https://tinyurl.com/26dped

The deceit behind global warming
By Christopher Booker and Richard North

No one can deny that in recent years the need to "save the
planet" from global warming has become one of the most pervasive issues of
our time. As Tony Blair's chief scientific adviser, Sir David King, claimed
in 2004, it poses "a far greater threat to the world than international
terrorism", warning that by the end of this century the only habitable
continent left will be Antarctica.

Inevitably, many people have been bemused by this somewhat
one-sided debate, imagining that if so many experts are agreed, then there
must be something in it. But if we set the story of how this fear was
promoted in the context of other scares before it, the parallels which
emerge might leave any honest believer in global warming feeling
uncomfortable.

The story of how the panic over climate change was pushed to the
top of the international agenda falls into five main stages. Stage one came
in the 1970s when many scientists expressed alarm over what they saw as a
disastrous change in the earth's climate. Their fear was not of warming but
global cooling, of "a new Ice Age".

For three decades, after a sharp rise in the interwar years up
to 1940, global temperatures had been falling. The one thing certain about
climate is that it is always changing. Since we began to emerge from the
last Ice Age 20,000 years ago, temperatures have been through significant
swings several times. The hottest period occurred around 8,000 years ago and
was followed by a long cooling. Then came what is known as the "Roman
Warming", coinciding with the Roman empire. Three centuries of cooling in
the Dark Ages were followed by the "Mediaeval Warming", when the evidence
agrees the world was hotter than today.

Around 1300 began "the Little Ice Age", that did not end until
200 years ago, when we entered what is known as the "Modern Warming". But
even this has been chequered by colder periods, such as the "Little Cooling"
between 1940 and 1975. Then, in the late 1970s, the world began warming
again.

A scare is often set off - as we show in our book with other
examples - when two things are observed together and scientists suggest one
must have been caused by the other. In this case, thanks to readings
commissioned by Dr Roger Revelle, a distinguished American oceanographer, it
was observed that since the late 1950s levels of carbon dioxide in the
earth's atmosphere had been rising. Perhaps it was this increase that was
causing the new warming in the 1980s?

Stage two of the story began in 1988 when, with remarkable
speed, the global warming story was elevated into a ruling orthodoxy, partly
due to hearings in Washington chaired by a youngish senator, Al Gore, who
had studied under Dr Revelle in the 1960s.

But more importantly global warming hit centre stage because in
1988 the UN set up its Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (the IPCC).
Through a series of reports, the IPCC was to advance its cause in a rather
unusual fashion. First it would commission as many as 1,500 experts to
produce a huge scientific report, which might include all sorts of doubts
and reservations. But this was to be prefaced by a Summary for Policymakers,
drafted in con-sult-ation with governments and officials - essentially a
political document - in which most of the caveats contained in the experts'
report would not appear.

This contradiction was obvious in the first report in 1991,
which led to the Rio conference on climate change in 1992. The second report
in 1996 gave particular prominence to a study by an obscure US government
scientist claiming that the evidence for a connection between global warming
and rising CO2 levels was now firmly established. This study came under
heavy fire from various leading climate experts for the way it manipulated
the evidence. But this was not allowed to stand in the way of the claim that
there was now complete scientific consensus behind the CO2 thesis, and the
Summary for Policy-makers, heavily influenced from behind the scenes by Al
Gore, by this time US Vice-President, paved the way in 1997 for the famous
Kyoto Protocol.

__________________
"The nurse should be cheerful, orderly, punctual, patient, full of faith, - receptive to Truth and Love" Mary Baker Eddy
Visit www.HealthSalon.org

Part 2

Kyoto initiated stage three of the story, by formally committing
governments to drastic reductions in their CO2 emissions. But the treaty
still had to be ratified and this seemed a good way off, not least thanks to
its rejection in 1997 by the US Senate, despite the best attempts of Mr
Gore.

Not the least of his efforts was his bid to suppress an article
co-authored by Dr Revelle just before his death. Gore didn't want it to be
known that his guru had urged that the global warming thesis should be
viewed with more caution.

One of the greatest problems Gore and his allies faced at this
time was the mass of evidence showing that in the past, global temperatures
had been higher than in the late 20th century. In 1998 came the answer they
were looking for: a new temperature chart, devised by a young American
physicist, Michael Mann. This became known as the "hockey stick" because it
showed historic temperatures running in an almost flat line over the past
1,000 years, then suddenly flicking up at the end to record levels.

Mann's hockey stick was just what the IPCC wanted. When its 2001
report came out it was given pride of place at the top of page 1. The
Mediaeval Warming, the Little Ice Age, the 20th century Little Cooling, when
CO2 had already been rising, all had been wiped away.

But then a growing number of academics began to raise doubts
about Mann and his graph. This culminated in 2003 with a devastating study
by two Canadians showing how Mann had not only ignored most of the evidence
before him but had used an algorithm that would produce a hockey stick graph
whatever evidence was fed into the computer. When this was removed, the
graph re-emerged just as it had looked before, showing the Middle Ages as
hotter than today.

It is hard to recall any scientific thesis ever being so
comprehensively discredited as the "hockey stick". Yet the global warming
juggernaut rolled on regardless, now led by the European Union. In 2004,
thanks to a highly dubious deal between the EU and Putin's Russia, stage
four of the story began when the Kyoto treaty was finally ratified.

In the past three years, we have seen the EU announcing every
kind of measure geared to fighting climate change, from building ever more
highly-subsidised wind turbines, to a commitment that by 2050 it will have
reduced carbon emissions by 60 per cent. This is a pledge that could only be
met by such a massive reduction in living standards that it is impossible to
see the peoples of Europe accepting it.

All this frenzy has rested on the assumption that global
temperatures will continue to rise in tandem with CO2 and that, unless
mankind takes drastic action, our planet is faced with the apocalypse so
vividly described by Al Gore in his Oscar-winning film An Inconvenient
Truth.

Yet recently, stage five of the story has seen all sorts of
question marks being raised over Gore's alleged consensus. For instance, he
claimed that by the end of this century world sea levels will have risen by
20 ft when even the IPCC in its latest report, only predicts a rise of
between four and 17 inches.There is also of course the harsh reality that,
wholly unaffected by Kyoto, the economies of China and India are now
expanding at nearly 10 per cent a year, with China likely to be emitting
more CO2 than the US within two years.

More serious, however, has been all the evidence accumulating to
show that, despite the continuing rise in CO2 levels, global temperatures in
the years since 1998 have no longer been rising and may soon even be
falling.

It was a telling moment when, in August, Gore's closest
scientific ally, James Hansen of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies,
was forced to revise his influential record of US surface temperatures
showing that the past decade has seen the hottest years on record. His graph
now concedes that the hottest year of the 20th century was not 1998 but
1934, and that four of the 10 warmest years in the past 100 were in the
1930s.

Furthermore, scientists and academics have recently been queuing
up to point out that fluctuations in global temperatures correlate more
consistently with patterns of radiation from the sun than with any rise in
CO2 levels, and that after a century of high solar activity, the sun's
effect is now weakening, presaging a likely drop in temperatures.

If global warming does turn out to have been a scare like all
the others, it will certainly represent as great a collective flight from
reality as history has ever recorded. The evidence of the next 10 years will
be very interesting.

. Scared to Death: From BSE To Global Warming - How Scares Are
Costing Us The Earth by Christopher Booker and Richard North (Continuum,
�16.99) is available for �14.99 + �1.25 p&p. To order call Telegraph Books
on 0870 428 4115 or go to books.telegraph.co.uk.

Something to add that was somehow not included in the post: carbon dioxide levels rise BECAUSE of global warming, and NOT that carbon dioxide causes global warming. Supposedly, all climatologists know this. And yet, it was a (the?) main argument of Gore, though he actually manipulated his charts to show that CO2 rise was a cause instead of an effect.

I think this video clip of Beck puts things in perspective:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Io-Tb7vTamY

There are other clips in youtube, one even showing that with the supposed rise in the earth's temperature in the last few years, there was also a rise in the temperature of a couple of outer planets (Neptune and Uranus). So who's the real culprit? (Hint: it's at the
center of our solar system.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKAC4kfHruQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CwbhwjjwwDM

Global warming IS happening (after the cooling that was observed up to the 1970s). But man had nothing to do with it. While it is excellent to care for our environment, it is unscientific to blame man for the rise in tempertures (if, indeed, it is happening -- some actually blame this rise on the method of taking temperatures). Even the proponents of man-made global warming say that man can no longer halt it, whatever we do from now. Shouldn't it therefore show them that man had nothing to do with it in the first place?

As for carbon dioxide, was it only me who was wondering why it was suddenly called a pollutant? Isn't carbon dioxide what animals exhale all the time, and what even plants give off when it's dark? And isn't it something essential for plants during daylight? So if CO2 is indeed the pollutant cause of global warming, isn't it solved simply by killing all life? LOL

Here's some interesting reading about Gore and his Nobel Prize:

Gore's Nine Lies

Me, I no longer believed Nobel Prizes ever since Arafat was given one.

Gerry

I thought plants used CO2 to for photosynthesis and they produced oxygen as a by-product?

The dark forces are out everywhere. They would have you believe that ozone is a pollutant and is responsible for asthma in the big cities. But ozone only carries the pollution to the ground for mother natures recycling process. Ozone is a natural and important part of the biosphere. They are trying to use it as a scape goat instead of addressing real air pollution problems.. Ozone alert days! phooey! What about air pollution alert days?!!! The ozone only comes to the ground when the air pollution rises and bonds to the ozone. The molecule then becomes heavy and falls to the ground. They would prefer that their filth fly away and land somewhere else. Now they complain because its landing right back on them.

But is the warming truly global? I just read that the Southern ice caps are the thickest ever recorded.

Mari

Not just warming - now we have Global Dimming, a decrease in solar radiation caused by tiny particles of pollutants. This isn't about gaseous pollution, but particles of solids, reducing the amount of sunlight that reaches us.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/prog..._summary.shtml

https://www.guardian.co.uk/science/20...ence.research1

That's right. But photosynthesis only occurs in daylight. So CO2 usage by plants is only during the daytime.

At night time, in the dark, they use up oxygen just like all other life, though I think I better check on whether they also give out CO2 (maybe not).

Gerry

Warmer temperatures equals more CO2

https://www.realclimate.org/index.php...2-in-ice-cores

3 December 2004

What does the lag of CO2 behind temperature in ice cores tell us about global warming?

Filed under:

• FAQ
• Greenhouse gases
• Paleoclimate

� group @ 9:42 AM - ()
This is an issue that is often misunderstood in the public sphere and media, so it is worth spending some time to explain it and clarify it. At least three careful ice core studies have shown that CO2 starts to rise about 800 years (600-1000 years) after Antarctic temperature during glacial terminations. These terminations are pronounced warming periods that mark the ends of the ice ages that happen every 100,000 years or so.
Does this prove that CO2 doesn't cause global warming? The answer is no.

The reason has to do with the fact that the warmings take about 5000 years to be complete. The lag is only 800 years. All that the lag shows is that CO2 did not cause the first 800 years of warming, out of the 5000 year trend. The other 4200 years of warming could in fact have been caused by CO2, as far as we can tell from this ice core data.
The 4200 years of warming make up about 5/6 of the total warming. So CO2 could have caused the last 5/6 of the warming, but could not have caused the first 1/6 of the warming.
It comes as no surprise that other factors besides CO2 affect climate. Changes in the amount of summer sunshine, due to changes in the Earth's orbit around the sun that happen every 21,000 years, have long been known to affect the comings and goings of ice ages. Atlantic ocean circulation slowdowns are thought to warm Antarctica, also.
From studying all the available data (not just ice cores), the probable sequence of events at a termination goes something like this. Some (currently unknown) process causes Antarctica and the surrounding ocean to warm. This process also causes CO2 to start rising, about 800 years later. Then CO2 further warms the whole planet, because of its heat-trapping properties. This leads to even further CO2 release. So CO2 during ice ages should be thought of as a "feedback", much like the feedback that results from putting a microphone too near to a loudspeaker.
In other words, CO2 does not initiate the warmings, but acts as an amplifier once they are underway. From model estimates, CO2 (along with other greenhouse gases CH4 and N2O) causes about half of the full glacial-to-interglacial warming.

[quote]
Weather Channel Founder: Global Warming �Greatest Scam in History�

John Coleman
"It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it."

Global Warming; It is a SCAM.

Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data to create in allusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same environmental whacko type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the �research� to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims. Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going. Soon they claimed to be a consensus.

__________________
For now we see through a glass, darkly.... 1st Corinthians 13:12

This, according to George Carlin, is the greatest scam in history:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o

Personally, I think global warming is for real, and its happening alot faster than anyone predicted.

__________________
Let Food Be Your Medicine And Medicine Be Your Food.(Hippocrates)

I don't really care if global warming is a scam or not. there are far worse scams to comtemplate than this. I don't think it is a scam perse. Then again all positions are slanted. All news is slanted. And most of all All politicans are slanted. People will bicker about it till the end of time. Sometimes both points of view seem equally valid to me. What is most important to me is that it is now forcing us to look at the planet and our position of domain over it and our responsibility to it, our total existence in a more wholistic manner.

If cleaner air and water and earth come out it then so be it.

Actually we have been coming out of an ice age for quite a while far as I can tell.

The ice-cores from 150,000 years ago tell their own story on who is right or wrong.

https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5314592.stm

https://www.sciencebits.com/IceCoreTruth

Yeah, but I think the issue here is whether man had anything to do with it, and thus, whether man can do anything about it. I think the facts show that the globe cools, and the globe warms, in spite of what man does.

This is not to mean that we should be uncaring for our environment. But neither should it mean that we impose crippling rules and policies such as the Kyoto protocol (which even Kyoto would not follow), supposedly to limit global warming, when in fact man has nothing to do with it at all. And neither will such crippling policies affect the global temperature.

As shown in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Io-Tb7vTamY , everyone believed we were in an irreversible state of global cooling in the '70s. Now we are in a state of "irreversible" global warming.

As one climatologist is quoted in that video clip, "Climate changes... get used to it."

Gerry

We are told that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that it traps and holds heat in the air and that we are adding ever and ever greater amounts of it into our atmosphere. From this one can only assume that there must be a huge amount of it in the air.

So if you were to take a box and fill it with air, then separate it into its individual gases, by volume what would you have? Well approximately 79% of your box would contain Nitrogen. About 20% would contain oxygen. And .03% would contain the CO2. Plus there would be traces amounts of other rare gases.

Is reasonable that this fraction of a percent of CO2 is really causing all the problems that are attributed to it?

If so then maybe we should consider this. When an average person inhales this .03% CO2 laden air by the time they exhale they have increased the CO2 content to approximately 5%.

Therefore to save the planet we need to start an education program to convince people, particular the environmentalists to stop breathing as this is the best way that they can show that they really care about the earth.