David Craig, on January 11th, 2018(Thursday/Friday blog)
Recently the BBC got into trouble and was criticised by many including the ever popular, photogenic Professor Brian Cox for allowing Lord Lawson to question the new religion of Man-Made (Anthropogenic) Global Warming. Lord Lawson was called a “crank” and a “climate science denier” for daring the suggest that the whole cult of Anthropogenic Global Warming was rubbish.
I’m getting really fed up of progressive, lefty, holier-than-thou, virtue-signalling liberals and BBC journalists bleating on about people, especially Donald Trump or Lord Lawson, accusing them of being “climate deniers” or “climate change deniers” or “climate science deniers”.
Firstly, the phrase “climate deniers” is totally meaningless. How can you deny the climate? Secondly, the phrase “climate change deniers” is almost as meaningless as I don’t think there is anyone alive who has denied that the climate has always changed, is changing and will always change. Thirdly, I doubt there is anyone alive who would deny that there is such a thing as “climate science” and that science can help us understand the climate. Though there are those who would question the almost religious and intolerant fervour with which some supposed ‘scientists’ are pushing their interpretation of what’s happening with our climate claiming that “the science is settled” and that anyone who disagrees with them should be denied the opportunity to express an opinion and removed from their jobs.
The science was once settled that the Earth was flat and anyone denying that would be burned at the stake! Science is never clear and there is always the possibility of new evidence overturning accepted beliefs.
What I suppose these brainless or brainwashed Warmies are suggesting is that “climate deniers”, “climate change deniers” or “climate science deniers” are people who dare express any skepticism about whether human activity is responsible for changes in the climate. The problem is that by using these handy, but misleading and derogatory phrases, the Warmies deceptively denigrate as idiots and then lambast anyone who doesn’t bow down to their new false god.
In fact, anyone with any intelligence – and I know that excludes most Warmies – can split the Climate Change argument into several clear steps:
1. Is the climate changing? Yes the climate is changing, has always changed and will always change. Moreover, I don’t think there is anyone on this planet who has ever denied that the climate changes, is changing and will always change
2. Can science help us understand the climate? I don’t think there is anyone alive who would deny that scientific analysis, if done honestly, can help us understand what drives changing climate. Though there are many of us who question whether science has been hijacked by a group of vociferous, self-interested cultists who believe that they, and only they, know what is happening with our climate and that nobody but they should be allowed to express any opinions on the subject.
3. Is it getting warmer? In the 1970s, the scientific consensus was that we were headed for a new Mini-Ice Age and this was enthusiastically propagated by most of the media who are now hyperventilating about supposed Global Warming. That didn’t happen, of course. Since then there has been some warming although there was a period of about 11 years (I think) when there was no warming at all. Warming has begun again with 2015, 2016 and 2017 being some of the warmest recorded in recent times. But latest research suggests that changes in solar activity may well soon lead to a period of cooling
4. Is CO2 responsible for Global Warming? It’s true that CO2 levels have risen over the last 30 or so years from about 280 ppm (parts per million) to about 420 ppm. What’s not clear is whether the increasing CO2 is causing warming or whether it is the warming seas that are releasing more CO2 into the atmosphere. Climate cooling tends to reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, warming tends to increase it. The big question here is about cause and effect
5. Is human activity responsible for Global Warming? This seems unlikely. Human activity accounts for only around 4% of atmospheric CO2 – about 16 ppm (that’s only 16 parts per million). If humanity disappeared tomorrow, this would only reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by these 16 ppm per year. It’s more than unlikely that such a small contribution could really change the climate
6. Is the science settled? I think it would be more accurate to say that “the science is fixed” – fixed by faking data to give Hockey-Stick diagrams, fixed by Warmies fiddling their figures to prove their theories, fixed by grant-hungry ‘scientists’ ignoring real life in order to prove their computer models are accurate, fixed by anti-capitalist activists who have hijacked the Global Warming debate to silence anyone who dares question their new religion. You may remember botanist David Bellamy who was (as far as I understand) quickly dropped by the media for daring to question the cult of Man-Made Global Warming when he described it as “poppycock” in an article in 2004. Science is often “fixed” (by dishonest scientists and people with vested interests) but Science seldom “settled” for real scientists as new discoveries and ideas will constantly evolve our understanding, especially with such a complex mechanism as climate.
“But 97% of scientists agree…….”
And finally, let me bore on and deal with the “97% of scientists…” claim. This is a totally bogus figure and was arrived at by the following method:
1. A group of Warmies reviewed about 25,000 scientific articles dealing with the climate. They did not read a single article, they only reviewed the abstracts
2. Based on the abstracts, the Warmies split the articles into 3 main groups – those that claimed human activity was responsible for Climate Change, those that didn’t take a stand on the issue and those that said human activity had no influence on the climate
3. Now come the Warmies’ two big tricks. Around 90% of articles didn’t take a position on whether human activity was responsible for Climate Change, so the Warmies took these out completely from the supposed ‘study’. This left only articles that either blamed human activity or said human activity was not responsible. However, in the ones that blamed human activity, the reviewers included those that explicitly blamed human activity and those the Warmie reviewers interpreted as “implicitly” endorsing the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming
4. Not surprisingly as the reviewers were Warmies and as grants and promotion are linked to whether one accepts the new religion of Anthropogenic Climate Change, about 97% of the remaining articles were interpreted as saying human activity was responsible and about 3% said it wasn’t.
5. So, of all the articles reviewed, only around 9% in fact blamed human activity for Global Warming, 90% didn’t take a position and about 1% said there was no link between human activity and climate.
6. But it would sound a lot less impressive if the Warmies told the truth “9% of scientists agree that Global Warming is caused by human activity”
And anyone who believed the prediction that “our children won’t know what snow looks like anymore” should take a trip to the Alps this weekend – if they can get through all the snow, that is.
Category: 
Worth mention of Anthony Watts who has visited every measuring station in the USA and runs @wattsupwiththat. Measuring stations are amazingly unsophisticated and yet their data is preferred rather than satellites which don’t seem to have found much warming since they were introduced.
He found countless measuring stations that had been moved or were once in a field but now surrounded with concrete and buildings or placed on top of buildings. There is one in the UK near Dartford which always measures warm and it appears to be near a heated water discharge for the power station. The urban heat island effect and for example heathrow is often the hottest recorded place in uk summers.
Its also worth saying that he has found in a lot of countries measuring stations are sparse and so most data at best inferred from the few that exist or worst just made up.
‘Global Warming’ In The Sahara Desert: “We Woke Up To See Snow!”
It snowed 16 inches in the Sahara Desert near the town Ain Sefra in Algeria after a storm hit on Sunday. This is the third time in 40 years that snow has fallen on the city.
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-01-09/global-warming-sahara-desert-we-woke-see-snow
31,000 scientists reject ‘global warming’ agenda
More than 31,000 scientists across the U.S. – including more than 9,000 Ph.D.s in fields such as atmospheric science, climatology, Earth science, environment and dozens of other specialties – have signed a petition rejecting “global warming,” the assumption that the human production of greenhouse gases is damaging Earth’s climate.
“There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate,” the petition states. “Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”
http://www.wnd.com/2008/05/64734/
Finally, last week, on the occasion of the ‘’International Migrants Day’’ the EU Commissioner for Migration, Home Affairs and Citizenship Dimitris Avramopoulos penned an article for Politico,expressing his commitment to open borders migration policies and outlining the EU’s role on the matter: the flow will not be stopped, but managed.
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-01-11/no-eu-not-militarizing-africa-halt-migration-simply-organize-it
The sun drives climate change, no money to be made from that simple truth though.
The lower troposphere is warming at the rate of 0.13 degrees C per decade. That rate hasn’t changed, so I don’t see what many appear to see.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_December_2017_v6.jpg
If that rate changes then there might be some explanation required. Until then, there isn’t. The whole argument is really that simple.
The BBC was forced to retract a claim that due to so called warming reindeer numbers where declining when as with polar bears the numbers have increased.
off topic- Based on the 2001 and 2011 census and an increase of the previous rate over the last six years the Muslim population of the United Kingdom is more than the population of Wales.
Andy ,lots of money in International Carbon Credit trading for the Banksters.
Trump: “Why Are We Having All These People From Shithole Countries Come Here?”
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-01-11/trump-why-do-we-want-people-these-shithole-countries-come-here
Peter Sutherland formerly of Goldman Sachs (Sutherland was the United Nations Special Representative of the Secretary-General for International Migration until March 2017.)Also of Bilderberg fame.
2012
“EU should ‘undermine national homogeneity’ says UN migration chief”
British higher education chiefs want non-EU overseas students to be exempted from migration statistics and say visa restrictions brought in.
Mr Sutherland, who has attended meetings of The Bilderberg Group , a top level international networking organisation often criticised for its alleged secrecy, called on EU states to stop targeting “highly skilled” migrants, arguing that “at the most basic level individuals should have a freedom of choice” about whether to come and study or work in another country.
“It’s impossible to consider that the degree of homogeneity which is implied by the other argument can survive because states have to become more open states, in terms of the people who inhabit them. Just as the United Kingdom has demonstrated.”
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-18519395
……………………………..
Frankfurt School..
Critical Theory eventually induces “cultural pessimism,” a sense of alienation, of hopelessness, of despair where, even though prosperous and free, a people comes to see its society and country as oppressive, evil, and unworthy of its loyalty and love. The new marxists considered cultural pessimism a necessary precondition of revolutionary change.
For cultural marxists, no cause ranked higher than the abolition of the family. …In The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State, Engels popularised the feminist conviction that all discrimination against women proceeds from the patriarchal family. Erich Fromm argued that differences between the sexes were not inherent, but a fiction of Western culture. …To Adorno, the patriarchal family was the cradle of Fascism.
From Patrick Buchanan’s book The Death of the West.
* They have seized control of the global economy, and engineer fluctuations and chicaneries to drive the middle class into poverty and dependence on government largesse.
* Their Frankfurt School (Cultural Marxism/Cultural Revolution/Counter-Culture) undermines traditional White culture.
* They have seized control of Western media/education/indoctrination, and made racism, White pride, and nationalism heresy against their Church of political correctness.
* Their media/education/indoctrination frantically encourages miscegenation.
* They have erected a liberal mechanism to open borders and loose an immigrant tide on the West.
* They have erected a liberal mechanism to set lesser races in positions of authority.
* They have erected a liberal mechanism to recognise the rights of criminals over those of society.
* Subvert the culture away from Christianity and traditional family values to make people receptive to New Age culture.
* Introduce an immigrant tide to annihilate racial cohesion and national unity.
* Introduce a leftist doctrine of ‘equality’ whilst still guiltily owing an ancestral debt, to persuade Whites to embrace their own genocide.
* Introduce immorality and a host of diversions to turn individuals inward toward themselves, and atomise society.
The History Of Political Correctness.
Western Culture has to be Destroyed.
@Barry Foster. You refer to rising temperatures in the lower troposphere. Re that graph, sceptics are concerned that the data from ground-based thermometers may be affected by creeping urbanisation. Granted that, if there are more conurbations on Earth, that in itself would increase average global temperatures. But would it be more relevant to study the temperatures in rural areas that remain unaffected by urban structures and human activity?