August 2017
« Jul    

The man-made global warming hoax exposed – yet again and again and again

If you’ve got 12 minutes and 33 seconds available, here’s one of many Youtube videos exposing the man-made global warming myth

Otherwise, Here’s a comment I’ve copied from a Torygraph reader who actually seems to know what he or she is writing about:

“Have you actually worked out what effect the de-carbonisation of the UK will have on the prospects of future generations? Do you know exactly by how much GLOBAL temperatures would be reduced by a complete de-carbonisation of the UK? Are you aware that CO2 is a trace gas that every single living thing on the planet relies on for survival? Are you aware that CO2 currently represents less than 4/100ths of 1% (0.0394%) of the total composition of all Thermal Insulating gases?”

“The IPCC’s own scientific literature tells you, should you care to read it, that a doubling of CO2 from pre-industrial times is likely, at most, to result in a 1 degree Celsius rise in the AVERAGE global temperature. The rest of the scary scenarios are premised on unproven forcings of which no one can produce conclusive evidence.”

“Even if there was a need for carbon reduction scams, which there is NOT, other than to make rich vested interest and conflict of interest “troughers” richer still, NOTHING done by the UK or Europe combined, will make one bit of difference to global temperatures. Miliband, Cameron and Cleggy’s unhealthy obsession with “windfolly whirligigs” will only result in catastrophy for Britain, while the rest of the sane world profits from the incompetence of our politicians.”

“There is absolute and irrefutable proof that there has been NO statistically significant warming for ~15 years and counting in spite of the continued increase in atmospheric CO2, falsifying the conjecture that increasing CO2 is the dominant driver of global warming.”

“Britain has hundreds of years of coal reserves, indeed all fossil fuels are NOT in any danger of running out. CO2 is NOT a significant player in climate change, windfolly whirligigs can NEVER deliver the required power to the grid and any scientist not in the pay of the “renewables” lobby will confirm that fossil fuels CANNOT be replaced by wind or solar because the laws of physics do not allow it.”

“Now, why are we in such a mess? POLITICAL INCOMPETENCE, which began with the ridiculous Climate Change Act and the unfounded fear of man-made Climate Change nonsense, where politicians vapourise £billions of taxpayers money to combat a non-existent “threat”.”

“The case for climate alarm is based almost exclusively on the output of models that have been demonstrated, time and again, to fail. Not one of the models on which the whole AGW (anthropogenic global warming) hypothesis is based, predicted that there would be ~15 years without any statistically-significant “global warming”,”

“Although the AGW  brigade froth over their “hottest years on record” nonsense, as if this was an indication of something important, clearly the warming trend (which began at the end of the last ice age) has stopped, and THAT could be an indication of something more important than a natural and well understood interglacial warming trend.”

“So, why do the GC models continue to fail? Simples, a program created for the specific purpose of finding “warming” will always fail when there is no warming to find, and while great chunks of required data are clearly “missing”.”

“We are told to believe this nonsense or be held responsible for the destruction of the planet. On a daily basis we get vague and absurd warnings like “crop devastation, melting glaciers, water shortages, rising sea levels and displaced people will drag the military into conflict… So we must act now to save the world! If we don’t, man-made “climate disruption” will melt the rainbows and make bunnies cry.”

“We are told that, based ONLY on the AGW hypothesis, we must reduce the anthropogenic contribution to the atmospheric concentration of the trace gas CO2 because the hypothesis predicts that failure to comply will result in “catastrophic” warming.”

“When a hypothesis makes such predictions it is totally acceptable, even obligatory, to investigate those predictions. When a hypothesis is based on certain fundamental assumptions regarding underlying science it is perfectly logical to question that hypothesis when its underlying assumptions are shown to be in error. This is not cherry picking, it is how science works. It may discomfort those who complacently believe in the “consensus view” of AGW, but that is of no importance to science.”

“AGW supporters say there is “overwhelming” evidence to support their beliefs. BUT THEY ARE UNABLE TO PRODUCE ANY. They could save the world a bucket load of money on climate models if they’d just share all the info they just “know”.

“Argument by Authority is meaningless. It’s a cheat shortcut. It’s unscientific. The IPCC is a government committee. Its rapidly shrinking “consensus” proves nothing.”

“Science increasingly suggests that carbon dioxide is NOT a significant driver of dangerous climate change and that none of the claims about windfollyfarms’ eco-friendliness stack up; Economics shows us that there are many better, cheaper, more effective means of energy production on our doorstep than renewables – eg shale gas, coal, nuclear – and that the reason these aren’t being embraced quickly is because of a determined effort by the rent-seeking renewables lobby to keep their gravy train going as long as they possibly can.”

Oh and by the way, the number of polar bears – you know the ones that we’re told are being wiped out by melting ice – has more than doubled over the last 20 years. Has nobody told these stupid bears that they’re meant to be disappearing not merrily multiplying?

1 comment to The man-made global warming hoax exposed – yet again and again and again

  • Paris Claims

    I realised that this was a hoax long before many scientists, even though I am not scientifically inclined. A simple rule……
    if “the left” believe in a cause or idea they will be wrong at least 90% of the time.

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>