April 2024

Oh no! The Warmies are getting hot under the collar again!

(Wednesday/Thursday blog)

We’re gonna get cooked!

Great week for the Warmies. The BBC are claiming that 2017 may be one of the hottest 3 years since records began. And I think there’s a Warmies’ meeting in Fiji. (How nice – I wonder why they never have these meetings in the Arctic or even Greenland? Perhaps the hotels aren’t up to the standard the juncketing Warmies’ have become accustomed to?)

Anyway, apparently the purpose of the Fiji meeting (apart from lots of free booze, free food, sun and cheap sex) is for the world’s most corrupt (and therefore poor) countries to extract billions from richer, less corrupt countries as supposed ‘compensation’ for the supposed ‘destruction’ caused by supposed Anthropogenic (Man-Made) Global Warming.

We’re gonna freeze!

Do you remember the 70s? Great rock music and free love for everybody except for me. There was one other important event in the 70s – the absolute certainty of most climate experts that the world was heading ineluctably into a New Ice Age:

To justify their claims, the supposed ‘scientists’ used both ground temperature measurements and satellite data:

So there was no possibility of them getting this prediction wrong. And most of the supposedly serious press were soon full of grim warnings about the New Ice Age. Here’s Time magazine:

And here’s Science and Mechanics:

What happened to the New Ice Age? Search me, I’m still waiting for it.

We’re gonna get cooked!

Of course, none of the supposed climate scientists ever mention their predictions of a New Ice Age anymore. They’re too busy getting generous grants and awards for predicting catastrophic Man-Made Global Warming. And the press have picked up the “we’re gonna get cooked!” narrative just as keenly as they reported the 1970s “we’re gonna freeze!” story:

In the 1970s a gentleman called John P. Holdren became quite well known for being a leading expert on the coming New Ice Age and wrote a series of articles in which he predicted that the cold weather would lead to crop failures in Northern Europe and the US and these would result in starvation and a mass movement of people from North to South.

Given the fact that the New Ice Age stuff was all total bollox, you might have thought that Mr Holdren and friends would have crept away in embarrassment never to be heard from again. How wrong you would have been. Showing the flexibility of thought that ensures success in the ‘scientific’ world, Mr Holdren became a leading figure in the “We’re gonna get cooked!” Warmie movement and even served, probably lucratively, as President Obummer’s scientific advisor on Man-Made Global Warming.

A little sanity?

When the Warmies produce their charts showing the supposedly ‘massive’ rise in atmospheric CO2 since the Industrial Revolution, these always look very dramatic:

But the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere was 280 ppm (parts per million) (0.028%) during the 10,000 years up to the mid-18th century, increasing to 407 ppm (0.041%) as of mid-2017.

Let me try to put this into context. If you had a salary of say £50,000 and you got a salary increase of 0.041% (407 ppm) you’d get an extra £20 a year. 0.041% is small, very small, Yet the Warmies are claiming that an increase of CO2 from 280 ppm to 407 ppm will be catastrophic for our planet.

Not only will this increase in something that makes up a tiny part of our atmosphere not be catastrophic, it may actually have benefits by improving crop yields.

There’s neither the time nor space here to provide a fuller debunking of the Warmies’ seemingly endless torrent of bollox. But surely the fact that some leading Warmie ‘scientists’ were once just as convinced of a New Ice Age as they now are of Man-Made Global Warming should perhaps cause people to have more than a niggling doubt about the Warmie scientists’ credibility?

Of course, the climate is changing. It always has and always will. But it is questionable whether human activity has any influence on the climate. It’s more likely that things like solar activity are the main influence on our climate.

The BBC and Channel 4 may believe the Warmie nonsense – but we don’t have to.

8 comments to Oh no! The Warmies are getting hot under the collar again!

  • Julia Green

    I can’t be bothered to check but didn’t the jet setting, multiple house owning Al Gore predict climate armageddon ‘in 10 year’s time’ in his 2006 film? We’re still waiting, 11 years later. Oh, some light rain outside, maybe this is it?

  • twi5ted

    Noted this comment on WUWT’ site after similar blog on the globalist approved UN championed warming “religion”.

    “Its madness to you and I, but to the ‘establishment’ its just a means of extracting ‘rent’ from the plebs with little or no risk through taxation and utility prices.

    Fairness, economic logic, even national security of supply ( now there is one you don’t hear often these days) are gone. Its feudal ‘rape and pillage’ wrapped up as eco-virtue”

  • chris

    I’ve often wondered why the atmospheric CO2 is measured at a volcano. Mauna Loa. Can we really believe that the NOAA accurately deducts from its calculations the CO2 emitted from the volcano? Proof of its dishonesty is in the graphs on the NOAA website. They fraudulently exaggerate the percentage rise in CO2 by using 280ppm as the starting point instead of zero.

    But in any case, CO2 is plant food, not poison, so we get better crops and greenery in marginal climates. Tomato growers flood their greenhouses with it. A warmer UK will mean fewer deaths in winter from hypothermia. Global warming is not the threat, the threat is from the hysterical media which, as in so many instances, propagandises fear so as to manipulate our opinions and lives.

  • MGJ

    Consensus science, accepted fact:

    The Arctic will be ice-free by 2007…wait 2011…


    IPCC wants over half a quadrillion dollars to combat this. I’m not making it up: $560 trillion.

    They won’t give up easily but the fraud is getting harder and harder to sustain.

  • Barry Foster

    There are put-down arguments one can use against an opponent. In the case of Brexit, it is simply (to a remoaner): What population would you like us to have? The remoaner is instantly backed into a corner. When I’ve posed the question (so many times in the past two years) still no one has answered it! Similarly, when talking to a warmist, simply ask them:
    “How come, with all the CO2 we’ve emitted, in the past decade especially, the temperature has only gone up by less than 1 degree C? Surely, if CO2 is that potent, we should be seeing serious rises in temperature right now? Instead, the lower troposphere is still only showing a rise of 0.13 degrees C per decade, with no increase in rate. If the theory is true, then the lower troposphere should be heating up at a rate 1.2 times that of the surface at the tropics – which it isn’t. So why aren’t we frying right now?”

    A scientific theory is fine, but if your forecasts turn out wrong then the theory is wrong. It really is THAT simple. I despair that so many scientists support the theory, when it clearly doesn’t hold up.

  • zx80

    What you need to do is laugh yourself silly at the morons who blindly follow the AGW narrative.

    Marvel at their idiocy.

  • Stillreading

    “to the ‘establishment’ its just a means of extracting ‘rent’ from the plebs with little or no risk through taxation and utility prices.
    Fairness, economic logic, even national security of supply (now there is one you don’t hear often these days) are gone. Its feudal ‘rape and pillage’ wrapped up as eco-virtue”

    Got it in one, twi5sted!
    Easy for the “establishment” to perpetrate false eco-myths when preaching to the scientifically illiterate, emotionally-labile congregation which constitutes the vast majority of today’s younger generations. And I include in that definition many of the parents of today’s libtard snowflakes, those who were the first victims of the 1960s’ educational experiment which maintained that all were equal intellectually and that educational elitism was unacceptable. Since then, in a developed world where science is ever more crucial to economic and social survival, teaching of proven scientific fact has been largely replaced in schools throughout the Western world by opinion – just take a look at a physics or biology GCSE paper! A few years ago, Al Gore’s infamous pseudo-documentary was obligatory viewing in UK schools – it may still be, as far as I know. Indoctrination virtually from the cradle! Despite having A levels in science subjects, few youngsters going on to university have the first understanding of statistics and as soon as they arrive they come in many instances under the influence of tree-hugging ivory tower far-lefty tutors, all of whom know well enough which side their bread is buttered and how best to maintain a generous portion of that butter by supporting the “establishment” line on global warming and CO2 emissions.
    Meanwhile we in the UK are having our freedom to travel independently in our personal vehicles of choice increasingly curtailed in the face of burgeoning population growth, wholesale closure of local shops, crippling train fares and ruthless cuts to rural bus services. All this while the Warmie World Leaders jet off yet again to a tropical paradise, thereby producing more CO2 per capita than I produce in my small vehicle in an entire year.

  • Alan Thorpe

    The BBC published more nonsense recently about a record surge in CO2 levels. They reported: “According to experts, the last time the Earth experienced a comparable concentration of CO2 was three to five million years ago, in the mid- Pliocene era. The climate then was 2-3C warmer, and sea levels were 10- 20m higher due to the melting of Greenland and the West Antarctic ice sheets.”

    They don’t seem to realise that they are telling us that it is now 2-3C cooler than it was when CO2 was at the same levels as now. Conclusion is what the real scientists know which is CO2 does not cause the temperature to increase.

Leave a Reply

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>