Global Politics, International High Finance, Propaganda

Tuesday, 28 April 2015

Global Warming


By far the easiest-to-understand documentary exposing the faulty reasoning of the Man-Made-Global-Warming (AGW) catastrophists is (IMHO) by Professor Bob Carter - an Australian geologist, paleontologist and climatologist. He entirely demolishes the AGW alarmist position in the following short lecture.

The documentary clearly shows what is wrong with just selecting the data from the last one thousand years - (as in the famous "Hockey Stick" graph) - because whatever extrapolation you make depends on how much of the earlier data you choose to include.

If you cannot watch it all then please, please, please, at least watch from 07 minutes 34 seconds to 08m40s


The best formal scientific refutation of Man-Made Global Warming (AGW) is given (IMHO) by Dr. Richard Lindzen - the Alfred P Sloan Professor of Meteorology And Atmospheric Sciences at MIT. He was also a lead author of chapter 7 of the IPCC 3rd assessment report.

Lindzen is (IMHO) the scientist who best uses empirical observation and mathematical (and logical) argument to to disprove the Man-Made Global Warming Catastrophists

To summarise his research very briefly -
The IPCC (AGW catastrophists) claim that man-made carbon-dioxide is causing a rapid increase in global temperature. Dr Lindzen examined the temperature measurements from a satellite called  ERBE (the Earth Radiation Budget Experimental Satellite) and used them to put the case that the effect of carbon-dioxide is much less than a quarter of what the UN IPCC models say it should be.

Just as importantly he puts the case that the increase in CO2 has caused an INCREASE in the heat energy lost to space. Not the DECREASE that the AGW catastrophers insist upon.

A conclusion that has since been duplicated by:-

Dr Andrew Russell at the "Skeptics In Pubs" meeting in Brighton UK, Sept 2010

I was not convinced that the AGW alarmists were deliberately lying until I saw a government scientist give a presentation here in Brighton UK in Sept 2010. His name was Dr Andy Russell - and he gave a presentation that was so slickly misleading that I seriously suspect he had been coached by some Public Relations firm.

It was just like watching the "Babies In Incubators" lie that was told to justify a war. That particular government liar had also been slyly coached by a Public Relations firm, and I suspect that Dr Russell was as well. He is - after all - putting the official government position to the public, so probably gets government training in "presentation ."

I went to hear him speak with a fairly open mind - and - had he simply put his case clearly and fairly he would probably have convinced me. But his presentation was so distorted and blatantly propagandist that I am now pretty sure that the AGW alarmism is mostly fraudulent.

To give one example - when he was supposed to be characterising credible skeptics he named Sarah Palin (a US politician) as his prime exemplar of people skeptical of AGW alarmism.

When I challenged him with the counter-example of the 31 THOUSAND scientists who have stated in writing that they quite explicitly disagree with the AGW catastrophers he admitted that he had heard of them.

So - although he was supposed to be characterising credible skeptics he didn't mention them at all. Even though he knew about them.

He also knew about the UK court case in which Al Gore was shown to be lying about AGW - but he didn't mention the skepticism of the judge either.

So - although he was a scientist supposed to be characterising skeptics he didn't mention:-
My general point here is that he is a scientist talking about science who doesn't mention any scientists.

He chose instead to mention one dumb american politician (Sarah Palin) but somehow forgot to mention another even dumber (Al Gore - the "Convenient Liar").

His entire presentation was deliberately misleading and included slick (and sly) conflations, diversions and evasions. I actually accused him of dishonesty and he didn't deny it.

Another example was when he spoke about the infamous "hide the decline" statement. First he said that "no decline had been hidden" - but I interrupted him to point out that a decline had been hidden - a decline shown in proxy data (tree ring data). At which point he contradicted what he had just said and admitted that a decline had been hidden.

I could give many other examples:-
I could go on and on.

But instead I'll just repeat - his entire presentation was deliberately misleading and included several very sly conflations, diversions and evasions. It was carefully designed for his target audience - desperate catastrophists.


His audience was mostly desperate catastrophists. One of whom actually asked Dr Russell how long we all had (to live). Many people here in Brighton seriously believe that we are all gonna die real soon!!

The "Cult Of The Hot Air" is very strong here and these catastrophe-cultists routinely use lying and bullying to quash dissent. I can testify to that from personal experience - I've been bullied and victimised for being skeptical!

But, it is this very lying and bullying that - to me - reveals the intellectual weakness of their case. Cultists try to convince with threats instead of evidence - whereas if their case was intellectually strong then they would engage in calm and rational discourse and wouldn't need to lie and bully.

One type of cultist bullying is to call skeptics "deniers." People who are skeptical of the catastrophists hysterical claims of immanent world-wide disaster are called "deniers" in the sense of Holocaust Deniers.

To the cultists - people who ask for empirical evidence are not being skeptical they are being HERETICAL. The Church of Climatology tolerates no heresy - skeptics who ask cultists for empirical evidence are firmly refused and then called "deniers".

Yet these catastrophe-cultists deny a climate change called the Medieval Warm Period.

One feature of the Hockey Stick" graph)graph is that it denies that the Medieval Warm Period climate change occurred. It is a blatant example of Climate Change DENIAL. Yet, for the catastrophers, that piece of denial of climate change does not make them Climate Change "Deniers."

(The Medieval Warm Period was hotter according to 910 scientists from 541 institution in 43 countries.

The alarmists have to deny it was warmer then than it is now because that warming cannot be blamed on man-made carbon dioxide. The solution for the catastrophists is - to deny the Medieval Warm Period. ( Michael Mann’s ‘hockey stick’ deliberately rewrote history to eliminate the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) because it contradicted the false claim the world was the warmest ever))

In fact - since they also deny the "Little Ice Age" climate change we can properly call the catastrophists DOUBLE DENIERS.

(The Little Ice Age finished about 300 years ago and the world has slowly been warming since then. This current warming trend began long before cars and power stations were invented - which means that modern heavy industry cannot plausibly be blamed for global warming. The solution for the catastrophists is - to deny the Little Ice Age!!)

And - since they deny that denying a climate change make them "climate change deniers" - that makes them TRIPLE DENIERS.

So - if you are skeptical of the catastrophers and they brand you as a Climate Change "Denier" - point out their hypocrisy and it's underlying rationale.

It won't stop them from lying and bullying because their position is political not scientific.

Its political nature means that it is mostly about lying and bullying rather than the truth-telling which science is about. And, although most of them appear not to realize it, their destructive political program is controlled and funded by people with a profound hatred of humanity.

So fierce is their hatred of all humanity that they have recently issued a propaganda documentary that glamorises the MURDER OF CHILDREN who are skeptical about the AGW catastrophe.

The monstrous fascism of the imagery has to be seen to be believed, but be warned - this film contains scenes that most viewers may find distressing. It is not suitable for children.

Later in the film some women are murdered - but it's the child killing that thrills the cultists.

The Guardian Newspaper gives all the support it can Nothing wrong in murdering women and children - not for the Guardian!!

The film depicts outright, blatant fascism - instantly executing people without a trial. It is clearly intended to convey the message that if you dissent from a political program you will be executed. Whether you are a man, a woman or even a child - you will be executed. Instantly!

This is ECO-FASCISM - that special kind of fascism that the Guardian, the Green Party and the BBC approve-of. One of the special kinds of child-killing of which the Guardian/BBC/Green Party explicitly approve.

It is terrorism - using fear to further a political policy.

[The British Terrorism Act of 2000 defines a terrorist act as:-

“the use or threat of action designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public” and

“the use or threat of action made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause

So this is definately Terrorism as defined under that Act.]

As Voltaire said:-
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Of course, since it is a policy that the UK government sponsors - this terrorism will not be criminally prosecuted. Indeed the makers of the film - "10:10" take their name from an official UK government program for reducing carbon emissions. So they probably got - not only their funding from the UK government - but also their instructions as to what to put in it.

( Yes - I do think that civil servants instructed a Public Relations firm to make a film which showed women and children being murdered because of their failure to conform to a government policy. Skeptics like me notice a distinct bias in government-run media )

To every policeman in the UK I say :- shame on you! To the Crown Prosecution Service I say - shame on you for not prosecuting Global Warming terrorists.

I formally report here that I am terrorised by its content and complain here that you do not follow your own laws.

As more evidence of terrorism I cite:- The Daily Telegraph on 11 Mar 2007 :-
"Scientists who questioned mankind's impact on climate change have received death threats and claim to have been shunned by the scientific community.

"They say the debate on global warming has been "hijacked" by a powerful alliance of politicians, scientists and environmentalists who have stifled all questioning about the true environmental impact of carbon dioxide emissions.

"Timothy Ball, a former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg in Canada, has received five deaths threats by email since raising concerns about the degree to which man was affecting climate change.

"One of the emails warned that, if he continued to speak out, he would not live to see further global warming.

"Western governments have pumped billions of dollars into careers and institutes and they feel threatened," said the professor.

"I can tolerate being called a sceptic because all scientists should be sceptics, but then they started calling us deniers, with all the connotations of the Holocaust. That is an obscenity. It has got really nasty and personal."

"Last week, Professor Ball appeared in The Great Global Warming Swindle, a Channel 4 documentary in which several scientists claimed the theory of man-made global warming had become a "religion", forcing alternative explanations to be ignored.

"Richard Lindzen, the professor of Atmospheric Science at Massachusetts Institute of Technology recently claimed: "Scientists who dissent from the alarmism (of "Global warming" caused by man) have seen their funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves labelled as industry stooges. "Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science."

"Dr Myles Allen, from Oxford University, agreed. He said: "The Green movement has hijacked the issue of climate change. It is ludicrous to suggest the only way to deal with the problem is to start micro managing everyone, which is what environmentalists seem to want to do".

"Nigel Calder, a former editor of New Scientist, said: "Governments are trying to achieve unanimity by stifling any scientist who disagrees. Einstein could not have got funding under the present system.""
Once again, Voltaire was right when he said:-

"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."
A recent report from the BBC suggests fewer and fewer people in the UK believe the "Hot Air Cultist" catastrophists. Official figures show that UK household emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) increased by more than 3% this year.

I suspect that these child-killers are getting desperate, and desperate child-killers are dangerous child killers.

To you "HOT AIR" cultists I say - YOU are the deniers! How dare you deny that your lies have already killed children - how dare you deny the children your malicious dishonesty is going to kill!!!!

Here is by far the best commentary on both the child-murdering Hot-Air cultists and the eugenics program that funds and promotes that cult:-

[Back to Main Index]

No comments:

Post a Comment