climate change”. Retreating glaciers: “climate change”. Advancing glaciers: “climate change”. Cat sneezes: “climate change”.
We are told the only scientists who do not believe the man-made global warming theory are funded by oil companies.
What is rarely mentioned is that those supporting the theory most loudly are often funded by governments keen to tax and control us.
Here is a telling quote from a astrophysicist that confirms why some scientists say what they do.
“The problem we are faced with is that the meteorological establishment and the global warming lobby research bodies which receive large funding are now apparently so corrupted by the largesse they receive that the scientists in them have sold their integrity.”
Piers Corbyn – Weather Action, December 2000 bulletin