#1 Decarbonising the economy will cost us an arm and a leg - and achieve nothing.
#2 Planet Earth has her own natural cycles. We didn't heat her up - and it's not our job to cool her down.
#3 Planet Earth needs more carbon dioxide not less. Then plants would grow faster, the deserts shrink, and the earth will be greener.
Is Global Warming True?
by R. Langridge, June 2020
This pamphlet is a survey of the current situation and is published by St Matthew Publishing on behalf of Beauty and the Beastly Truth Ltd.
ISBN 978 1901546767
Praise for this pamphlet:
Matthew Biddlecombe, citizen, “There’s no doubt in my mind that the climate is changing, but the climate changers went down the road of “Project Fear”. I like the fact that you’ve not used hyperbole, it’s not ‘in your face’ .... What is in no doubt – we cannot go on the way we are.”
Ian Plimer, Professor of Geology and Earth Sciences, Universities of Adelaide and Melbourne, “Excellent article.”
Rupert Darwall, author and strategy consultant, “A fantastic piece of work and something that badly needs to be done. It is clearly and lucidly expressed and covers the key topics.”
The author has an MA in Geography, Cambridge University, 1984.
* * * * * *
Computer-based climate change models and the greenhouse gas theory claim that carbon dioxide is causing catastrophic global warming. Our economy, society and landscapes are being transformed in response. But are these computer models accurate? Should their predictions be relied upon? There are many reasons to be concerned.
The ‘science’ is flawed. It breaches the law of Conservation of Energy as well as many other fully tested and settled concepts and principles of theoretical physics (see Appendix 2).
The purpose of the models is confused/unspecified. Do they purport to account for why the temperature on the surface of Planet Earth is as it is, an average of approximately 15°C, in which case they fail spectacularly - or - do they purport to be long-range weather forecasts, which we all know to be impossible? The critical distinction between these two different purposes is blurred by obfuscation and many words.
The calculations are faulty. The method used is to take one square metre of the earth’s surface (neither land nor sea, but a vague average) and in the square metre net off two very large figures: energy-in minus energy-out. This net figure is then scaled up by a rough approximation to the size of the entire globe. At every step there is scope for big errors. The most significant problem here is the netting off of one large figure against another, a notoriously problematic procedure that massively changes the sensitivity to error computation. Just a tiny percentage error in the initial numbers can produce a wholly wrong netted off figure. Anyone who works in finance will fully appreciate the significance of such design faults within the construction of the climate change models.
There are errors of scale, perspective and common sense. Carbon dioxide is 0.04% of the atmosphere - less than one tenth of one percent – one part in 2,500. It is a trace gas. The man-made portion of this is small (only 4%) while all the rest comes from natural processes. So now we are down to man’s activities contributing only one part in 60,000 of the atmospheric gases. Once these facts are clearly presented, the idea that man-made carbon dioxide has already set in train runaway global warming starts to look ludicrous, especially when contrasted with the fact that when clouds come in front of the sun we instantly feel cooler. The difference in temperature from one day to the next, thanks only to cloud cover, can easily be 10°C. Routine observation of the world outside our own doorsteps tells us that if we want to understand global temperatures, then a close look at the processes that determine the amount of cloud cover is more worthwhile than imagining that something akin to a needle in a haystack is the deciding factor.
A great many real world processes are not included in the global warming/climate change models. Obviously, the earth is heated by the sun - yet the output from the sun varies, and the earth is sometimes closer to the sun, sometimes further away. Neither factor is included. From the beginning of the nineteenth century the correlation has been plotted between sunspot activity and grain prices, grain yields, hunger, sickness and famine: in England, India, South Africa and elsewhere. The physical mechanisms are complex and still being investigated, but the fact that sunspot activity is important for climate and human societies has been demonstrated on a repeated basis - and is ignored by the modellers and their supporters. Please see Appendix 1 for more.
The reasoning starts with the conclusion and works backwards to a justification. Explanations generally start with the statement that the ‘energy budget’ of the Earth has been ‘in balance’ for 12,000 years – then claim that the Earth is now out of balance and heating up, because it has become a closed system, because humans have upset the budget by putting 200 parts per million additional carbon dioxide into the air. Any educated person, even if lacking a science background, would be well placed to identify the implicit assumptions and inverted reasoning were they to review the climate change models and explanations.
There are errors of philosophy. The claim that there is ‘nothing to debate’ because ‘the science is settled’ is a contradiction in terms: it breaches Karl Popper’s principle of falsifiability. Many enthusiasts for the concept of climate change/global warming speak of their “belief” in it, and the movement displays the hallmarks of a political religion rather than of rational science. It should go without saying that science means dispute and that opinions are not homogeneous. It is precisely from constructive disputation that the best understanding is crystallised. Where there is no debate there is no science.
There are also errors of language. Words from the world of business and statistics find their way into models that are claimed to be hard and settled science, such as ‘budget’ and ‘balance’, ‘mean’ and ‘global’. Meanwhile descriptive words such as ‘forcing’, ‘radiative’, ‘balance’ and ‘heat’ are treated as though they are fully defined scientific terms. These basic errors in terminology undermine the claims of ‘settled science’. By contrast the words ‘force’, ‘radiation’, ‘equilibrium’ and ‘energy’ are properly defined and their mathematics understood by the established laws of theoretical physics - laws that have been developed over the past four or five hundred years and which enable the technology, prosperity and ease of the modern world.
The analogy to a greenhouse is ridiculous. We do not live in a greenhouse: the atmosphere has neither roof nor lid. We can see the stars. We are open to the cosmos.
The term ‘greenhouse gas’ is equally unhelpful: it represents a conflation of different things with widely different properties, and we learn nothing by lumping these separate things together into one category. In reality, there are many different atmospheric gases with a variety of different properties, which can be understood using chemistry, biology, geology, physics, astrophysics and mathematics. To understand Earth’s climate we also need: historical records and artefacts, literature and art, minute examination of the fossil and mineral record, study of the moon and other planets – all of these sources need to be drawn upon .... the list goes on.
There are errors in the modellers’ selection and presentation of data and statistics. A graph is widely displayed by the BBC, Extinction Rebellion and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (the IPCC) which shows near-level temperatures for the last 1000 years followed by a sharp rise from around 1900, with the rise extrapolated steeply into the near future. The temperature line is set against a carbon dioxide line following the same trend. The steep rise into the future is displayed in support of the computer models, under the assumption that they calculate accurate/inevitable forecasts. From its shape, it is known as the “Hockey Stick” graph.
The graph is the foundation for the social campaigns and legislative measures to reduce human carbon dioxide emissions (the carbon zero/carbon neutral efforts). The sudden steep rise is the basis for the claim that there is a “tipping point” into uncontrollable global warming. The historical data displayed has been shown many times to be false and yet the graph has not been withdrawn.
In 2016 Ed Hawkins of Reading University used this hockey stick image to create a new graphic called “Warming Stripes”. Coloured vertical lines change from icy blue to fiery red. This frightening image, no less false, is now heavily promoted by the media.
The idea of a ‘tipping point’ is not only an impossibility (see Appendix 2) but also shown to be false from Earth’s history. In former eras carbon dioxide comprised 50% and more of the atmosphere: at times the temperature was higher and at other times there was extreme glaciation.
Life is built of carbon, yet life itself locks carbon away in peat and coral, and in rocks such as limestone, chalk and coal. Were it not for volcanoes releasing carbon from deep below Earth’s surface, life would have died out long ago. Just 200 years ago carbon dioxide had fallen to dangerously low levels, and today is still at almost the lowest level of all time. If levels increased further, plants and food crops would grow more quickly, and forest fires would rage less fiercely. Conversely, if ‘carbon capture’ becomes a reality, life on Planet Earth will start to die.
Real-world phenomena with widely varying causes and explanations are automatically ascribed to climate change without question or investigation. Alternative explanations of apparent sea-level rises include:
* Tectonic plate movement causing land to fall;
* Continual flexing and changes to the shape of the earth’s crust;
* Routine processes of erosion;
* Failure to practise time-honoured land management techniques;
* Over extraction of sand causing the land to collapse;
* Over-extraction of fresh water from the ground which causes sea water to penetrate aquifers.
Failure to identify the cause leads to neglect of appropriate corrective action, soon followed by the loss of skills and equipment for tasks such as dredging and fire breaks and the loss of (what used to be) common sense understanding to avoid building on flood plains or close to highly flammable woodlands. Loss of fresh water for drinking and irrigation leads to hardship and hunger - this, mankind’s greatest challenge of all, is ignored.
All gardeners and farmers know that growing flowers and food requires an enormous quantity of fresh water. The same is true of carbon dioxide: plants need a lot of it and the danger to life on earth is not that we have too much, but that we have too little.
Children are needlessly terrified into believing that the planet will kill them and it is all the fault of their parents and grandparents. The ‘Hockey Stick’ graph is still taught in schools as fact, and children informed that they will fail their examinations if they question it. Their textbooks, one would hope, teach them biology (life is built of carbon, photosynthesis captures carbon dioxide from the air) and chemistry (oxidation of carbon-based compounds produces carbon dioxide, a stable molecule that cannot generate more heat) and the fundamental laws of physics. They should know from their history lessons about the horrible climatic conditions of the seventeenth century, and the blossoming of human culture during the warmth of the Bronze Age. And all contradicted by their ‘climate change’ lessons that redefine carbon and carbon dioxide as pollutants. This can only corrupt their education and damage their minds.
Suppression of freedom of speech reaches out across society. Those who question the mantra are morally condemned as ‘climate change deniers’. Refusal to publicly vilify carbon dioxide has destroyed many people’s livelihoods. Prominent examples include the late Professor David Bellamy, a highly popular BBC TV presenter, who was sacked and his reputation destroyed when he refused to drop his commitment to factual reality. In the academic world Professor Murry Salby was locked out of his department at Macquarie University (Australia) while he was away at a conference, and his computer and research work confiscated. In France, Philippe Verdier was instantly sacked from his role as the top TV weather presenter when he went public on his opposition to carbon dioxide mediated global warming. Wikipedia, Facebook and other social media entries are altered or deleted. Friends and neighbours are nervous even to raise the topic.
With many old library collections being broken up and sold off in lots, this further raises the question of where the old data records are being stored. Online records can be blocked or manipulated. Data sets painstakingly recorded over many centuries are at risk of being lost.
In Britain, not one mainstream broadcast or printed media outlet is prepared to challenge the ‘carbon dioxide is dangerous’ dogma. ‘Carbon emissions’ is used as the killer argument to suppress political opposition and debate, for example, the UK Government’s recent decision to build the extremely unpopular high speed railway line HS2.
If all else fails, supporters of ‘global warming’ turn to the Precautionary Principle: we’d better reduce carbon dioxide output ‘just in case’ it turns out to be true. Unfortunately the policies then enacted are ruinous to the economy and to wildlife alike. Wind turbines kill birds, bats and butterflies as they fly to feeding grounds and on migration. Broken blades and interference damage sea life. The rare metals needed for batteries are highly toxic and poison soil and ground water both on extraction and on disposal. Huge subsidies of public money are required for solar and wind generation and energy prices rise.
‘Biofuels’ are the worst of all: although billed as ‘renewable’ and ‘sustainable’, in reality plantations of trees take far too long to grow to be able to sustain electricity generation, and instead the world’s primaeval forests are disappearing into power stations such as Drax in Yorkshire, England. In the USA there are more power stations burning living life (trees and the entire ecosystems they support). Instead we could be harmlessly burning ancient life - that is to say, coal. Burning living trees creates far more pollution and dirt than burning coal. Astoundingly, the campaign against carbon dioxide and against coal has enabled the logging companies to rebrand themselves as eco-warriors. Meanwhile the Amazonian rainforest is converted into sugar plantations to generate another biofuel (ethanol), and all to the applause of the BBC.
Net Zero targets and ‘Green Deals’ amount to a means for powerful international groupings to gain control over national economies together with their human societies, wildlife and landscapes.
Meanwhile the genuine real world problems facing life on Planet Earth and the stability of human societies are neglected, such as: proper management and protection of fresh water supplies, maintenance of flood defences, pest and disease control, genuine pollution control, loss of land for farming, deforestation and stability of energy supplies. In 2020 huge swarms of locusts are destroying crops, and lack of proper land management is causing disease and disasters from upsurges in malaria to devastating forest fires. Humanity has no excuse: were it not for the vast resources squandered on the Carbon Zero/Carbon Neutral agenda, virtually everyone on the planet could be benefitting from the engineering solutions of the industrial revolution based on fossil fuels, and living lives free from water-borne illness and parasites, with proper sewerage and clean water. Banned by the UN-EU climate policies from using coal, women in Africa still have to cook on open fires in their huts burning trees and muck.
The solution to most of our problems is readily available: the responsible use of gas, oil and coal used as fuel with modern efficient & low-pollution technology; the burning of plastic waste in a similar manner; careful recovery of rare/toxic metals; reduction in the insane wastefulness of modern life plus the restoration of proper education, realistic risk management, and responsible lifestyles. Modern nuclear power generation offers another solution. All these are entirely possible, and there are many more low and medium tech strategies available. Humans do not need to destroy either themselves or the planet on which they live.
Nobody denies man’s impact upon Planet Earth’s natural systems, but corrective action can only be taken when the real world processes are accurately identified.
Properly conducted computer modelling together with approximation and even radical simplification has an important and legitimate role – but - the climate change models promulgated by the BBC, Extinction Rebellion and the IPCC, and by the UN, the EU and the British Government and the multiplicity of devolved administrations and powers, are not properly conducted. They are wrongly designed and riddled with errors. They are so badly wrong that they cannot be corrected but simply need to be put through the shredder.
We have seen enough now to know that predictions of the future based upon computer models are discredited. We also know that all wildlife - the oceans, the rain forest, and even coral, polar bears and humans too - need carbon and need carbon dioxide.
Carbon dioxide is this planet’s friend - not its enemy.
Let us get that fact firmly established and then let’s look at what is going on out there in the real world: Look into it, gather information, talk about it. Only then will we be able to do the right thing.
+ + + + + +
Some of the real world processes that are not included in the predictions of the global warming/climate change models. As mentioned, the purpose of these models is a confusion between an attempt to account for the overall average temperature of the planet, and weather predictions for the next decade or two. In consequence many processes relevant to either endeavour are omitted. As for predictions about sea level changes, ice sheets and glaciation, more real world facts are ignored.
1. The total output and also the nature of the energy and matter emitted by the sun varies over time in several different cycles that vary in length from 11 years to approximately 1000 years. There are many other natural cycles, for example, there is an 18.6 year lunar cycle that pushes warm water into the Arctic and changes the extent of sea ice, also a 60 year cycle in temperatures caused by interaction between the sun, moon and earth.
2. The distance between earth and sun varies due to gravitational pull of the other planets; also wobbles and variations in Earth’s rotation and orbit (Milankovitch Cycles).
3. As the Solar System rotates around the Milky Way it moves through a pattern of either very high or much lower levels of charged particles (cosmic rays). Cosmic particle penetration of Earth’s atmosphere creates thick cloud cover. The clouds block out the light and warmth from the sun and the planet cools down. Following the work of Henrik Svensmark in 1996, this mechanism is increasingly seen as an important reason for periods of cold.
4. Variations in magnetic fields of both earth and sun which further modify cosmic particle penetration and therefore temperature.
5. Many more effects of gravity including air pressure and temperature, changes to the shape of the earth’s crust, oceanic currents, tides, rainfall.
6. Drastic long-term changes in the composition and pressure of the atmosphere.
8. Land use, specific vegetation, oak trees, dew.
9. Heating of sea water by sub-oceanic volcanoes which in turn heats the air, affecting climate and weather including ‘El Niño’ phenomena.
10. Release of carbon dioxide by vents and volcanoes, both above and beneath the oceans: conversely the need of plant life, corals and shelled animals for carbon dioxide in large quantities.
11. Recent greening of the planet and increases in crop yields following the modest increases in carbon dioxide levels. Some readers will recall that Prince Charles was mocked mercilessly when he mentioned that he talks to his plants, claiming that they grow better: it turned out that Prince Charles was correct - plants do grow better when talked to because of the carbon dioxide they are bathed in (one thousand times normal). Commercial greenhouses pump in extra carbon dioxide for this reason. It is wholly wrong that in some countries this gas (plant food) is classified as a pollutant - and even enshrined in law.
12. Processes by which ice is formed or melts including changes in precipitation, deforestation around mountain glaciers. Also extensive geothermal activity in the Antarctic, which changes water and air temperature and causes ice melting and movement.
13. Genuine air pollution at lower levels plus aeroplane vapour trails higher up. Particulate matter, dust, dirt, moulds, amino acids and more in the air that comes from the ground as well as from volcanoes, the sun and outer space.
14. Proper appreciation of data sets and specific influences over temperature measurement accuracy and consistency.
15. The specific shape and location of continents and oceans, mountain ranges and rivers. Major deforestation/urbanisation events, and human impact upon regional weather systems both small and large, such as the River Nile catchment area which has been transformed by the building of dams and cessation of annual flooding.
16. All of the complex processes and interactions involved in short, medium and long term weather forecasts are omitted from these models. Even day and night. The jet streams weaken as the planet cools (not when it warms) and a study of history confirms that unpredictable extremes of high and low temperatures occurred during cooler periods such as the Little Ice Age (roughly 1400 to 1850).
Errors of basic science within the global warming/climate change models
Global warming and the climate emergency are predicted on the basis of the greenhouse gas theories and a set of similar climate change models, for example “Earth’s Annual Global Mean Energy Budget” (Kiehl & Trenberth 1997). The explanations of how carbon dioxide and methane are supposed to warm the planet are exceedingly long-winded. If one can stay awake long enough to listen to what is said, then common sense describes it as follows: “The heat comes in, then seems to bounce up to the clouds then bounce down again and then somehow reheat the heat”. Anyone with a traditional solid science education can look at the models and see that the law of Conservation of Energy is not adhered to. Most people do know that you cannot make something out of nothing nor generate heat out of thin air.
What these computer models do is put the heat coming in from the sun through a multiplier and count it up many times over - and this is how the planet is supposed to be entering a phase of uncontrolled warming!!
Conservation of energy and matter is perhaps the most fundamental reality of the physical universe. These models and the greenhouse gas theory dispense with that principle, which they mask by claiming that the earth is a closed system. Please note that, despite claims to the contrary, Planet Earth is not a closed system.
Fundamental errors of basic scientific knowledge have been confirmed through formal legal processes, most recently in 2019 as follows:
Dr Tim Ball is a geographer and climatologist who states that the greenhouse gas theory is false. He was sued by Michael Mann who is one of its principal proponents. The case (Mann v. Ball) was dismissed with prejudice by The Supreme Court of British Columbia and the plaintiff ordered to pay Tim Ball’s legal fees.
The expert witness statements were prepared for the Court by atmospheric physicist, Dr Ferenc Miskolczi. Following many pages of explanation and analysis of both the theory and the data, the expert witness opinion was unambiguous, and included these paragraphs:
“My overall conclusion is that the Arrhenius type greenhouse effect is an incorrect hypothesis and the CO2 greenhouse effect based global warming hypothesis is also an artifact without any theoretical or empirical footing.”
“The most serious problem with the cartoons are the ignorance of a long line of well-known fundamental concepts and principles of theoretical physics. Some of them are: energy and momentum conservation principles of the radiation field, Wien’s law, virial theorem, energy minimum principle, Maxwell rule, Kirchhoff law, Helmholtz reciprocity principle, Vogt-Russel theorem, LeChatelier-Brown principle.”
Appendix 3 References and further reading
Tested and settled concepts and principles of theoretical physics
Nelkon & Parker, Advanced Level Physics, Heinemann Educational Books (first to fifth editions to avoid greenhouse gassery).
Dr Ferenc Miskolczi, Expert opinion on the greenhouse gas theories and the observed infrared absorption properties of the Earth's atmosphere, 2017. *
Global warming models: confused purpose, missing physics and faulty calculations
https://climateofsophistry.files.wordpress.com/2020/01/bams-readable-an-alternative-global-energy-budget-model.pdf?fbclid=IwAR333SlGEFt4rR1eD04sNB6sZVsrhF7XIdfV2bxlCNJFuGtUElyJJyhjHzI Joseph E Postma, An Alternative Global Mean Energy Budget Model Which is Incompatible with Existing Ones, Jan 2020.
https://principia-scientific.org/earths-thermodynamic-energy-budget/?utm_source= feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+psintl+%28Principia+S cientific+Intl+-+Latest+News%29 Joseph E Postma, further discussion.
Errors of scale, perspective and common sense
Piers Corbyn & Philip Foster, Man-made Climate Change Does not Exist, 2019. Science isn’t about consensus, it is about facts. Fake science explained in detail. Global temperatures have been falling again since 2002/3. Piers Corbyn challenges Reading University to debate - no response so far Read here
Many real world processes are not included
Svensmark & Calder, The Chilling Stars: A Cosmic View of Climate Change, 2007
https://greatclimatedebate.com/tutorial-anthropogenic-global-warming-agw/ Chuck Wilkerson & Tom Tamarkin, see pages 20-26 for summary of Svensmark’s work and other processes.
Plimer, I, Heaven and Earth, 2009. Detailed textbook including the geological record of climate variation, 5000 plus years of human records, the nature of the sun, properties of water, sea level variation, and much more.
Conor McMenomie, The Nile Climate Engine, Changing the world’s largest weather system, 2018. The Nile River no longer floods every year. The location straddling the Equator and the Tropic of Cancer, this results in reduced evaporation on a global scale, less cloud cover, less rain, and higher temperatures where landscape, weather systems, and climate interact. Similar considerations will clearly apply to current conversion of the Amazonian rain forest into sugar cane plantations for biofuel production. The author recalls eye-witness accounts of the effect on regional climate of forest clearance in Thailand in the late 1970s (hotter and drier). Read here
Errors in philosophy
Karl Popper’s principle of falsifiability says that scientific progress is only made by scientists trying to disprove hypotheses (rather than prove them definitively). Even established science - such as Newtonian physics – is open to fine tuning, as was done with Einstein’s theory of relativity. Furthermore, if an assertion is not open to being disproved, then it is not science.
This is wrong: www.youtube.com/channel/UCRBwLPbXGsI2cJe9W1zfSjQ Dave Borlace - 1 minute introductory video features the claim (here from Kimberly Nicholas) that there is nothing to debate because ‘the science’ is settled.
This is right:
Veritasium Can you solve this? “If you think that something is true, you should try as hard as you can to disprove it”.
Errors in the modellers’ selection and presentation of data and statistics
www.youtube.com/watch?v=ulWvj49kef4&feature=youtu.be The IPCC keep changing the historical records of temperature and the figures presented to the public. Tony Heller reports.
www.nicholaslewis.org Nicholas Lewis, statistician, took the IPCC’s data and proved they had exaggerated the warming.
Children are needlessly terrified
www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Lt0jCDtYSY Rupert Reed of the University of East Anglia, spokesperson for Extinction Rebellion and in receipt of further taxpayer funding via the Arts & Humanities Research Council, here speaks to children from the age of about ten, saying, “This is about whether you have a future. People sometimes ask you ‘What are you going to be when you grow up?’ but we’ve reached the point in human history where the question also has to be asked ‘What are you going to do if you grow up?’” - then stating that global warming is going to kill us by starvation, encouraging the children to imagine that happening. Schools Climate Conference held at University College London, 3 July 2019, talk given to a huge audience of schoolchildren at the Green Schools project.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NSkQyQLvW4 Shinobi Yaka (of Extinction Rebellion Busted) comments on Rupert Reed’s talk and exposes factual errors. Most of this person’s videos have been removed from YouTube by that organisation. Please note contrast to Rupert Reed’s official status and state funding.
Children are mistaught
Simon Ross & Rebecca Blackshaw, AQA GCSE (9-1) Geography, Hodder Education, 2017. A textbook in use in British schools in 2020 where the ‘hockey stick’ temperature graph is taught as fact (historical data has been flattened and current/future temperature shown as rising catastrophically). Although the true figure is only 0.04%, children are given to understand that most of the atmosphere comprises carbon dioxide. Here is an exact quote from this textbook: "A thicker layer of greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide 77 per cent, methane 14 per cent, nitrous oxide 8 per cent and CFCs 1 per cent) caused by human activity means less of the Sun's energy is able to escape the Earth's atmosphere, so the temperature increases." Even if such a layer existed somewhere in the atmosphere (it doesn’t) it would act in the same way as a screen placed before a fire, and would keep the earth cooler, not make it hotter – an extraordinarily elementary error, excusable in a children’s author (Richmal Crompton in William and the Snowman) but not in a school textbook.
www.iop.org/interactions/archive/INTSept08totalWeb.pdf Institute of Physics, Interactions, September 2008. This publication makes for interesting and disturbing reading. Following debate through its pages, and pressure to cease that debate, the editor of the newspaper appears to have accepted the IPCC position on the basis of the claimed majority/consensus opinion.
Also, a letter from physics teacher Jeremy P Thomas says we should not “fall into the trap of changing what we define as physics to satisfy public demand. This is the kind of survey that encourages those who are systematically dismantling physics in the school curriculum.” Schools, he says, should teach the fundamental principles of theoretical physics, and not redefine the subject into a debate about energy issues without any understanding of electromagnetism and electricity generation. Mr Thomas calls for “those involved in designing the National Curriculum to change the emphasis from issues and debates to understanding the real principles behind them.” In other words, somewhere between 1980, when the author sat A-level physics, and 2008, schools were made to switch from teaching physics to promoting global warming fantasies. The National Curriculum, we can see, was used to force through the degradation of British education. The warning voices went unheeded. Those who were “systematically dismantling physics in the school curriculum” were simultaneously making common purpose with those in charge of public libraries, which were forced to sell off their fantastic collections of children’s books and stock only those that ‘support the National Curriculum’. Recently there have been media calls to drop even mathematics teaching in schools.
Physics is fundamental to understanding the world around us in which we live, while no science can be complete without mathematics - which also provides the mind with rigorous training in reason and logic. Both subjects happen also to be fascinating in their own right. Clearly a Parliamentary Enquiry is needed forthwith. Our children deserve rational, factual and inspirational education and training restored to them without delay.
Children are not allowed to think for themselves
www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_4EnZRMHsY Naomi Seibt, still a teenager, speaks to Sky Australia, 8 Feb 2020, and describes the intense abuse she was subjected to when she began to ask questions about global warming. Refer to The Heartland Institute for more from Naomi Seibt. She is now under threat of imprisonment in her native Germany.
Suppression of freedom of speech
Paris Climate Challenge Papers, 2015 * Covers many issues including proper use of computer modelling, sea levels, malaria, survival of polar bears, extreme weather events and the Grenfell Tower tragedy.
www.philosophynow.org/issues/135/Dewey_and_Climate_Denial_Squared Wendy Lynne Lee, Dewey and Climate Denial, 2019. Another example of the campaign to silence debate on climate change, here masquerading as philosophy. For further comment see https://www.principia-scientific.org/open-letter-in-opposition-to-global-warming-indoctrination/
www.principia-scientific.org/facebook-ramps-up-censorship-threats-against-climate-skeptics/ Facebook’s growing censorship of climate debate.
www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/05/07/despite-ferguson-fiasco-no-10-make-second-major-blunder/ by Sherelle Jacobs, “the scientific community – which has learned from climate change that dissenting from politically correct narratives risks career suicide – resisted pointing out that the study’s methodology was questionable.” This is the first-ever reference to the issue the author has seen in the British press, 7 May 2020. The second followed a few days later: www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/05/15/lockdown-showing-us-misery-net-zero-2050-will-demand/ by Charles Moore, “Even in the Covid crisis, there is fierce debate about whether [lockdown] was necessary. Those doubts should be infinitely stronger in relation to Net Zero.”
www.youtube.com/watch?v=UWahKIG4BE4 The Power of Truth Patrick Moore, founder of Greenpeace. Important lecture about the denial of science. Also explains in detail that the danger to life on earth is of too little carbon dioxide, not of too much.
Rupert Darwall, Green Tyranny, 2017. Explores the extraordinary roots of the Green movement, its rise to dominance, suppression of dissent, and the global money machine. The acid rain story; the cynical manipulation of public trust by NGOs.
Anti-carbon dioxide policies are ruinous to the economy and to wildlife alike
https://youtu.be/Zk11vI-7czE Film by Michael Moore, Planet of the Humans, April 2020. View the destruction of wildlife that is part and parcel of renewable/sustainable energy and the desolation of the landscape, and who’s doing it. A must-watch film that is free to view.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fQZfFy9cFs Excellent 9-minute summary of the film from Sky News Australia. Watch from 6:50 to see clip of Al Gore lobbying the American Congress in favour of converting the Amazonian Rain Forest into sugar cane plantation.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABAlVUzvMYI&feature=youtu.be Daisy Cousens reviews the film, see also the comments below.
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2020/05/04/drax-subsidies-cost-789m-last-year/ Paul Homewood details the public money subsidies needed for biofuels.
www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2015/01/Unintended-Consequences2.pdf Andrew Montford, Unintended Consequences of Climate Change Policy, 2015. A sober and detailed examination of the facts behind Michael Moore’s film. Many more deleterious effects of climate change policies, including transfer of wealth from poor to rich.
www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2016/08/Industry-1.pdf John Constable, Energy-Intensive Industries: Climate Policy Casualties, 2016. John Constable analyses devastating immediate and ongoing costs to industry and the economy of high energy costs caused by energy and climate policies, specifically in Britain but the same principles hold elsewhere. The result is that British industry collapses, is sold to foreign enterprises, and British jobs are lost. The new owners are able to continue production elsewhere where energy costs are lower, working conditions are worse, and environmental standards either worse or not enforced. Everyone loses except those who are already wealthy, and the environment suffers further pollution and destruction.
A question for the reader: are we looking here at mass incompetence, or are we witnessing malice?
https://greatclimatedebate.com/tutorial-anthropogenic-global-warming-agw/ Wilkerson/Tamarkin outline the US “Green New Deal” (pages 2-5 & 73). See also pages 64-71 for history of legal findings and of US legislation.
http://co2economics.blogspot.com/ By way of contrast, John Rhys makes many perverse claims in support of the IPCC.
All of the EU's climate and energy law was transferred to UK law when Britain left the EU in January 2020. Since then the Government has accelerated the targets.
Climate Change Act www.legislation.gov.uk/primary+secondary?title=climate%20change
Draft Net Carbon Zero www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2019/9780111187654
The solution to most of our problems is readily available
Nuclear power: www.rolls-royce.com/media/our-stories/innovation/2017/smr.aspx#overview Explains small modular nuclear energy plants (fission, where the atom is split). Note that despite this sensible new technology largely designed by British engineers, as at 24 May 2020, Rolls-Royce’s future is now under threat because of Lockdown and associated Government policies. www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2020/05/23/letters-lockdown-killing-rolls-royce-government-piles-pain/ By contrast, the construction of outdated and dangerous and obscenely expensive nuclear power plants by China continues in Britain today.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=OlGzt9ur1bY Dave Borlace gives an excellent video introduction to fusion power, see the comments as well.
https://fusion4freedom.com/ Principal site for making fusion power a reality.
For many more practical solutions, including low tech see:
Philip Foster, A dreadful waste, 2020 How to burn waste cleanly to generate electricity and many useful by-products Read here
“I suspect that most of the public are distrustful of computer models without knowing why: Computer models contain no facts - they are simply a list of assumptions presented as mathematical equations. A good assumption is based on a highly significant correlation coupled with a plausible (and if possible tested) causal link. Bad assumptions are often based on incomplete knowledge, poor correlations, and no definite causal links. Oh, and lots of guesswork. Plus all the assumptions you made without realising. Which is why computer models can be very effective ways of testing your assumptions, but very poor at actually predicting reality.” (Anthony New, May 2020, no link available)
Predictions of the future based on computer models are discredited
‘We will follow the science’ is the phrase used by the British Government to justify Covid-19 lockdown, March-June/onwards 2020. This term is also applied to global warming. As already described, this is nothing to do with ‘science’. Where there is no debate, no independent checking of data, no interrogation of the analysis, no checking of the results against common sense and the real world, and no means whereby errors can be corrected - there is no science. Even if the individuals concerned once trained as scientists, by operating in this way they are not engaging in the activity of science and their words do not comprise scientific advice. Under such circumstances their words are not even professional opinion but mere assertion. This remains the case even when the assertions are presented in the form of a graph or a computer model.
Where an assertion is an opinion devoid of doubt, it has become a dogmatic ideological position. In addition, statements may be known or suspected to be false but are made for the purpose of coercion in accordance with a personal goal or a political agenda.
Any claims to be ‘following the science’ are therefore misleading. Science itself is not the problem here, rather, the lax/disingenuous use of language.
For information on the claims of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) members to be scientists please refer to the work of Donna Laframboise, a Canadian investigative journalist, who spent months fact-checking the scientific credentials of all the IPCC AR5 authors and discovered many activists pretending to be top climate scientists https://nofrakkingconsensus.com/climate-bible/
Much more at these links:
Site where computer models and their predictions are examined. The models were found to have extensive flaws despite being promoted by Imperial College London, which once had (and deserved) a very high reputation. https://lockdownsceptics.org/how-reliable-is-imperial-colleges-modelling/
Related issues: Medics for Health, Freedom and Democracy www.mwgfd.de
American Institute for Economic Research, Urgent Report on Pandemics and Freedom www.aier.org
You may be convinced that carbon dioxide is a good thing and that media and governments are wrong to demonise it and legislate against it. You may agree that Extinction Rebellion, in its support of biofuels and wind turbines, creates the very destruction and extinctions it protests against. If you want all this to stop, if you want things put right, then please pass on this booklet/PDF to everyone you can think of, produce your own report using this information, or translate it into other languages. Write to the media, your political representatives, religious leaders, and any public figures whom you admire. Check what children are being taught, challenge their schools, and press for universities to hold free and open debate. Show Planet of the Humans in every school and in clubs and societies of all types, and in your home. Use social media, volunteer your skills and join existing campaigns, or start your own. If you are a journalist, please use your platform to open up conversation.
Above all, talk about it to everyone you know. Carbon dioxide does not heat the planet - and it is essential for life.
* Hard or digital copies of these documents can be obtained from us using the "contact us" menu at the top of this page.
Published by St Matthew Publishing on behalf of Beauty and the Beastly Truth Ltd.
ISBN 978 1901546767