But according to the Metrological Office they need
their heads examining.
Again and again the government
and UN’s IPCC use their hopelessly inadequate computer models to enforce the
belief that you and your car, are somehow responsible for warming the planet to
catastrophic levels, which unless you change your ways will lead to disaster.
Long on rhetoric, propaganda and
outright lies, the proponents of anthropological global warming were forced to
abandon genuine scientific research and resort to computer model predictions
and peer reviews.
Let us examine the evidence.
Firstly, no one in the scientific
community disputes that the planet has been gradually getting warmer, although
it has for the last decade or two, and rather inconveniently for the pro ‘man
made’ global warming zealots, begun to cool again.
However to support the idea that
there had been a sudden and dramatic upward surge in global temperatures they
produced the, now infamous, ‘Hockey Stick’ graph showing an upward curve like
that of the blade of a hockey stick.
Unfortunately for them it was
soon revealed that the graph had been obtained by removing entirely the
Medieval Warm Period, when temperatures were much warmer than today and the
Vikings farmed Greenland.
But let us return to these
climate computer models and establish on indisputable fact. Computer climate predictions
can never be wrong because they are programmed to be less than precise and if
global cooling occurs, it’s due to anthropological activity, and should global
warming commence, the same rule applies.
Ask any scientist to explain the
impact of water vapour, which constitutes 94% of all greenhouse gasses, on
global warming and if they’re honest they will admit that no one knows for
certain because there are too many variables.
Is it credible that scientists
basing climate predictions based on greenhouse gas emissions of which the
effect of 94% of them is not known can ever be taken seriously?
Is it credible that based on the
undisputed fact that man’s contribution to the 3% total of CO2 in the atmosphere
is a tiny 0.28% that it could remotely affect the planet?
If any politician states that
there is overwhelming scientific proof that anthropological activity causes global
warming or that there is a scientific consensus that this is so - you are
listening to a liar.
Global warming is all about power
and greed, about controlling the world’s energy resources and dictating who can
live and who shall die.
Consider this report dated 1st
October 2008 by the Food Climate Network.
“Milk and Meat will have to be
rationed if the world is to avoid dangerous climate change.” Food Climate
Network, “By 2050 we should be limited to a quarter of a pint of milk a day and
four small portions of meat a week.” Cattle sheep and pig farming produce
around 8 per cent of Britain’s
greenhouse gas emissions, mostly in the form of methane. Britains will need to cut their
consumption by a quarter if emissions are to remain stable.”
Tara Garnett the report’s author
says, “The way things are going we may have be doing things we consider
outrageous or unacceptable now.”
So according to this silly girl, rationing
our food will reduce the farm animal population, methane, and save the planet. However,
she ignores the fact there is not enough methane in the atmosphere to even measure.
Let us for a moment examine the
effect of such legislation and how it would have to be inforced.
Firstly of course possessing more
food than permitted would carry a massive fine and result in a criminal record.
Defra would employ food police with authority to enter every house weekly and
search for hidden milk and meat.
I repeat, anthropological global
warming is about grabbing power over the lives of us all and must be resisted.
At the beginning of this article
I mentioned a petition signed by 31,000 independent scientists.
It is printed below complete with
links to the petitions website which contains links and information to
scientific arguments and research.
Tonyb
Global Warming Petition
We urge the United
States government to reject the global warming
agreement that was written in Kyoto,
Japan in
December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on
greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science
and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
There is no convincing scientific
evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse
gasses 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.
This petition has been signed by over
31,000 American scientists.
Enclosed is a twelve-page review of information on the subject of
"global warming," a petition in the form of a reply card, and a
return envelope. Please consider these materials carefully.
The United States
is very close to adopting an international agreement that would ration the use
of energy and of technologies that depend upon coal, oil, and natural gas and
some other organic compounds.
This treaty is, in our opinion, based upon flawed ideas. Research data on
climate change do not show that human use of hydrocarbons is harmful. To the
contrary, there is good evidence that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is
environmentally helpful.
Environmental
Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide
A review of the research literature concerning the environmental
consequences of increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide leads to the
conclusion that increases during the 20th Century have produced no deleterious
effects upon global weather, climate, or temperature. Increased carbon dioxide
has, however, markedly increased plant growth rates. Predictions of harmful
climatic effects due to future increases in minor greenhouse gases like CO2 are
in error and do not conform to current experimental knowledge.
Note: The Petition Project has no funding from energy industries or other
parties with special financial interests in the "global warming"
debate. Funding for the project comes entirely from private non-tax deductible
donations by interested individuals.
