Monday, July 23, 2007

Man-made Global Warming - a load of hot air

"Some of the leading scientists are now saying we may have as little as 10 years before we cross a kind of point-of-no-return, beyond which it's much more difficult to save the habitability of the planet in the future," Al Gore.

“Climate change is the most severe problem that we are facing today, more severe, even, than terrorism” Hon. David Anderson, Past Minister of the Environment, Canada.

These alarming declarations were made following the publication of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report on global warming.

The Oregon Petition

The Oregon Petition was the third, and by far the largest, of five prominent efforts intended to show that a "scientific consensus" does not exist on the subject of global warming. The petition, compiled between 1999 and 2001, received 17,800 independently verified signatures from scientists disagreeing with the conclusions made by the IPCC report.

Yet not a word has ever emerged in the mainstream media about this petition. Nor had it when, a few years earlier, 15,000 scientists also expressed their misgivings over the widely touted global warming theories. As Media Research Center/MediaNomics reported in 1998 “Fifteen thousand scientists sign a petition proclaiming their skepticism toward currently fashionable global warming theories, and the networks are silent.

A politician holds a press conference to promote those same theories, and CBS, CNN, and NBC all trumpet the news, and don't even mention the 15,000 scientists who think it's all hot air".

What was it that these scientists were asserting?

In the preamble to their petition they stated:"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."

Obviously, it seemed, the pro-global warmers didn’t want their interests shot to bits by this groundswell of contrary scientific opinion. The mainstream media have routinely failed to address the far more greatly compelling evidence from experts in the field that global warming, and more particularly man-made global warming, is a myth.

“There is no evidence of human cause to climate change” according to Professor Ian Clark at the Department of Earth Sciences at the University of Ottawa, “but there is overwhelming evidence to suggest that nature is the cause”.

Let’s look at the facts for ourselves.

The myths

Rising temperature levels

There is no evidence to suggest that atmospheric temperature levels are currently rising at an alarming rate, indeed data from satellites and weather balloons taken over the past 25 years show, if anything, a very small rise, around 1/2ºC.

A lot of meteorological data, including temperature, is sourced in urban areas where the ambient temperatures are known to be appreciably higher than rural areas and as cities grow in size average readings increase. It appears that these unrepresentative urban-based ground figures have over-emphasised any temperature increase. But what little rise in average temperature that may have taken place in the last forty or fifty years must be set in context with the cooler period which existed through the 1940s to early 1970s.

On top of this, historical data clearly shows us that the climate is warming and cooling all of the time, a continual fact of life on Earth; if there is one constant factor, it’s that the climate is always changing.

It is a known fact that during the medieval warm period, higher average temperatures - some several degrees celsius - had allowed vineyards to flourish in Britain and the higher temperatures - far from being a threat to our way of life as the Gore camp would profess - actually saw a period of great cathedral building and a seeming thriving lifestyle. Conversely, the ‘Little Ice Age’ during the 17th and 18th centuries saw the River Thames completely iced over to the extent that markets took place on the frozen river. Again, life continued unabated.

The ‘Hockey Stick’ curve

One of the major pieces of evidence presented by the Al Gore camp - and one that has been adopted as a cornerstone by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), - that suggests that global warming is a phenomenon peculiar to the present time, is the ‘Hockey Stick’ graph produced in 1998 as part of the MBH98 (Mann, Bradley & Hughes) report. This shows a sudden average global temperature rise following a long period of fairly stable lower temperatures. But whether this seminal graph is the result of the bad computation of data or is deliberately doctored, it does not represent the scientific truth as shown above that temperatures have fluctuated widely over the past millennia and completely ignores the ’Little Ice Age’ and the Medieval Warm Period.

Melting ice caps and rising sea levels

We are constantly reminded that global warming will lead to melting ice caps and that, indeed, this is happening. However, Professor John Christy of the Department of Atmospheric Science at the University of Alabama points out that the evidence from temperature records of the Greenland ice caps, that go back thousands of years, clearly show that temperatures in that part of the world had been significantly higher just 1000 years ago, yet there is no evidence that there was any great melting event which might cause rising sea levels.

Professor Syun-Ichi Akasofu, Director of the International Arctic Research Centre rightly tells us that imagery from NASA’s meteorological satellites taken throughout the 1990s clearly shows a constant natural expansion and contraction of the polar sea ice. But the mass media constantly bombards us with sensational images of large chunks of ice breaking away from ice shelves, yet fail to make the distinction that this is a natural process, as natural as falling leaves in Autumn. What they don’t show is ice accreting, which it is also doing all of the time. Of course, that would hardly make a visual experience!

Sea levels also vary constantly as part of two natural processes, the local factor, that is the relationship of the height of the sea to the land, which is very often the result of the land rising rather than the sea falling and eustatic changes which are due to thermal changes within the sea - having nothing to do with melting ice - and which change over only a very long period of time.

Gore’s presentation specifically cited the Maldive Islands as being under severe threat from rising sea levels, yet intensive research there has shown quite the reverse, that the sea level around the islands is actually falling. So more misinformation.

The spread of tropical diseases

Another false assumption is that tropical diseases such as malaria would spread northward if there were even a modest rise in temperature. But according to Professor Paul Reiter of the Department of Medical Entomology at the Pasteur Institute in Paris, mosquitoes thrive in very cold temperatures and epidemics of malaria have been reported in such places as Archangel in the former Soviet Union in the 1920s. Yet the IPCC warns us that “mosquito species that transmit malaria do not usually survive where the mean winter temperature drops below 16-18ªC”. Clearly untrue.

Rising CO2 levels

CO2 is essential for life on earth and even though levels have risen slightly over the past few years, as part of a continuum of fluctuations, it has actually accelerated plant growth and is hardly a threat to life as the IPCC would claim. Furthermore, Professor Jan Veitzer at the University of Ottawa shows us that there is no direct correlation between higher CO2 levels and temperature. 450 million years ago, when the CO2 levels were ten times that of today, the earth was undergoing an extreme cold period, one of the coldest in the last half billion years.

But what correlation there seems to be between CO2 levels and temperature, is quite the opposite to that which is posited by the IPCC and its spokesman, Al Gore. Whereas they maintain that increased atmospheric CO2 will result in higher temperatures and global warming, no historical precedent for this exists at all.

It has been found that our oceans are the biggest reservoir of CO2. In cooler climatic conditions, the oceans absorb CO2, but in warmer conditions they expel it. Because our oceans are so vast and deep, this process of absorption and expulsion take many hundreds of years and data clearly shows that the oceans’ CO2 release reflects the earth’s temperature in the past. That differential is about 800 years. So, in fact, rather than CO2 being the cause of global temperature rise - as the IPCC and global warming lobby would have us believe - it is the result of past warming and a delayed one at that.

Greenhouse gases

But it is the source of that CO2 which, once again, we are misinformed about. We are constantly reminded about greenhouse gases, that is those gases which reside in the earth’s troposphere and keep the heat in, so to speak, making this planet habitable. We are led to believe that the amount of CO2 is much larger than it really is, yet CO2 accounts for only 0.54% of all greenhouse gases, by far the largest being water vapour, and of that small percentage most is caused by natural means with animals and bacteria producing annually 150 gigatons compared to just 6.5 gigatons from human activities. Dying vegetation produces even more, volcanos more still and as we have seen the oceans are the greatest contributor.

One of the greatest causes of global warming, we are told again and again, is our damaging contribution of CO2 to the greenhouse gases. But if that is so, how do we account for the past rises in CO2 during periods of the earth’s history when modern industry, cars and aeroplanes were completely absent? A further demonstration that the temperature/CO2 level correlation is faulty is that more recently, during the great period of industrial growth, between 1940 and 1970, there was a cooling period even though CO2 levels were rising slightly.

Extreme weather

To heighten the sense of concern over global warming, every flood, hurricane, drought, cold or hot spell is portrayed in the mass media as a manifestation of global warming. Yet meteorological data shows that these phenomena are always with us to some degree or another often occurring on a cyclical basis and historical records show that during the ‘Little Ice Age’ more extreme weather events took place.

Here is a list of just a few significant ‘extreme’ weather events in Britain over the past few hundred years taken from the Oxford book on Weather Facts.

Winter 1684 Coldest on record
November 1703 The Great Storm caused the loss of 8,000 lives
Autumn 1740 Coldest on record
Winter 1740 Second coldest on record
Winter 1814 Bitterly cold with a Frost Fair in London
Spring 1893 Warmest on record
December 1897 Extreme winds bring down Tay railway bridge
9 August 1911 Hottest day recorded in British history
28 June 1917 250mm of rain fall in one day in Bruton, Somerset
1921 Record dry year
28 January 1928 Westerly gales kill 26 in Scotland
6-7 January 1928 North Sea floods 1.8m above predicted tidal level in London
27-28 January 1940 Widespread freezing
8 May 1943 Deep snow in Scotland
Winter 1947 Long and intensely cold winter
1949 Second warmest calendar year on record
21 May 1950 Tornado runs from Berkshire to Norfolk, four killed by lightning
15-16 August 1952 Disastrous floods in Lynmouth, Devon
31 January to 1 February 1953 North sea floods cause death of 300 in Britain and 1,800 in the Netherlands
18 June 1955 279mm of rain falls in one day in Martinstown, Dorset
Winter 1963 Long and intensely cold winter, third coldest behind 1684 and 1740
1 November 1965 Fierce winds cause cooling towers to collapse in Ferrybridge, Yorkshire
15 January 1968 Westerly gales cause havoc in Glasgow, much structural damage
July to September 1968 Leeming, North Yorkshire records 35.7mm of rain in just 8.5 minutes
and so on...

So, once again, it seems that the media are deliberately forcing an erroneous global warming message down our throats by dwelling and hyping what are, in reality, natural events of a cyclical nature.

The realities

The sun

For many years, astronomers have been keeping an eye on our sun’s activity and the number of sunspots it emits in the belief that it could be the primary cause of temperature change and many other meteorological phenomena here on earth.

In 1893 British astronomer, Edward Maunder, found that, according to historical data, during the ‘Little Ice Age’ between 1500 and 1800, there was very little sunspot activity. This period has become known as the Maunder Minimum.

More recently solar physicist, Piers Corbin has even made a small fortune from using sunspot activity as a means of predicting warm weather, by placing bets with the bookie William Hill. His bets, based on the sun’s activity have come up trumps every time.

In 1991, senior scientists at the Danish Meteorological Institute decided to look at the historical data of sunspot activity and temperature during the last 150 years and what they found was a remarkable correlation between the two.

Then Professor Christianson went back a further 400 years and the link continued.

Further natural links

Clouds have a powerful cooling effect on earth. They are in large part formed by the bombardment of earth by sub-atomic particles - cosmic rays - which, when meeting with rising water vapour, form water droplets which in turn form clouds.

But when the sun is particularly active and the solar wind is strong, fewer cosmic rays bombard the earth, thus creating fewer clouds resulting in higher temperatures. Astro-physicist, Nir Shariv decided to compare his own records of cloud formation with Dr Jan Veitzer’s temperature records which went back 600 years and found a distinct correlation between the two sets of data.

Therefore it is a natural law of nature that climate is controlled by clouds which in turn are formed by cosmic rays which in turn are regulated by the sun’s activity.

Distortion and manipulation

We have already seen how the widely-used ‘Hockey Stick’ graph has been used to create a warning message that we are on the brink of a global climate catastrophe, by misrepresenting the preceding historical data.

A recent documentary hosted by Sir David Attenborough added to the general misinformation on the subject by taking a very small portion of recent data of temperature and CO2 and extrapolating from it a distorted picture of the future by completely ignoring the preceding historical data, which, if taken into account, gives a quite different picture.

Click on image to enlarge

The IPCC report on climate change is grossly distorted, accommodating only those views and data which fit the false hypothesis of its political proponents.

In a letter to the Wall Street Journal, Professor Frederick Seitz, former president of America’s National Academy of Sciences revealed that the IPCC panel had censored the opinions of many scientists. He went on to say that “this report is not what it appears to be - it is not the version that was approved by the contributing scientists listed on the title page”. Omitted from the final IPCC report was the statement “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed (climate) changes to the specific cause of increase in greenhouse gases”. “No study to date has positively attributed all or part (of the climate change observed to date) to anthropogenic (man-made) causes”. He concluded “I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the events that led to this IPCC report”.

Many of those scientists who disagreed with the final report still had their names in the title page in order to try and boost the report’s credibility.

We have also seen how, in Al Gore’s presentation on climate change, he completely mis-interprets the relationship between CO2 levels and temperature, implying that increasing CO2 creates increased temperatures, when in fact the reverse is true.

That deceit continued later in the same presentation when he showed the emotive image of what looked to be a stranded polar bear on a floating fragment of ice, implying that polar bears were under threat of extinction as the ice sheets disintegrate and disappear. The emotive image that he used, it was later found, had originated from a photograph taken by one Amanda Byrd who was holidaying in Alaska during August. Being the Arctic summer, such images were be easy to capture and the bear’s ability to swim back to the main ice sheet - which was kept conveniently out of view - was more than adequate.

This demonstrates the way in which a powerful lobby can contort and emotionalise a subject to its desire in front of an un-questioning audience that is either unwilling or just too lazy to check the validity of what is being presented to them.


But the whole man-made/global warming/climate change farce is made so obviously hollow by the lack of effort its own supporters make to try and set an example, but one that we, the general public and industry worldwide, are expected to adopt through our carbon footprints in every aspect of our daily lives.

The recent Live Earth series of concerts staged worldwide highlighted these inconsistencies:

  • The event’s carbon footprint was 34,722 tons or nearly three times that if you factor in that of the television audience
  • Many of the stars arrived at the various venues by their own private jets and by the very nature of their high-flying lifestyles, own a carbon footprint far in excess of the average person
  • John Legend and Sheryl Crow both feature in TV commercials selling petrol-guzzling motors
  • The multiple concerts generated huge amounts of rubbish, with the Wembley concert alone estimated to produce 59 tonnes of waste
  • Al Gore, himself, lives a lavish carbon footprint-heavy lifestyle with a large energy-consuming home with several heated swimming pools.

The real modus operandi?

So given such a flagrant misrepresentation of the truth on a matter on which a vast number of scientists disagree and to which its own authors seem less than keen in setting a guiding example, why are we being fed a pack of lies? And why is it regarded as heresy to publicly oppose or show disagreement to what can only be described as a new religion?

The Report from Iron Mountain

Back in 1966 a government think-tank study was published, entitled The Report from Iron Mountain. Although much controversy exists over the authenticity of this document, which has since been published in book form, its recommendations seem to have a remarkable bearing on otherwise inexplicable current global policies. The book was published on the basis that it is a satire, yet its supposed authors were part of a study group set up during the Kennedy administration, commissioned by the Department of Defense under the then Defense Secretary, Robert McNamara and was produced by the Hudson Institute, situated at the base of Iron Mountain at Croton-on-Hudson, New York, and has more or less been authenticated by Kenneth Galbraith who was, at one time, closely associated with this group. Both the Hudson Institute’s director, Herman Kahn and McNamara were Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) members, a powerful organisation often regarded as the covert parallel US government and a foremost proponent of one-world government.

The study group’s remit was to find ways to ‘stabilise’ society once the threat of the Cold War had past, which, among other things, had been another manufactured ‘stabilising’ ruse itself. In the report the word ‘stabilise’ is synonymous with a perpetual form of government that can keep society under firm control and prevent it from rebelling. In other words, manufacturing means by which society would be cowed into submission, forever subservient to the state.

The conclusions of the report were that, although in the past wars had served that end goal of subservience well, making society conform through the threat that war posed, instilling a patriotism and allegiance to government, the coming prospect of a global government would imply total disarmament and an end to war. Thus a controlling substitute had to be found that would perpetuate allegiance to centralised government.

The panel made a number of recommendations, the seeds of which are becoming all too familiar today:

  • A form of national service for those who engage in anti-social behaviour, where youths would be conscripted in ‘social improvement’ programmes, (a natural extension from the current system of ASBOs). In addition those unable to pay off debts, political dissidents and those accused of ‘hate-crimes’ would be conscripted into these forced ‘labour-batallions’.
  • Dumbing down society by pre-occupying it with trivia and mindless diversions to stifle political debate with a suggestion that blood sports are staged to work off pent up human emotions
  • Finding a credible global threat, whether entirely true or not. As the report pointed out: “Allegiance requires a cause; a cause requires an enemy. This much is obvious; the critical point is that the enemy that defines the cause must seem genuinely formidable”.
This is where global warming comes in. The sun’s current activity is providing an element of evidence that something is changing, albeit a natural cycle in earth’s relationship with the sun. Yet, false science has been summoned to support a scenario in which man’s activities are leading him toward a serious global threat. So, in order to avoid it, we must all comply to a new set of global rules. This will allow an opportunity for the globalists to usher in global taxation to penalise our pollution and have us succumb to harsh new environmental laws. Anyone dissenting will end up in labour-batallions. Academia must comply and all mainstream media must sing the global warming anthem with equal vigour and determination.

This is why the voices of those signatories to the Oregon Petition have largely gone unheard, while those supporting the mantra get mainstream coverage.

But the pro-global warming lobby gets more than just further control of our lives and more revenue from taxation, using the same rhetoric about man’s industry adding dangerous amounts of CO2 to the earth’s troposphere, it can also prevent third world countries from developing their industries, thus preventing them from building their economies. It is a repressive dogma.

Whether the Report from Iron Mountain is an authentic document or not, or is simply a satire as the mainstream media would have us believe, in all aspects of the recommendations on which the report advises, each is actually coming to fruition before our very eyes albeit, in some cases, in an embryonic form.


Put against this background of the global manipulation of mankind, the forced indoctrination of man-made global warming takes on a threatening spectre and one which our masters wholeheartedly want us to abide by. How far they will get with this will be interesting to see. Remember back in the 1970’s the scares of global cooling.

Click on image to enlarge

It is vital for us to remain informed and to take, with a very large pinch of salt, the column inches of mis-information the orchestrated mass media has to offer, whose guardians are all part and parcel of the same global élite as those for which The Report from Iron Mountain was prepared.

Given their vast arsenal of bio and electronic weaponry, security forces and financial control which could render us all bankrupt overnight, if this ruse fails you can be sure that some new tack will be waiting around the corner.

Some further sources of information

The Chilling Stars A new theory of climate change
By Henrik Svensmark & Nigel Calder

Global Warming Myth
Google Video

The Great Global Warming Swindle
Channel 4 documentary

Junk Science: Global Warming Myth Busted
Google video

Climate Catastrophe Cancelled
A Friends of Science Production
Google video


Anonymous said...

You want a consensus on global warming? Start with this list below of organzations. Not surprisngly, The only major scientific organization that presently rejects the finding of significant human influence on recent climate is the American Association of Petroleum Geologists.
* 1 Statements by concurring organizations
o 1.1 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007
o 1.2 Joint science academies’ statement 2007
o 1.3 Joint science academies’ statement 2005
o 1.4 Joint science academies’ statement 2001
o 1.5 U.S. National Research Council, 2001
o 1.6 American Meteorological Society
o 1.7 American Geophysical Union
o 1.8 American Institute of Physics
o 1.9 American Astronomical Society
o 1.10 Federal Climate Change Science Program, 2006
o 1.11 American Association for the Advancement of Science
o 1.12 Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London
o 1.13 Geological Society of America
o 1.14 American Chemical Society
o 1.15 Engineers Australia (The Institution of Engineers Australia)
* 2 Noncommittal statements
o 2.1 American Association of State Climatologists
* 3 Statements by dissenting organizations
o 3.1 American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG)
* 4 Scientific consensus
* 5 Recent surveys of scientists and scientific literature
o 5.1 Oreskes, 2004
o 5.2 Bray and von Storch, 2003
* 6 Older surveys
o 6.1 Survey of U.S. state climatologists 1997
o 6.2 Bray and von Storch, 1996

Anonymous said...

dpohrph hou nhqtv latina sex


micfm wtnllp bsp foot fetish