40 2 mins 9 yrs

Have a look at the graph to see that scary global warming that means we have to ALL pay more taxes.

Further;

“In recent months, even such fanatical proponents of the warmist orthodoxy as Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, James Hansen of Nasa, and the Met Office have all had to concede that since 1997, the warming trend has stalled virtually to a standstill.

Of course, there was a modest temperature rise in the 20th century, as a continuation of the warming that began 200 years ago as the world naturally emerged from those centuries of cooling known as the Little Ice Age. But the 0.5C rise between 1976 and 1998 was no greater than the 0.5C rise between 1910 and 1940 (with 35 years of cooling between them, so that the net rise in the past century has been only 0.8C).

Yet it was on that modest rise in the 1980s and 1990s that the whole of the greatest and most expensive scare in history was launched on its way, with all the terrifying political and economic consequences we see around us today. The very last people to recognise this, alas, will be our politicians, because they seem incapable of looking properly at the evidence. The price we are all increasingly having to pay for their gullibility is incalculable.”

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]

40 thoughts on “THE BIGGEST SCAM OF ALL….

  1. David

    Think of the cheeeeeldren 😉 (Yes, I know that old drone chestnut has about the same effect now as being called ‘Racist’, the drones have done it to death, in fact to the point of being meaningless) it’s their own fault.

    MANALI: With high-altitude mountains in Himachal Pradesh experiencing up to 100 cm fresh snowfall in November month after 10 years, the abundance of snow on mountains has rejuvenated nearly one thousand glaciers and has ensured uninterrupted supply of water for drinking, irrigation and hydel projects

    http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-12-03/india/35569707_1_bara-shigri-glaciers-snowfall

  2. Good article in yesterday’s Mail about the Drax power station in Yorkshire. Evidently one of the largest and most efficient coal fired power stations in the world.
    About to be converted to burn wood chips at a cost of £700,000,000.
    The wood isn’t being sourced in the UK. They will import it from the USA in large ships.
    It gives less heat, and it is doubtful whether it will in fact be carbon neutral..

    You can read about it here.
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2290444/Madness-How-pay-billions-electricity-bills-Britains-biggest-power-station-switch-coal-wood-chips–wont-help-planet-jot.html

    Secondly though is this..

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/index.html
    contrasted with this less than a year ago!
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/drought/9205639/Britain-faces-worst-drought-since-1976.html

  3. Agit

    The Eco-Loons never learn, look at the damage Bio-fuel is causing around the globe, now the ‘New & Exciting’ eco band wagon is woodchips, the eco warriors have lied managed to convince some gullible British farmers to spread it all over there fields saving Councils cash, the farmers get £2 a Tonne, and it basiclay turns the fields into Land fill .. the next big ‘outrage’ will be when all that Landfill mixed in with that ‘Green waste’ starts to decompose and the fields become non-Arrable .. the Eco-loons will just roll there eyes, wring there hands and move onto the next available righteous bandwagon.

    I think a good start to ‘Saving the planet’ would be to ignore all the Politicians and the Eco warriors.

    I am sure the Eco warriors and the gullible ‘Global warming’ druids have their hearts in the right place, and are probably fighting a just cause, but for every step forward they make, once the politicians get involved they will take six steps back in the eyes of the majority of the tax paying public.

    BTW, A Minister for ‘Climate change’ good grief, it can not be that far away before there really is a Ministry for ‘Silly walks’ 😉

  4. Look, I DO believe in renewable energy sources, but not at the cost of a functioning, efficient energy policy for our country. If that’s to be coal let it be coal.
    What is happening now is simply pompous gestEUre politics dreamt up by unaccountable well paid burEUcrats, and it is our shallow, arrogant governments that continue to lead us to the edge of the cliff.

  5. ‘Climate change’ Ministers, I am not too sure if they start off corrupt and intend to make millions before they attain those positions, or .. they attain those positions then realise they have to become corrupt to keep the scam going and then make their millions in the process, or … they have all good intentions and really believe they can ‘save the planet’ but somewhere down the line, all around them others are becoming richer than avarice because of the lies and with the help of the gullible drones .. so he or she just thinks, bugger it .. I want my share 😉

    I am going for a lie down.

    Toodle pip

  6. Such a cynic Harri.
    I think most people who go into politics do so for good reasons, but it is the most devious “ends justify the means”, ruthless egocentric ones who actually make it to the top.
    Guys like Frank Field and Ian Duncan Smith, even David Davis are too genuine, gentle and gentlemanly to succeed. Maggie was the best of the ruthless ones! 😉

  7. I do hate to spoil an echo-chamber, but what the hell:

    “Global temperatures are warmer than at any time in at least 4,000 years, scientists reported Thursday, and over the coming decades are likely to surpass levels not seen on the planet since before the last ice age. Previous research had extended back roughly 1,500 years, and suggested that the rapid temperature spike of the past century, believed to be a consequence of human activity, exceeded any warming episode during those years. The new work confirms that result while suggesting the modern warming is unique over a longer period.”

    Link here

  8. “There’s no way of explaining what’s happened in the last 50 years through natural cycles,” says Donald Wuebbles, the Harry E. Preble Professor of Atmospheric Science at the University of Illinois.“We have no evidence of a natural cycle that can do anything like this. It also exactly fits with all our knowledge of what happens with carbon dioxide and greenhouse gases. We’ve known about greenhouse gases since 1824! We know the oceans are warming, the atmosphere’s warming, the land is warming. It’s all happening in tune with each other.”

    Wuebbles says “there’s no basis for trying to make up something because you’d like that to be true” and that “you can’t dream up natural cycles as if that will work.”

    Link here

  9. “Earth’s ambient temperature is hotter now than it has been for most of the last 11,300 years – since the last Ice Age – and will reach a record level by the end of the century. The planet is warmer now than it has been for between 70 and 80 percent of the last 11 millennia, researchers at Oregon State University and Harvard University have found. Researchers analysed data from 73 ice and sediment core monitoring sites across the globe, which enabled them to reconstruct Earth’s average temperature back to the last Ice Age, a period known as the Holocene.”

    Link here

  10. Peter

    From your Link

    Like previous such efforts, the method gives only an approximation. Dr Michael Mann, a researcher at Pennsylvania State University who is an expert in the relevant techniques but was not involved in the new research, said the authors had made conservative data choices in their analysis.

    So basicaly, they are guessing?

  11. Peter,
    I think human activity is exacerbating/influencing the natural cycles, but countries like China with a authoritarian government, India, the US and various other countries dashing for economic and industrial growth are not going to be deflected from their goals.
    Compared to that what we in the UK do is irrelevant.

  12. Oh shock horror ..

    Peter, started to scan through some of the comments on that site you provided the link for .. only got to the second one, then the inevitable ..

    thus:

    Jason Makeig · Mooloolabah, Bremer and Noosa TAFE
    Alex and Scott.. Read James Hansen’s reports. He’s only the head scientist at NASA’s Goddard Institute.. Guys climate denial is actually killing the future children of the planet and maybe even our own?!
    Reply · Like· 22 hours ago

    It’s theeenk of the cheeeldren again.

    They just don’t give up do they.

  13. They just don’t give up do they.

    Why should they? All the evidence is on their side.

  14. Peter

    Are you saying ALL scientists agree on Global warming then?

    BTW, they are guessing, No global warming, no job.

  15. A8

    I agree with your 7.22. No effective action has been taken, and none will be. We have evolved to think in short term, not long term, so each generation looks out for itself.

    But the UK should be thinking about energy security, and windmills will be better than gas from Russia. We also need nuclear, and the greens have been wrong on this.

  16. Peter,

    I use ‘Science’ day in and day out, and have done for 36 years, but a Scientist from another company might not agree with any of my reports or findings.

  17. also need nuclear, and the greens have been wrong on this

    The Greens also got it catastrophically wrong about Bio-Fuels.

  18. Harri

    Science has many branches and specialisms. I am not aware of Ricchard Dawkins expressing any view on AGW, probably because he is a biologist. But among scientists who specialise in the physics of climate there is almost 100% agreement that man-produced CO2 is warming the climate. The basic physics of this have been well understood for well over 100 years.

  19. Peter
    I agree with your 7:30.
    The only problem with nuclear -although I don’t see a cleaner alternative- is what you do with the spent fuel and contaminated materials. What if that leaches into the water table or becomes a target for terrorists/freedom fighters?

    But we MUST have a secure reliable energy source, supplemented as much as possible with renewables.

  20. A8

    Yes, and it may be that gas fracking will also help. But on a crowded island it will be much harder to exploit than in the USA and anyone who sees it as the silver bullet is not dealing with reality.

  21. The basic physics of this have been well understood for well over 100 years.

    Incorrect. It is easy to add CO2 to a container in increasing quantities in a lab and measure the heat retention from a source mimicking the Sun but the Earth has an entire system with stability built in by complex feedback loops, and this has not been replicated in any lab nor in any mathematical manner.

  22. I agree that feedback and climate sensitivity are areas of uncertainty. But there is no dispute that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, so more of it in the atmosphere will mean more greenhouse effect.

    I assume you accept this?

  23. Peter – CO2 may be described as a greenhouse gas as is water vapour. Increasing the amount of a greenhouse gas would, owing to the presence of negative feedback effects, of itself not cause increased temperature except in systems which do not have such negative feedback – a container in the lab being one example.

  24. Allan

    Please explain this “negative feedback” and your evidence for it.

    All the evidence so far indicates positive feedback as in the reduced albedo from melting sea-ice and the methane output from melting permafrost.

  25. Peter – the evidence that negative feedbacks predominate in the Earth’s climatic system is the fact that, even though temperature and CO2 trends have been upwards in the past, there was no runaway which means that we are here to discuss it.

  26. “Earth has an entire system with stability built in by complex feedback loops”

    And we know these magically balanced feedbacks that only Allan is aware of don’t prevent it getting warmer or colder than now, because that’s happened before and they didn’t prevent it then.

    And even most ‘sceptics’ aren’t stupid enough to argue that CO2 isn’t a greenhouse gas and that adding more of it won’t lead to warming.

  27. Frank – if any of the feedback functions in the Earth’s climatic system were positive, then any previous warming trend would have run away to Venus and we wouldn’t be here to read your nonsense. From the posts which I wrote previous to this, it is seen that at no time did I state that

    these magically balanced feedbacks that only Allan is aware of don’t prevent it getting warmer or colder than now, because that’s happened before and they didn’t prevent it then.

    given that the Earth has been both warmer and colder before, nor imply that

    CO2 isn’t a greenhouse gas

    The climatic system is complex, well beyond the ability of the paid ‘climate scientists’ to model or predict. It may even be beyond your knowledge, Frank.

    Btw – twin strawmen in one post – you are getting more ‘productive’.

  28. And even most ‘sceptics’ aren’t stupid enough to argue that CO2 isn’t a greenhouse gas and that adding more of it won’t lead to warming.

    Most, but not all, as we see here.

  29. ” if any of the feedback functions in the Earth’s climatic system were positive, then any previous warming trend would have run away to Venus ”

    Incorrect. Positive feedbacks can, and do, mean that the warming due to CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere is amplified, not that the amplification must occur ad infinitum.

    Your strawman is dealt with here.

    And you DID say:

    Increasing the amount of a greenhouse gas would, owing to the presence of negative feedback effects, of itself not cause increased temperature except in systems which do not have such negative feedback

    …which is clearly complete bollocks. If warming from GHGs led to negative feedbacks that prevented amy increase in temperature, then the same feedbacks would prevent warming from any cause, and it would be impossible for the earth to ever have been warmer than it is now. But it has been.

    And as I pointed out already, only a handful of scientific illiterates, and not even most ‘sceptics’, argue that increasing CO2 (or any greenhouse gas) will not cause increased temperature on Earth.

  30. Peter – where is the warming? You wrote:

    The basic physics of this have been well understood for well over 100 years.

    And I wrote:

    Increasing the amount of a greenhouse gas would, owing to the presence of negative feedback effects, of itself not cause increased temperature except in systems which do not have such negative feedback – a container in the lab being one example.

    to which you wrote:

    I agree that feedback and climate sensitivity are areas of uncertainty.

    which negates your first statement.

    If you accept that the climate of the Earth has ever been on a trend of increasing temperature in previous times, then you must equally accept that something stopped the increase – otherwise we wouldn’t be here. Now there are only two options as to why the increasing temperatures were halted: either the climate system is inherently stable and able to counter increased temperature noting that CO2 levels lagged behind, or there was an external determinant of temperature – the Sun seems to have something to do with temperature on the Earth.

  31. Allan

    I also asked you to post evidence of negative feedback happening now, which you have failed to do. Obviously it will kick in at some point, but by then the icecaps may have melted.

  32. Frank – effects of corrective feedback on a system the size of the Earth’s climate do not act immediately so trends will continue but will be slowed down. That is why temperature goes slightly up, and then down, and then up, and then down – and always has done since the Earth was formed. Anybody who considers that the climate’s control systems could act instantaneously is an idiot, and this

    If warming from GHGs led to negative feedbacks that prevented amy increase in temperature, then the same feedbacks would prevent warming from any cause, and it would be impossible for the earth to ever have been warmer than it is now

    gets you entry into that category.

  33. Peter – if the data about warming having stopped are correct, then something has caused the trend from the late-70’s(?) of increasing temperature to have stopped. Here is a report which backs the data:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released–chart-prove-it.html

    This ‘plateau’ in rising temperatures does not mean that global warming won’t at some point resume.

    But according to increasing numbers of serious climate scientists, it does suggest that the computer models that have for years been predicting imminent doom, such as those used by the Met Office and the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, are flawed, and that the climate is far more complex than the models assert.
    ‘The new data confirms the existence of a pause in global warming,’ Professor Judith Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Science at America’s Georgia Tech university, told me yesterday.

    ‘Climate models are very complex, but they are imperfect and incomplete. Natural variability [the impact of factors such as long-term temperature cycles in the oceans and the output of the sun] has been shown over the past two decades to have a magnitude that dominates the greenhouse warming effect.

    ‘It is becoming increasingly apparent that our attribution of warming since 1980 and future projections of climate change needs to consider natural internal variability as a factor of fundamental importance.’

    There’s nothing more to be said.

  34. “That is why temperature goes slightly up, and then down”

    No Allan, the temperature has not gone ‘slightly’ up or down since the formation of the Earth. There’s been everything from snowball earth to hothouse conditions at the poles.

    You may as well argue that a repeat of the last ice age would not be a problem for humans to worry about if it were to happen in the next 100 years, because after all the ‘control systems’ might warm things up again in about 100,000 years.

    SImilarly if the Earth were to warm 6+ degrees over the next couple of hundred years, only a blithering idiot would argue that there was not really a temperature increase or that it was all OK because some feedback would eventually cool things down over the following millennia.

  35. Allan’s getting his science information from the Daily Mail, no wonder he’s confused.

  36. you people are smoking dope.

    Tonights forecast Dark, continued Dark with widely scattered light at Dawn. That is as accurate as we can get at this stage of the science.

    The rest is bullshit.

Comments are closed.