Acute Disorder

Law of unintended consequences

Archive for the ‘Climate’ Category

Exhalation of Carbon Dioxide

without comments

Exhalation at 40,000 parts per million!
Anthony Bright-Paul

I looked it up – I was curious. How many times does a normal healthy human being breathe in and breathe out in just one minute? Well, Google tells me that we exhale (that means breathe out for the scientifically illiterate friends of mine on Facebook) some fifteen to twenty times in one minute.

Let us take the lower number. What is 15 x 60? It equals 900 exhalations in every hour! Let us now multiply 900 by 24 to get the number of breaths in 24 hours. That comes to 21,600 exhalations of Carbon Dioxide at 40,000 parts per million in one single day by one average person.

The total world population is presently reckoned to be 7.4 billion. And rising! You do the maths for that!

Now, all the animal kingdom and all the bacteria also inhale Oxygen and exhale Carbon Dioxide. And all the green plants and plankton just love this Carbon Dioxide and provide Oxygen for us humans to breathe. I love my Carbon Dioxide since plants love my Carbon Dioxide – the question is ‘Do you?’

Am I a Climate Scientist? Answer: No, I am not. Question: Is Al Gore a Climate Scientist? Answer: No, he is a politician. Is there such an animal as a ‘climate scientist?’ That is a moot question. The three principal sciences are Biology, Chemistry and Physics. Professor Tim Ball has a degree in Geography but is also known as a Climatologist – that is to say, someone who attempts to garner and preserve data about past climates. This is unlike those who will neither reveal their metadata nor how, by all accounts, they unintentionally lose it. For full details please read by John O’Sullivan. But we can say is that there are Meteorologists, Marine Geologists and Astrophysicists, but it is only ignoramuses who talk about climate scientists. It does not exist as a discrete field of science!

The Global Warmers, or I should say the man-made Global Warmers, froth and foam about Carbon Dioxide. There is a lot that can be done with Carbon Dioxide. It can be made into dry ice that is colder than water ice. It can be liquefied for ease of transport. It can be used in any number of carbonated drinks like coca-cola or tonic water that goes so well with gin! In common with all molecules it will warm up with infrared and likewise cool by radiation.

If anyone dare suggest that what is said about ‘climate sensitivity’ is just poor science, they get called a ‘denier’. I tell you what – count me in! I deny absolutely that Carbon Dioxide has any warming properties whatsoever. A molecule may be warmed for a nano-second, but it cannot generate heat and it cannot capture or trap heat – that is an impossibility. Even highly intelligent people get caught on that one. One may capture a substance, but it is impossible to trap a transfer of kinetic energy. In fact these transfers of kinetic energy are ongoing, everywhere without cessation. Just everything is seeking an equilibrium that is never attained.

There is only one entity that can warm the Globe with its radiation and that is the Sun. So who are the real deniers? Who are the deceivers? Who are the tricksters and mountebanks who deny the absolute supreme power of the Sun? None other than the Warmists, the Anthropogenic Global Warmers, who imagine that they can control the already fraudulent global temperature, by making laws regulating the amount of atmospheric Carbon Dioxide.

We already know that the total amount of atmospheric Carbon Dioxide is only 0.04% of the atmosphere, agreed by both sides of the argument. We also know that the figure for the human contribution from the IPCC is but 2.9%. If we round this up to 3%, then the total human contribution from the burning of fossil fuels amounts to 0.0012%, an amount that is so derisory that it is laughable. Well it would be laughable were it not for the fact that in conference after conference, as COP22, the Warmists attempt to impose upon the nations of the world draconian measures, designed specifically to torpedo Western civilisation and incidentally to impoverish the citizens of the Third World.

How long have we had to put up with their gormless drivel? Not any more – their day of reckoning has come. Even James Hansen admits that the attempts to reduce emissions of Carbon Dioxide are an exercise in futility. Yet he persists. The President-elect of the United States has chosen a team of well known so called Contrarians and Deniers, who regard the doctrine of man-made Global warming as a false science. Or so it appears. I am holding my breath until January 20th. 2017 should be an interesting year!

Anthony Bright-Paul
Friday, 16 December 2016

Postscript: –

Our current scientific understanding of global warming and climate change impacts are not the domain of one, quirky field called ‘climate science’. In fact, it doesn’t even exist as a discrete field of science.

Written by anubis

December 24th, 2016 at 8:19 am

Posted in Climate,Politics

Climate Hoax

without comments

The Science is Settled
Anthony Bright-Paul

The Warmists are very fond of saying ‘The Science is settled’ and in point of fact they are largely right. Between the Warmists and the Skeptics there is a great deal of agreement on the science. The disagreements mostly come over the use or abuse of the English language. Just as one small example, many of the Warmists are unable apparently to distinguish between ‘causation’ and ‘correlation’. That is a matter of linguistics and not of science per se.

In the comments on an article of mine in ‘American Thinker’ a certain gnome has taken me to task for not being a scientist. Believe me, I have never pretended to be one. But I am interested in the use of words, and try to use words that connect clearly with meaning. So as a layman I wrote about climate not as a scientist, but as a layman for laymen.

Anyone who has read my book ‘Climate for the Layman’ will see that I have relied for the science heavily on my mentors – Professor Tim Ball, Professor Bob Carter (now deceased), and now for some long time Hans Schreuder, Analytical Chemist. These are supported by articles and excerpts from Professor John Christy; Stephen Wilde, Meteorology; Dr David Evans; John Droz Jr, Physicist; Astrophysicist James Peden; Piers Corbyn, Physicist; Johnny Ball, Mathematician; Rev. Philip Foster, both scientist and Biblical scholar; Norman Kalmanovich and Professor Les Woodcock. Anybody can look these personages up on Google to see their full qualifications. These are just a few of the scientists who have contributed to my book, which more correctly should be called their book, but which I put together, or collated together with some of my own articles.

However, some of these scientists have been kind enough to say that I have expressed some scientific ideas in a layman language sufficiently well to grace such sites as Principia Scientific and others.

Let us return to the theme ‘The Science is settled’ and see if we can trace out just where both the Warmists and the Skeptics agree, and having first done that we can perhaps then see clearly where they disagree, and we can then see if it is over science or over language, that is to say a matter of semantics.

  • We all agree now that the globe is rotating on its own axis as it travels round the Sun at some 66,000 miles an hour. Since I am not a scientist I have to take it as read, that these suppositions are true, though it is well to remember that it was only a short time ago that you could be put upon the rack and tortured for even believing that the Earth was not the centre of the Universe.
  • All scientists now agree that the Sun is between 91 and 95 million miles away, according to Earth’s elliptical swing. They also agree that the corona of the Sun is circa 6,500ºC and that the Sun is some 3,600 times larger than the Planet Earth.
  • Warmists and Skeptics also agree that Outer Space is a vacuum, through which radiation (not heat) from the Sun travels.
  • All scientists also agree that there are 4 levels of atmosphere, – in descending order, the Thermosphere, the Mesosphere, the Stratosphere and finally the Troposphere, where our weather occurs. All are agreed that the distance from the surface of the Earth to Outer Space is approximately 100kms or 66 miles.
  • The composition of the atmosphere is also a matter of agreement. Both sides agree that the composition is roughly divided between Oxygen O2 and Nitrogen N2 together at 99% and the Greenhouse Gases at only 1%. It is important to note that Carbon Dioxide is only 0.04% of the atmosphere. Both sides in general agree these figures.
  • Both sides agree that Nitrogen and Oxygen are transparent to radiation, both incoming and outgoing. That means that radiation passes through them until it (radiation) collides with mass. Now this last bit is where I, as a layman, first got lost. The concept of Physics that radiation has to collide with mass to produce heat is a difficult one not just for a layman, but also for many well-educated humans. It took Hans Schreuder to explain to me that the Sun does not send heat through space but radiation. Believe me I could not grasp this concept at first, believing that infrared was the ‘hot’ part of radiation. Physicists will smile at my naiveté. Infrared is not hot, just as electricity is not hot, but both will produce heat when encountering a resistance.
  • Unlike O2 and N2, the Greenhouse Gases are di-polar in structure, which allows them to absorb and radiate. This means that unlike Oxygen and Nitrogen, they absorb infrared and so warm up. That includes Water Vapour, Carbon Dioxide and Methane. All molecules above absolute zero absorb infrared and likewise radiate away, thus cooling. As far as I knows nobody on either side disputes any of this science.
  • So now we can see that there are huge areas where scientists on both sides are in full agreement. However when we come to questions like the Greenhouse Effect we encounter great differences.

    Let us look at what the BBC website says: –
    The greenhouse effect is the natural process by which the atmosphere traps some of the Sun’s energy, warming the Earth enough to support life. Most mainstream scientists believe a human-driven increase in “greenhouse gases” is increasing the effect artificially

    Let us look at this a bit critically – traps some of the earth’s energy. Really? How does it do this ‘trapping’? Immediately we can see that this is not scientific – it is political. Warming the Earth enough to support life? No, this is not science. It is a sort of wishy-washy opinion. Then it goes on ‘Most mainstream scientists believe …
    Of course, belief is not science – this statement is just political poppycock. Sure, all scientists accept that the ill-named Greenhouse Gases absorb and emit infrared – that is one thing, it is quite another to suggest that this results in further warming of the Earth below. Even a layman can see the frailty of this proposition, since we also know that hot air rises, just as hot water rises. Therefore, if these molecules say at 500ft are warmed – no, no that is wrong – if as a result of a photon of infrared from the Earth’s surface some warmth is produced, then what is warmed will rise up by Convection and cool.

    The idea that a molecule of Carbon Dioxide could trap heat is also completely unacceptable, since heat is defined as the transfer of kinetic energy. A substance may be trapped, but a transfer cannot.

    The wizards at the BBC may be able to trap a ‘transfer’, but such an idea is ludicrous and infantile. In any case, such a proposition would defy the 2nd law of Thermodynamics – all heat by itself flows from hot to cold. Whoever thought of ‘trapping’ heat? The concept is too silly for words – remembering also that every molecule above absolute zero will radiate and in so doing cool.

    There is even a ludicrous illustration purporting to show how the Greenhouse Effect works, with a barrier hovering halfway up in the sky. Dear oh dear! This is just such manifest nonsense that it is difficult to believe that this was put out seriously and illustrated.
    So we can see that where the laws of science are followed there is complete agreement between scientists. But where politics intervene, where corrupt scientists have as their brief to prove that certain gases cause the Earth below to warm, their arguments just do not add up. In fact they are pitiful. Yet because these lies have been repeated again and again, thousands, nay millions, of people are deceived and believe them.

    The science is settled and the laws of science cannot be gainsaid. But the political shenanigans are just sick making. Man-made Global Warming is not just a hoax, it is a political scam that has affected all mankind and made many of them mad. Praise be, that there are one or two who have not been deceived.
    So the science is settled all right, but the idea that there is some sort of barrier in the Troposphere forming the Greenhouse Effect is utter, unmitigated rubbish. See picture below, on the BBC website.
    Anthony Bright-Paul
    Wednesday, 07 December 2016

    Written by anubis

    December 9th, 2016 at 3:03 am

    Posted in Climate

    Jury Nullification

    without comments

    Very elegantly put, although very amusing since CO2 emissions are not responsible for damaging the planet.

    Members of the jury.

    I’m going to try to summarise why we feel that we are not guilty, why we feel that what we did was right, despite the very proper laws against obstructing trains, why we feel that it was the wrong decision of the Crown Prosecution Service to prosecute us in this case, and why we don’t feel that we are guilty of a crime.

    I want to start by responding to your request for clarification yesterday about “lawful excuse”. His honour may say [in his summing up] that it’s true that there are ways in law to make space for circumstances, to allow a bigger picture to be considered.

    These ways can have different names for different offences — so for example “lawful excuse”, which you asked about yesterday, applies only to the charge of criminal damage. For example, last September, a jury in Kent found six protesters not guilty of committing £30,000 worth of criminal damage to Kingsnorth coal-fired power station, since the group were acting to prevent a greater crime. Those on trial did not disagree that criminal damage is a crime, just that, in certain circumstances, it may be necessary and proportionate to cause some damage to prevent a great crime. That jury agreed.

    His honour may explain that there is a legal defence of “necessity”, that applies to most laws, and that it was on the basis of “necessity” — the fact that we believed our actions were going to save lives and that we had to act — that we prepared a legal defence before this trial. Along with many legal professionals we were very disappointed by his honour’s decision prior to the trial that this defence was not available to us in law. Nonetheless we decided not to appeal against it. We felt that you the jury would be free to decide on the facts of a case as you find them – and not just the ones his honour tells you are relevant.

    It’s up to you to decide whether what we did was necessary. I would like to emphasise to you that we believed and we still believe that it was urgently necessary to do what we did, and proportionate to the scale of the problem, that the consequences of that train taking coal into Drax are so serious that any reasonable person would understand our reasons for stopping it. To help explain why we were so sure of the links between Drax’s activities and deaths around the world we had expert witnesses lined up to talk to you about the immediate and ongoing harm that Drax’s emissions cause. However from what evidence we have been able to get across to you, with his honour’s indulgence, we hope that you can see that these facts speak for themselves, and our actions, though harmful, were indeed necessary to try to stop a greater harm. And if you agree with that then you still have a legal right – as the jury – to find us not guilty.

    You’ve heard it said already I think, that the judge decides about the law, but the jury decide about the facts. What does that mean? It means you the jury can decide as you see fit. You the jury have a constitutional right to follow your own judgement and not necessarily follow the judge’s directions to find us guilty. In other words, you get to make the final decision. In law this principle is called the jury’s power of nullification, and it’s been a right that has been regularly used over the years when juries have felt the law has been applied harshly, or inappropriately, or unjustly, or incorrectly.

    Perhaps I can explain this with a quote from a very senior judge, Lord Denning. He said:

    “This principle was established as long ago as 1670 in a celebrated case of the Quakers, William Penn and William Mead. All that they had done was to preach in London on a Sunday afternoon. They were charged with causing an unlawful and tumultuous assembly there. The judge directed the jury to find the Quakers guilty, but they refused. The Jury said Penn was guilty of preaching, but not of unlawful assembly. The Judge refused to accept this verdict. He threatened them with all sorts of pains and punishments. He kept them ‘all night without meat, drink, fire, or other accommodation: they had not so much as a chamber pot, though desired’. They still refused to find the Quakers guilty of an unlawful assembly. He kept them another night and still they refused. He then commanded each to answer to his name and give his verdict separately. Each gave his verdict ‘Not Guilty’. For this the judge fined them 40 marks apiece and cast them into prison until it was paid. One of them Edward Bushell, thereupon brought his (case) before the Court of the King’s Bench. It was there held that no judge had any right to imprison a juryman for finding against his direction on a point of law; for the judge could never direct what the law was without knowing the facts, and of the facts the jury were the sole judge. The jury were thereupon set free.”

    This was affirmed as recently as 2005, in relation to the case of Wang, where a committee of Law Lords in the highest court in the land, the House of Lords, concluded that: “there are no circumstances in which a judge is entitled to direct a jury to return a verdict of guilty”. So you do have that right to decide for yourselves. And unlike in 1670, his honour won’t be able to fine you, or put you in prison for making what he sees as the wrong decision.

    There have been many cases over the years where juries have decided, on reflecting more broadly, to find people not guilty despite directions from the judge. For example, the case of Zelter and others who were accused of damage to an aircraft about to be used for bombing civilians. In all of these and others the judge said that the defendants admitted the offence and so must be found guilty. But the jury chose to look outside the limited view of the court room, and to find them not guilty.

    The freedom that you have is what enables the law, where necessary, to move forward. It is what allows you to look beyond the confines of this court to the wider world, and to make a judgement based not just on law, but to make a judgement based on justice. Justice is the force that underpins and breathes life into the law, and it is your role as the jury to see that justice as you see it is done.

    We all know that times change, and what was acceptable in one era may not be acceptable in another. You have heard of how it was once legal to own other people, how it was illegal for women to vote. Well one way or another we are going to have to stop burning coal and move on from the fossil fuel era. And that means that the law will eventually have to change and acknowledge the harm that carbon emissions do to all of us, by making them illegal. The only question is whether the law will catch up in time for there to be anything left to protect.

    We are not trying to tell you how to decide. We are only trying to say that it is up to you, and we are grateful for that.

    I want you to think back to that situation of there being a person on the tracks ahead of that train going on its way to Drax. Members of the Jury, it may sound like a strange thing to say but in truth there is a person on the branch line to Drax. The prosecution have not challenged the facts we presented to you on oath about the consequences of burning coal at Drax. 180 human lives lost every year, species lost forever. There is a direct, unequivocal, proven link between the emissions of carbon dioxide at this power station and the appalling consequences of climate change. That many of those consequences impact on the poor of other nations or people in Hull we don’t know and should not in any way negate the reality of this suffering. We got on that train to stop those emissions, because all other methods in our democracy were failing. Just because we don’t know the name of the person on the tracks or where they live or the exact time and day of their dying, does not in our view mean they are less worthy of protection.

    We don’t dispute that there’s a law against obstructing trains. We don’t dispute that obstructing trains is a crime and should continue to be a crime. We just argue that in this case, we should not be found guilty of a crime for trying to block this train on its way to Drax.

    On Tuesday the prosecution argued that what we did was quite simply a crime, and as a result we should be found guilty. They were trying to suggest that if you find us not guilty, the whole world would fall apart. We argue that the more likely route to the whole world falling apart is if we continue burning coal in the enormous quantities that it is being burnt at Drax.

    His honour may say that we have been telling you stories, that we are trying to introduce emotions into the trial to distort the evidence. But we have been telling you the facts. If those facts move you, that’s because they are moving, and they are what moved us to do what we did.

    We are happy to be judged by you, the jury.

    Thank you for taking the time to listen to us.

    Written by anubis

    October 1st, 2016 at 10:02 pm

    Climate Change

    without comments

    It’s simple.
    1. All energy on earth comes (or came) from the Sun, in the form of electromagnetic radiation of various spectra.
    2. The source of this radiation varies cyclically due to numerous factors such as the variation in the speed of rotation of the sun’s core versus its surface; tidal effects of the planetary gravitational forces
    on the sun’s surface; coupled with the Sun’s axial rotation; the ‘boiling’ phenomenon of the body of the Sun itself, manifesting as flow from the core to the surface and back again; sunspots(themselves cyclically linked to the period of the orbit of Jupiter) ; etc.
    3. Electromagnetic radiation emitted by the Sun travels through space to the earth in waves of varying length, and type and intensity.
    4. Thus, there is variability in the amount and type of energy reaching the earth. Some of these cycles are very long, from just a few years up to hundreds and thousands of years.
    5. The effects of these changes in solar radiation striking the earth (which includes its atmosphere) are different at different times due to the changing state of the earth itself, which itself varies cyclically in a lagged response to the varying energy reaching it from the sun, which has set up a non-harmonic resonance between the earth’s cycles and the sun’s. In other words there is a non-linear relationship between the solar radiation reaching the earth and its effects.
    6. The earth’s magnetic field is powered by this electromagnetic energy.
    7. When Solar activity is low, the earth’s magnetic field is weaker.
    8. Because the earth’s magnetic field is weaker, more cosmic rays, i.e. rays emanating from deep space – exploding stars etc., enter our atmosphere.
    9. These cosmic rays passing through our atmosphere impact the water droplets in the atmosphere, causing the formation of aerosols.
    10. Aerosols are necessary for cloud formation, since the water vapour cannot condense on its own unless it has something onto which it can condense. These aerosols are what it condenses onto.
    11. More aerosols equals more clouds. So cloud formation is directly correlated to the Sun’s activity. Weak activity equates to more cloud formation, higher levels of solar activity equates to fewer clouds.
    12. Clouds formed in this way reflect energy back out into space, thereby causing the climate to cool.
    13. When the Sun’s activity is stronger, the electromagnetic field of the earth is stronger, and this acts as a shield for the atmosphere, causing more cosmic rays to be bounced back into space and so there is less cloud formation and the atmosphere heats up.
    14. Any a priori presumption of stability of the earth’s temperature is ludicrous, borne out by historical evidence of ice ages and warm periods. One trivial example is the Roman vineyard near Leeds. And the reason Greenland was called Greenland by the Vikings who sailed there..(clue: because it was green, not covered in ice, as now). These changes obviously occurred independently of any man made impact on the make-up of the earth’s atmosphere.
    15. What is the total amount of CO2 as a percentage of the earth’s atmosphere ?? (Answer : 0.039%).
    16. H2O is 0.25% of the earth’s atmosphere.
    17. If the earth is a receptor for energy flow, and that flow varies quite considerably over long and short periods, consider whether this is the more likely cause of variability in earth’s climate or whether the relatively recent phenomenon of possibly increasing CO2 is responsible.
    18. We’re actually heading for a new Ice Age. Maybe you’ve noticed it’s been a bit cooler lately.

    Here’s a brilliant movie produced by Henrik Svensmark, the originator of the Cloud Effect Theory. Here

    OK.. I would like to add that I’m not a rabid arguer in favour of the above (I try to steer clear of rabid anything!). I’ve never really been one for trying to convert people to my view at all costs, since I recognize all humans are fallible. I pretty much try to observe the situation and diplomatically say what I feel and explain the reasons why and then agree to disagree if people don’t see it my way.

    Thus, I’m not a climate change skeptic.

    The climate changes as it always has and will continue to do so. I am just very fairly certain that CO2 is not the CAUSE.

    In reference to my point 7 above, here’s a Wikipedia link. To save you the click, here’s the important bit.
    Carbon dioxide (chemical formula CO2) is a naturally occurring chemical compound composed of two oxygen atoms covalently bonded to a single carbon atom. It is a gas at standard temperature and pressure and exists in Earth’s atmosphere in this state, as a trace gas at a concentration of 0.039 per cent by volume.[1]

    0.039% !!!!!!.

    0.039% of the atmosphere versus massive variability in the flow of the source of all energy powering this planet. Hmmmmm….

    Furthermore, regardless of what you or I think, China is building 50 new coal fired power stations, so the amount of this trace gas being generated by humans and pumped into the atmosphere is going to rise not fall. We’re just passengers.

    I would also add that from a risk perspective, the more negative outcome for humanity is an ice age not a warm period. Vineyards in Yorkshire vs. low yields in wheat crops, poor harvests and high food prices, mass human starvation etc etc.

    We can’t influence the climate. The eventual resolution is baked in. I think it’s another example of mankind having a huge ego trip akin to believing that the Sun orbits the Earth and not vice versa.
    Everything is cyclical. Here’s a solar cycle chart showing temperature correlated to solar activity and extrapolated forward.

    That’s why I think it’s going to get colder over the next 15 to 20 years, not the other way round.

    Of course I could be wrong. What a fool.

    Written by anubis

    May 22nd, 2013 at 6:38 pm

    Posted in Climate

    Weather Cycle

    without comments

    click to enlarge.

    Written by anubis

    May 11th, 2013 at 5:39 pm

    Posted in Climate

    Climate Change

    without comments


    1. The world is cooling and has been for between 4 and 15 years depending on how you look at the data; while CO2 has been rising.

    2. There is no evidence in real data (or even in the warmists ‘standard’ fiddled data) going back hundreds, thousands or a million years from the real world that CO2 increases have led to temperature increases.

    3. The CO2 warmists have been challenged many times to produce such real data based evidence (not bluster and ‘It must-be’ claims) and failed.
    For the latest challenge directed at Sir John Beddington (BBC link below**) please see the WeatherActionTV video.

    4. The warmists claims that ‘warm means cold’ and CO2 drives extreme events is a stack of brazen lies. They claim extreme weather events explicitly correctly predicted months ahead via solar activity were somehow caused by CO2. They have no evidence for their claim, or if they think they have we must conclude that Man’s piffling increase of the concentration of the trace gas CO2 on earth from 0.030% to 0.031% has caused various solar-coronal events (which themselves were in fact predicted by WeatherAction and not by the CO2 warmists)!

    5. The CO2 warmist theory of Man-Made Climate Change is a delusion.

    6. ALL the changes in Jet Stream circulation, world temperatures and extreme weather events predicted by WeatherAction in the descent to a new Mini Ice Age have been and are being confirmed. Yet, the IPCC, UN and UK Government (especially the LibDem wing of it) are pointing the world in the wrong direction – ie to assume warming when cooling is the reality – and are engaged in organised theft from the public and holding-back of third world development in the name of a delusion.

    ** The BBC Link article carrying Sir John Beddington’s direct lie ” “The evidence that (man-made CO2) climate change is happening is completely unequivocal.” is:

    Piers says: There is no real data evidence in the world supporting their claim that CO2 changes drive temperature and climate changes. What the warmists do is play a game of smoke and mirrors.

    Para below recently shown in Tweeted article from Arizona Farm Bureau

    They report various events and facts usually with extremist innuendo. Their media leaders BBC, Independent, Guardian , New York Times, eg, make statements like “Scientists report (various alarmist facts…”; “Scientists estimate that IF (Greenland/arctic melts, sea level rises, temps rise…. etc) THEN (…end of world etc)…” – without telling you that the various scenarios will NOT happen and refer to the “PROBLEM” of “CO2″, “Climate Change”. NOWHERE (whatever the headlines claim) is their EVIDENCE that CO2 is doing and has done in the RERAL WORLD what they claim. There is on the other hand firm evidence of the opposite – ie that world (sea) temperatures in the long run control CO2 levels – See Presentation to Parliament Select Committee on supercold Dec 2010 predicted by WeatherAction- via WANews11No5 –

    Please pass on this information and raise these points with others.
    For further information see also – eg Readers feedback on latest Comments; and news pdfs:-

    SEA ICE & THE MINI ICE AGE – THE FACTS (Further to Video of Piers)

    i. Added 08.04.13

    ii. The Truth Behind the Shrinking Arctic Ice Cap – Facts paint a different picture – Brilliant piece by Joe Bastardi – (Sept 13 2012)

    iii. – issued The Ides of March 2013:-

    Written by anubis

    May 11th, 2013 at 1:04 pm

    Posted in Climate

    Global warming…. Not !

    without comments

    By Christopher Booker here

    5:15PM BST 27 Apr 2013

    Last week it was reported that 3,318 places in the USA had recorded their lowest temperatures for this time of year since records began. Similar record cold was experienced by places in every province of Canada. So cold has the Russian winter been that Moscow had its deepest snowfall in 134 years of observations. Here in Britain, where we had our fifth freezing winter in a row, the Central England Temperature record – according to an expert analysis on the US science blog Watts Up With That – shows that in this century, average winter temperatures have dropped by 1.45C, more than twice as much as their rise between 1850 and 1999, and twice as much as the entire net rise in global temperatures recorded in the 20th century.

    But, hang on, it wasn’t meant to be like this. Weren’t we told that, thanks to all that carbon dioxide we are pumping into the air, the world was faced with global warming; that, according to the computer models, temperatures were due to rise by at least 0.3C every decade; and that snowfall in Britain was “a thing of the past”?

    Wasn’t it to meet this unprecedented threat that our MPs voted almost unanimously for the Climate Change Act? Weren’t we meant to be “giving a lead to the world” by cutting our CO2 emissions by 80 per cent in 40 years, doubling our electricity bills by heaping taxes on fossil fuels, and spending hundreds of billions on subsidising all of those 32,000 wind turbines?

    Somehow oblivious to this, the world’s emissions of CO2 have continued to hurtle upward, by 50 per cent since 1990. Yet global temperatures have obstinately failed to rise. Attempts to get a global agreement on cutting CO2 emissions have collapsed. Pretty well every developed country, apart from Britain, is going flat out to build more fossil-fuelled power stations – leaving our own politicians almost alone in the world, with their fantasy that, by “decarbonising” our economy at unimaginable cost, we can still somehow give everyone else a lead in changing the earth’s climate.

    Has there ever in history been such an almighty disconnect between observable reality and the delusions of a political class that is quite impervious to any rational discussion? This was superbly illustrated by two Commons debates on Thursday April 18, when for the first time we had an MP, Peter Lilley, standing up in Parliament to confront the rest of them with an utterly withering blast of reality. [Scroll down to where it says 18th April 2013 Column 148WH and Peter Lilley begins speaking at 2:13].

    On one side were those still lost in their bubble of make-believe, led by Tim Yeo, the man who earns £200,000 a year on the side lobbying for firms in the “renewable” industry. On the other was Lilley, simply mocking them all, pointing out with facts and figures just how “united in lunacy” they had become. When Yeo claimed that China has “some of the most ambitious decarbonisation plans in the world” (without admitting that he is paid up to £1,000 an hour by a firm trying to sell feedstocks to China for biofuels), Lilley reminded him that China is now adding more CO2 to the air every year than all Britain’s emissions put together, and that by 2030 it will be responsible for half the world’s total emissions. So contemptuous was Lilley, and even at times so funny, that his speeches are well worth reading in full on the Commons website.

    But, by golly, when one sees what childish idiocies were being parroted by all those MPs around him, it brings home just what a problem this collective flight from reality is presenting us with.

    Written by anubis

    May 1st, 2013 at 5:52 pm

    Posted in Climate,Politics