Troubadours of Albion Witchcraft Community

The Great Global Warming Swindle

Global Warming (or more specifically, Anthropogenic Global Warming) has been more or less on top of the political agenda since 1988, when Al Gore famously invited Dr James Hansen of NASA to speak to a sweltering (he had conspired to have the air conditioning turned off) US Congress on a hot day in July.

That incident, and Margaret Thatcher's encouragement of the UK Met Office to found a climate research department, sowed the seeds for the UN's now infamous Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC.  Infamous, because - as will hopefully be divulged - the IPCC has spun lie after lie which has made a mockery of scientific process, to the extent that Global Warming is now all-but a religion, with dissenters branded heretics and threatened with violence.  

Sound familiar, anyone?

Let's start from the beginning, noted as a very good place to start.  In the early '70s, the world was gripped by the terrifying prospect of a new ice age.  Much as today, there were droughts and freak weather events which had blighted harvests in the United States and other places and, given that world temperatures had fallen since 1945, the prophets of doom were doing a brisk trade.  But there was a glimmer of hope, a lone beacon of light in the blackness, and that was provided by the Swedish scientist, Bert Bolin (who, later on, became the first chairman of the IPCC).  He postulated the possibility of the continued consumption of carbon-rich fuels pumping enough carbon-dioxide into the atmosphere that temperatures might be maintained, 'though he wasn't certain that this was correct.  Indeed, experts of the day derided the media for giving Bolin's "fantasies" the oxygen of publicity.  

Then, two things happened: world temperatures started to rise, and the miners went on strike.

Back in the '70s and '80s, the mineworker's union was causing all kinds of trouble. They had brought down the Heath government, nearly did for Callaghan and were threatening to do the same to Mrs Thatcher's administration. The Iron Lady wanted to deal with the problem, and also wanted to go for nuclear power, as she didn't trust coal or middle-eastern oil. So (or at least according to Nigel, Lord Lawson of Blaby), when Global Warming came along, she gave cash to the Royal Society and asked them to prove that it was the best solution.

The first IPCC report came out in 1990. According to some sources, what the scientists actually said was along the lines of "we cannot be sure that man is responsible for the rise in temperature", but what was printed, on the insistence of bureaucrats, was along the lines of "there is irrefutable evidence that global emissions of CO2 are the primary cause of global warming. Ice core data shows that global temperature and carbon dioxide are inter-related, but all such surveys have shown that in all cases, changes in the atmospheric content of CO2 have followed, not preceded, temperature changes. This is because by far the largest emitters of CO2 are the oceans which, when they are heated, emit the gas. Also, there is a time-lag of some 800 years between warming and increase in CO2, because the oceans account for such a large body of water that it takes that long for the change to come about.

Besides, carbon dioxide isn't the most plentiful greenhouse gas in the atmosphere - that accolade goes to water vapour at approximately 95%. CO2 accounts for about 3%, of which at most 7% is produced by human activity. The climate is changing. The climate has always changed - ever since the earth was formed. In relatively recent history, we had the ice age, followed by the holocene maximum, which was far warmer than today, for over 3 millennia. We have Roman records (the Romans were sticklers for record keeping) which states that grapes were grown up near Hadrian's wall. That was followed by the little ice age, which was followed by the Mediaeval Warming Period, as mentioned by Chaucer who noted that grapes were being grown in Richmond.  

This was another period far warmer than it is today, and a time of great wealth, when the great Cathedrals were erected: far less labour was required for growing food, and so mankind had the time to do other things.  Then there was a period of cooling, called the Maunder Minimum, during which time people had ice fairs on the Thames - out of which we have been climbing ever since. More recently, we had warming between about 1850 and 1945 (it is said that the hottest year in the last century was actually 1936), followed by cooling from 1945 'til 1977, and then warming from then 'til 1999. Since 1999, the earth has actually cooled. Check the data - the raw data. Such "decadal oscillation" is perfectly natural.

The Maunder Minimum was named for the astronomer, Edward Maunder who, in 1893, correlated sun-spot activity against global temperatures, and who found that during this period there was barely any sun-spot activity. If you want a cause for climate change, that's a good place to start.  The sun's influence on climate is overlooked by the IPCC, 'though many scientists see it as fundamental.  We are affected by the solar winds which, when they are strong, affect the amount of cosmic rays reaching the earth.  In the 1920s, when these rays were first discovered, it was thought the rays emanated from exploding supanovae far beyond our solar system.  When the rays enter the atmosphere, they combine with rising water vapour to form clouds, which in turn have a cooling effect.  When there are no clouds, it is warmer.  But it is the strength of the sun, and the subsequent sun-spot activity, which has a longer-term climactic effect, as shown by Maunder.

As I'm not a scientist, I cannot speak for the Peer-Review process. Scientists have, though, spoken of a perceived bias amongst journal editors in favour of AGW: Nevertheless, while there have, as you say, been peer-reviewed papers in support of your stance, there are also papers in support of the other side which have been peer-reviewed, so if your benchmark is the peer-review process and you are only receptive to those which support your side of the argument, perhaps there is a bias there, also.

"An Inconvenient Truth" was published by Al Gore some time around 2006. It was distributed to schools around the world, and would have been shown unchallenged here too had it not been for a high-court ruling requiring it to be accompanied by around 77 pages of corrective text. It was highly inaccurate, predicting sea level rises of around 20ft by the year 2010. Even Gore didn't believe it, as a year previously (when he was making the video) he bought a multi-million dollar condominium on Fisherman's Wharf, San Francisco. Now, Gore makes millions from trading carbon credits through his own company based in London. He couldn't base it in the 'States because then he'd be liable to prosecution under their RICO (racketeering) legislation.

Furthermore, he allegedly pays a carbon offset for his huge electricity consumption through this company - which means he essentially pays himself. He then tells the US Congress that he gives the money to a charity which educates people about global warming - which is a roundabout way of saying advertising. Sea Levels have not risen appreciably. In fact, in the Maldives (which, we were once told, were in danger of being engulfed), and in Bangladesh and other places, the sea level has fallen. According to satellite data projections, the total sea level rise this century, if current trends continue, is due to be measured in inches, not the feet predicted.

The IPCC predicted that, with carbon-dioxide-based global warming, the troposphere would be as much as 3-times as warm between the tropics as the temperature on the ground.  Indeed, every study predicted that, if global warming were caused by CO2, this would be the case.  Yet weather-balloon and satellite data has shown that hasn't happened. The IPCC's presumptions are on a slowing of outward radiation due to the greenhouse effect through warming, 'though again satellite data has shown an increase of outward radiation.

People are saying carbon dioxide is a pollutant. Yet we are all made of the stuff. It, and that other greenhouse gas water vapour, are essential for plants to grow - the more of both, the better the growth of plants, of food. We need more carbon dioxide, say some scientists, not less. But there is a belief amongst governments that we should reduce carbon dioxide, and that the best way of doing it is to curb polluting industries and modes of transport, or to tax the polluters. If we do this, it is estimated that to stop a temperature rise of just one degree over the next ten years, it will cost trillions of dollars. I'm not exactly sure how to work that one out, but even supposing it's half that, the resulting decimation of the world's economy is almighty sum for what I hope I have shown is a non-problem.  Obviously, global-warming mavens want a much smaller population (as will be shown), living in caves.

Africa needs to develop. It needs power stations and foundries and all the things we in the west take for granted. Only then will it escape poverty. As it is, it's forbidden to take advantage of its coal, its oil etc. - because global warming mavens think it's going to fuel the greenhouse effect by its actions. And so, Africans have to make do with solar and wind energy - technologies which, when they do work, cost three times as much for the energy they produce. So the poorest people on the planet have no choice but to use the most expensive energy - where's the justice in that?

And a poor population, demographic studies prove, is a breeding population - prosperity brings demographic stability. It's not too much of an extrapolation to work out, therefore, that the increasing numbers amongst a  poor population will increase CO2 emissions anyway. When the poorest people on earth have to pay 3 times as much for their electricity, and double for their food, and when they are forever being patronised by the likes of Lenny Henry and Sting when the overwhelming evidence is that there is no possible barrier save the political will to enable their self-sufficiency, where is the humanity in letting them suffer?  

And what is the point of dragging the industrialised nations down to their level in pursuit of an ever-more provably erroneous hypothesis?

Go Back