June 2024

More “Warmie” bollox?

A few weeks ago, BBC journalists were creaming their knickers in delight at a new UN report which revealed that last year’s CO2 levels were higher than they’d been for at least the past three million years.

Global levels of CO2 reached over 403 parts per million in 2016 and, as usual, BBC ‘experts’ blethered and moaned about the need to curb climate change before humanity causes its own extinction.

The BBC also made much of the World Meteorological Organization’s (WMO) claims that the last time in Earth’s history that CO2 concentrations were so high – about 3 million years ago – the entire Earth was around three degrees warmer, and sea levels were up to 20 metres higher than they are currently.

And, of course, we got the usual apocalyptic warnings: “Without rapid cuts in CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions, we will be heading for dangerous temperature increases by the end of this century, well above the target set by the Paris climate change agreement,” WMO Secretary-General Petteri Taalas. “Future generations will inherit a much more inhospitable planet.”

But unlike slavering BBC supposed ‘journalists’ let’s apply a little analysis to the latest report. If we do, we can note three things:

  1. CO2 levels have previously reached today’s levels – about 3 million years ago – long before the industrial revolution and long before the BBC had so many ‘experts’ to warn us about our imminent self-destruction. So, today’s rise in CO2 while rapid, has taken CO2 to levels that have been seen before in the Earth’s history and probably will be reached again
  2. Last time CO2 reached current levels, sea levels were around 20 metres higher than they are currently. Ooops, if CO2 is ‘causing rising sea levels’, why are sea levels not approaching where they were 3 million years ago? In fact, as the Earth warms (either as part of a natural cycle or because of human activity – take your pick) sea levels are rising at around 3.2 mm a year. So at current rates of sea level rise, we’ve got a fair way to go before we get back to the 20 metres of 3 million years ago
  3. The BBC and others of their ilk also always ‘forget’ to mention that CO2 has a fertilising effect and that increasing CO2 levels have been proven to increase plant growth leading to a ‘greening’ of some areas that were previously barren and increased food production in more fertile areas. The BBC doesn’t dare mention that increased CO2 can have positive as well as negative effects as that would totally destroy their party line that everything man does is destructive to the environment

And let us not forget that the same institutes and other scientific bodies that are screaming about supposed ‘Man-Made Global Warming’ are the very same organisations that were warning us in the 1970s about an impending new Ice Age:

This new Ice Age would wipe out agriculture in much of the Northern Hemisphere and lead to millions of deaths from starvation:

Well, they got that wrong. But if the ‘scientists’ keep predicting some climatic disaster or other, one day their predictions will be right, just as a broken clock is right twice a day.

Obviously I’m not a ‘scientist’ in receipt of a generous government grant to prove that Global Warming is due to human activity. All I’m suggesting is that it would be a rather good idea if the BBC applied a little intelligent analysis and balance to the increasingly alarmist and regularly discredited reports of the imminent extinction of the human race rather than hyperventilating every time a supposed ‘scientist’ decides to issue yet another ever more dire warning to get awarded yet another lucrative research grant.

9 comments to More “Warmie” bollox?

  • Tom

    Very soon it will be illegal for me to say this but while i still can. ‘I really wish global warming was true as I want to grow mango’s in my garden’. Back in the days of the Roman occupation they were growing grapes for wine up by Hadrians Wall, can’t do that now as its generally brass monkeys up there. Must of been global warming back then too….

  • Julia Green

    Globule Wombling is a HUGE deception to what’s really going on, massive population growth, most of it Islamic.

    Also, well worth watching ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ again. Al Gore made $50 million at the Box Office. How many flights has he made since 2006? How much hot air and carbon has come out of his orifices? According to his film we should have all drowned by now.

    OH NO! It’s snowing! Loom at the ‘climate change’ since August! We’re doomed!!

  • SciMan

    99% of scientists say it’s real and happening. but you don’t because you know better. Right.

  • Stillreading

    Well said Julia Green. Can’t add much to that other than the Vikings were settling in Greenland in the 7/8th centuries and doing reasonably well growing cereal crops and raising livestock. The first visitation of the Black Death to Europe, circa 1350, particularly disastrous in Britain, is believed to have been so devastating because the population was already appallingly undernourished, following several disastrously cold and wet summers. Climate Change is a fact of our planetary existence, going back as far as scientists can establish. Our very real danger is indeed exponent tial population growth, where medical advances in sustaining and prolonging life are not matched by the advances now available in birth control. Much of the latter attributable to ignorance and absence of availability, but a very great deal attributable to so-called “religion”. One despairs!

  • MGJ

    They claim it is science so hold them to their own standards: a consistent hypothesis which conforms to the laws of thermodynamics, plus supporting empirical evidence.

    So far they have demonstrated neither.

    Remember there is no onus on you to prove anything. Just demand they make their case and don’t accept any BS.

  • Roy

    They aso ommit the fact that human emmisions of CO2 comprise only 3% of total atmospheric CO2. Perhaps one of these climate scientists could explain how human derived CO2 is 30x more potent than ‘natural’ CO2 !!
    Incidentally, noting the current weather do you recall a certain climate scientist called David Viner who in 2000 predicted that children would soon not know what snow was. Whoops !!

  • chris

    Why is it that the main stream media, BBC, Sky, ITV, Ch4 Telegraph, Times, Express, Mail and the rest always promote ideas most of us (using common sense) reject. The EU, Global Warming, mass immigration, religiosity, foreign aid, profit/theft driven wars and regime change? We are being deceived, kept in the dark and our views unfairly discredited as populist.Then,all of this deception is used to tax and plunder our society, promote wars, undermine our culture etc. I have heard this type of society described as being controlled by an invisible fascism.

  • Tom

    To be fair, yes 99% of scientists do but they are the scientists that are funded and given a platform for the very reason they are supportive of the scam, those that aren’t are somewhat frozen out and not funded/publicised but there is a sizeable amount if you look into it. Lord Monckton is aparticular favourite on YT. But I wonder why you can see online pics of 2 US subs and 1 British one surfaced at the north pole in 1958 It tells me that the earth heats and cools accordingly, the Romans grew grapes on Hadrians Wall to make wine, can’t do that now as its to cold up here. The globalist elites however have hit ona great way to tax and control us and the sheople have fallen for it.

  • Barry Foster

    Sciman: First of all your figure is incorrect. Secondly, you do know that the science behind climate change isn’t conclusive, right? If it were, people wouldn’t be arguing about it. The lack of a tropospheric hot spot above the tropics being just a tad inconvenient for the theory, don’t you think? Then there’s the decadel rate of warming of the troposphere at just 0.13 degrees. Again, it doesn’t appear to be exactly rapid warming, does it – given the massive increase in CO2 emissions? So what’s going on, Sciman? Why have many scientists chosen to continue with a theory that doesn’t hold up, and still shows no signs…where it oughta?

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>