At long last top scientists who have devoted their lives to the study of climatology are openly daring to state that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is plain wrong in claiming that global warming is caused by CO2 emissions.
They are confirming, in the face of death threats and lack of funding, what so many rational-thinking people have suspected all along; that global warming is not a result of human activity or industrialisation, but of increased activity on the sun, which directly affects our climate and weather, and it has been going on since the beginning of time. That icon of self-promotion Al Gore recently made an environmental film, "An Inconvenient Truth", illustrating “incontrovertible†evidence that there is a correlation between global warming and the build-up of CO2 emissions – except that he had failed to grasp the fact – or conveniently overlooked - that increases in levels of CO2 happen as a result of increased global temperature and not the other way round. The film won an Oscar for Best Documentary, by the way. Just how brainwashed are we all?
Additionally, evidence is now accumulating from observers all over the world that a significant degree of warming has recently been recorded on Mars, Jupiter, on Neptune’s moon Triton, and even as far out as Pluto. Fancy that!
Clearly, we have no control over activity on the sun; hence “green†taxation in the light of this is not only unnecessary, but unethical. There is talk of increasing still further the already onerous taxes that ordinary hard-working people have to pay, by penalising those who have the temerity to fly in aeroplanes, whether because of holidays or business. People are made to feel guilty for buying and driving 4x4 and other largish cars because they are perceived to increase CO2 emissions and are taxed accordingly. Already we pay ridiculous carbon offset charges on vehicles, and so does industry on energy use.
It is just at this time, when genuine climatologists are hitting back at the climate change hysteria, that our own politicians, be they Labour, Conservative or Lib Dem, are lining up with the EU and the UN to impose “green†measures that threaten not only to undermine the prosperity of the developed world, but to deny the undeveloped world the chance to escape the deprivation that is the cause of premature death for those millions who do not have the basic necessity of electricity and thus the social and economic benefits it can bring.
Climate change protagonists are akin to religious fundamentalists, and we all know how dangerous that is. This pseudo-religious madness has gone too far. It represents a far greater danger to the world, and to the freedom of all its peoples than the so-called “threat†of climate change.
Back up your claims !
Hi somebody calling themselves "anti-prejudice", when in fact you appear to be highly prejudiced to me,
You are clearly not a Campaigner against Climate Change, you are however a campaigner against the science of Climate Change.
I am challenging you to back up your claims.
Name me a "top scientist" who has "devoted their lives to the study of climatology" who is challenging the IPCC over the scientific evidence that global warming is caused by CO2 emissions.
Timothy Ball (not a "top scientist", just a very public person) may in fact have received a death threat, but he has not been short of funding.
Cycles of Earth's history have been warmer or cooler, and major factors have included solar activity, polar precession, mass extinction, volcano activity, meteor strike, cloud cover changes, ocean chemistry, massive reproduction of particular life forms, the development of agriculture, decimation of forests, amongst other things. That much is accepted.
What you seem unable to accept is that burning Fossil Fuels contributes to the Greenhouse Effect. Burning Fossil Fuels is equivalent to taking Carbon Dioxide out of the ground and throwing it into the air. Not a good idea at the rates we are doing it.
You cannot claim that believers in Climate Change are akin to religious fundamentalists. Religious fundamentalists hold onto notions that the Earth is only 6,000 years old (or thereabouts), which is unscientific. Climate Change scientists do science, you know, empirical science based on theory, experimentation, re-working the theory, until they can make confident, testable predictions. That has led them to startling controversial new facts, which some people like yourself find hard to understand or accept. Climate Change scientists are revolutionary in their thinking. Hardly fundamentalist !
I could go on, but it would be a waste of my time. Your arguments appear to me to be unscientific. Get me citations from scientists who are not in the group known to be Climate skeptics (USA) or sceptics (UK) :-
http://www.desmogblog.com/node/1272
Nobody could accuse me of being hysterical !
The problem with using perjorative, opinionated language is that it is easily disposed of.
I refuse to accept the statements you have made that use the evident triggers of emotional language. These are :-
"openly daring" - implies that there is some kind of political repression that works against Climate Change deniers.
"plain wrong in claiming" - implies that the scientists are motivated by opinion and not evidence - a false claim.
"rational-thinking people" - implies that only Climate Change deniers are rational. Wrong !
"icon of self-promotion" - implies that self-promotion is bad. We all do it, even the Climate Change deniers do !
"failed to grasp" - I think you'll find he said that "the relationship...is complicated" in fact. He evidently grasped more than you claim.
"conveniently overlooked" - no, he said "the relationship...is complicated" that shows he knows more - even Jesus himself revealed the truth slowly so that his disciples could get used to the ideas. John 16:12 "I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear."
"Just how brainwashed are we all?" - I think you are !
"climate change hysteria" - don't call me hysterical. My kind have spent centuries overturning the formerly incontrovertible "fact" that those people with wombs are irrational !
"already onerous taxes" - well, since every tonne of Carbon Dioxide emissions costs about a thousand euro to neutralise, then maybe we should be taxed for that ? No, I believe that the only fair taxes should be based on income, and that much income is derived from the liberty to burn cheap Fossil Fuels, so yes, Fossil Fuel burning should be taxed.
"ridiculous carbon offset charges" - ridculously low, in my opinion.
"prosperity of the developed world" - outdated concept. The Developed World eats the Developing World via commodities flows enforced through so-called "free trade", which is actually protectionist as it operates using the leverage of accumulated capital. Sorry, are my politics showing ? The Developed World would not be "prosperous" without reserving the rights to burn Fossil Fuels, the resources of many countries. The Developing World will eventually all deny their resources to the Developed World, following the lead of Latin America. Africa will use its own oil and natural gas to make itself wealthy.
Mythical Martian warming. Fancy that !
Your claim that there is "a significant degree of warming has recently been recorded on Mars" is teetering on the point of crashing, because it has little in the way of foundation.
Who told you this theory ? Why did you believe them ? I'm interested to know where this non-science comes from.
It is extremely unlikely that Mars will experience significant planetary warming, as its atmosphere is not changing in composition, and is very thin, and the heat output of the Sun is not changing very much.
The theory that Mars is experiencing warming is listed along with other skeptical arguments and rebuttals on :-
http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/17/222712/69
Also, for your edification :-
http://www.nineplanets.org/mars.html
"Early in its history, Mars was much more like Earth. As with Earth almost all of its carbon dioxide was used up to form carbonate rocks. But lacking the Earth's plate tectonics, Mars is unable to recycle any of this carbon dioxide back into its atmosphere and so cannot sustain a significant greenhouse effect. The surface of Mars is therefore much colder than the Earth would be at that distance from the Sun."
Earth is the blessed child. Mars is the forgotten miscreant.
Brainwashing and Climate Change
It's not the case that 'sceptic' scientists are 'at last' daring to speak their mind, it's many of the same people who have been at it for years. Read for example Realclimate's critique of Richard Lindzen's testimony to the House of Lords, 2006. See also his Physicsworld profile. Lindzen keeps going on about his theory of water vapour providing a negative feedback to warming in spite of researchers finding otherwise (see Realclimate critique), and about satellite infrared data long after this was shown to be flawed (see here). Lindzen incidentally does not say that rising greenhouse gases aren't adding to warming, as you suggest.
Prof. Philip Stott (retired) is now an active writer and broadcaster, so I would think his climate-sceptic stance suits this very well.
As regards the developing world, I think the negative consequences here have been under-emphasised, partly because it may be hard to predict where tomorrow's tropical climates (deserts, semi-deserts, monsoon belts) will specifically end up. What is not in (much) dispute is that the cereal growing belts in the north and southern hemispheres will move north and south respectively, which in the south will increasingly mean falling off the end of continents, while the tropics as a whole will become hotter and less water-retaining, both in soils and mountain ice.