July 2024

Aaarrrgghhh! How can anyone take the claims of Man-Made Climate Change seriously?

(Wednesday blog)

I can’t stand it. It seems like every TV channel and every newspaper and every political leader actually believe Global Warming is caused by human activity. This is truly incredible. Not since people believed that the Earth was flat and you could fall off the edge have so many been fooled into believing such misconceived garbage.

In desperation, I’ve produced my own David Craig video debunking the Man-Made Global Warming hoax in just three simple pictures.

So, you have a choice. Do you believe a (IMHO) ghastly, precocious, attention-seeking, pig-ignorant schoolgirl (who looks like a member of the Adams family) and a (IMHO) revered national treasure who has suddenly turned into a senile, doddery old fool?

Or do you believe my simple but straightforward explanation of the reasons for our climate changing?

I leave that decision up to you.

(Apologies that this video is a bit slapdash. But I still haven’t quite worked out how to use the free voice-recording software I downloaded from the Internet)

5 comments to Aaarrrgghhh! How can anyone take the claims of Man-Made Climate Change seriously?

  • chris

    The climate change scam has deiberately been made a religion. The burden of proof has now been reversed. Virtue signalling is paramount. Sacrifice for the good of the planet motivates emotional thinkers. Hence all the rich middle class, hypocritical supporters.

    However, I suspect the real aim of this religious style scam is either to exploit through taxes and/or to control us. There are few obvious beneficiaries of this scam other than the Globalists who want a world encompassing dictatorship.

    Gas powered homes are being phased out. Liquid fuelled cars (and homes) are being phased out. In the not too distant future, mains distributed electricity will be the only source of power.With windmills and solar power electricity will be in short supply. But with spy meters and internet control in all homes, government will dictate the availability of power. i.e. when, where and how much power we can have. In relation to our homes we will have put transport, communication, heating, food preservation and cooking in the hands of Government or its minions. We will be at the mercy of the police, councils, social workers, civil servants etc. Expect, time related tariffs, switch offs for anti-social behaviour or punishment/tax costs of charging cars at the wrong time of day etc etc. And if you believe a Government would not act so undemocratically, the present one, clearly run by change agents for the globalists ought to make you think again.

  • twi5ted

    “The Left needs pessimism as a pretext for intervention. The idea of a man-made climate change catastrophe provides it.”

    Certainly flogging this dead horse pretty hard seems desperate and i hope david is not being threatened – he gave a talk at my work and refused to answer questions on climate change – so not sure he believes in this as much as the BBC would like.

  • Julia Green

    Don’t stop fighting DC!

  • Alan Thorpe

    I really do not understand the adult reaction to Greta Trunberg who just repeats to same “prayer”, and that is what it is because as Chris says climate change has become equivalent to a religion. Her parents are environmental activists, so she has been brainwashed from birth, and Arrhenius is a distant relative. At least Theresa May had the sense to stay away from the meeting arranged for party leaders.

    William Hague wrote in the Telegraph yesterday about having to sit up a listen when a 16 year old girl takes the stage. Apparently, she reminds him of his one moment of glory when he spoke at a party conference at that age. Thankfully he never became PM. He also found Attenborough’s rubbish “compelling in its argument”. This sums up his view: “Scepticism about unproven scientific consensus can often be a healthy thing, but on the climate it has now become utterly irrational. We can measure the oceans rising, watch the coral reefs dying, see the glaciers melting and monitor rainforests falling. It is simple chemistry that more greenhouse gases lead to higher temperatures and quite obvious who is pumping them out. To anyone whose eyes, ears and brain are functioning properly, this part of the argument is over.”

    An unproven scientific consensus is always that; it is not evidence, and it is all there is. There is no link with human activity. But this is the position we are now in. The original human caused global warming became climate change and therefore all climate change is caused by humans the debate is over. Thunberg assumes this and offers no evidence; Hague is doing the same, and neither have a clue about the science. Anybody who opposes this view and comments on any of the websites supporting human caused change will be met with a torrent of abuse. The same applies to newspaper articles. There will be very few comments from people understanding the science.

    Do I believe your simple explanation? No but I don’t pay much attention to the proxy temperature records and as you say they have probably been heavily adjusted. If you look at the period from 1920 to 1950 temperatures were rising as quickly as now but this goes unexplained. The proxies are often from ice cores so relate to one particular are of the earth, although attempts are made to show the temperature anomalies are representative. On land the temperatures were measured at about 2 metres above ground level and I assume modern equipment is the same. What is done about the temperature change in altitude, I have no idea. But 70% of the surface is oceans and I have never seen any references to air temperature measurements above the oceans, only to water temperatures. I have no idea how it is all put together into a temperature record. Are they supposed to be air temperatures or surface temperatures? The concern is about sea temperatures so why are we not given average sea temperatures? CO2 is said to heat the air so how does the heat get into the sea? Even if the cold atmosphere could heat the sea there is no little mass of CO2 it will have no significant heating and even the entire atmosphere cannot heat the oceans. The mass and specific heat of air are so low compared to water that no significant heating is possible. My illustration of this is that you could put your hand into an over at 180C and have no burns but put it into water at 70C and you will know about it. It is heat that matters not temperature. All simple explanations fail because they can all be used to present any point of view.

    I pay little attention to average temperature because an average temperature has no physical meaning. Here is a link to a paper discussing this It is technical in places but has good explanations. I prefer to use an example of mass and temperature to illustrate the point. Take two pieces of a metal and their mass depends on their physical size. This means the masses can be added together and it will be the same as the combined mass. The total mass of the samples has to have a meaning to calculate an average. An average could be found and the two masses chopped up to create two masses equal to the average. Now consider two containers of water with different volumes and temperatures. The temperature is not determined by the volume of water. Add the two temperatures together and the total temperature is meaningless and so an average is also meaningless. It does not matter how many sample temperatures are used; the average has no physical meaning. It is even worse if water and ice are considered because thermodynamics is about heat, and water needs huge amounts of heat to change phase whilst the temperature does not change.

  • Stillreading

    Ironic, isn’t it, that so many of these aficionados of man-made climate-change theory are the young, indoctrinated in liberal leftie ideology from infancy by our educational institutions and addicted to their mobile phones and every electronic gadget going. How very easy it is to influence them via a biased media, so pitifully ignorant are they not only of scientific facts, but of their own naivety concerning just how they are being played! Can’t they see that by shrieking for ever more control over where, when and how we travel, for drastic reductions in fuel consumption, for ever more “green” energy production which is consuming our countryside, they are rushing lemming-like to the death of the very personal freedoms they’ve been raised to consider their birthright? Have they considered a future – just a few years ahead if they have their way – when they will not be permitted to fly abroad to seek the sun or to visit relatives? When anyone wish to purchase a car will have to go on a waiting list to be granted a permit? When domestic fuel will be rationed? When accommodation will be allocated on a cubic-footage per person basis? When they won’t be able to huddle up in splendid isolation over their electronic gadgets in their individual centrally-heated bedrooms while their parents and siblings are running three or four more TVs and mobiles in other rooms in the same house? Haven’t they realised, just as Chris says, that every single thing they do will be recorded and sanctioned by Big Brother? How many times are we photographed as we go about our legitimate business each day? It’s bad enough already and 5G is just around the corner. I suspect that all this climate-change hype is politically generated in order to gain total control over the common herd – which is the demonstrators as well as thee and me! We who are old are on the way out so won’t have to tolerate it all for very long. Already we are being priced off the road by escalating insurance costs for older people and we don’t have the funds to be cavalier about incurring £60 fines for straying into an ill-signed bus lane. The roads are ever more of a nightmare so we tend to drive less and wait for our families to come and visit us rather than going to visit them. I think with great sadness of the freedom of movement I enjoyed within this, my native country, 40 years ago. I and my peers had less, but we wanted less. I’d like to see how the vast majority of today’s under 40s would manage on the meagre material rations of the early post-war years. As for the Swedish brat, I’d been thrown into the adult world of work Monday to Friday 9 – 5.30 and Saturdays 9 – 12 noon by the time I was her age. The spectacle of our politicians fawning before her is truly nauseating.

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>