CLIMATE HYSTERIA AND RELATED MATTERS BUT ‘WHO’ IS BEHIND ALL THIS?
AN ESSAY by Robin Davies, LL.B, Barrister
Over the last several years, I have become increasingly uneasy about the strident tone and nature of public assertion about the climate. I am conscious of the fact that the climate has changed over the ages but I had not noticed, personally, any dramatic changes over the period of my life, some 82 years. However, I was prepared to accept that there were others more knowledgeable and better qualified on the subject and it would seem wise to accept their opinion and advice. We were told that 97% of all scientists agreed that the climate was changing and that it was caused by the activities of the human race. On the other hand, I was concerned to listen to comments that the debate was over and that any person who did not agree was a “denier” and a “heretic”. Then along came a young vulnerable girl who was hailed as a saint. It seemed to me that what I was observing was not a reasoned assessment by climate change scientists but a political movement with religious overtones. I then decided it was time to investigate, research and evaluate the information and opinion of other scientists, researchers and investigative journalists so as to form a considered, and hopefully balanced, opinion of my own.
The purpose of this essay is not to convert the reader to any opinion of my own but to interest you enough so as to encourage you to do the same yourself and not necessarily to accept the assertions which are constantly made as dogma by the BBC and other parts of the media.
I do not intend you to bore you with much technical information but to demonstrate what I have found, and you can find, in published literature and articles. First of all, what is the “official” line constantly promulgated through the media:
1. The world is warming to dangerous levels by a rise in temperatures due to increased levels of Co2 emissions caused by human beings, known as Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW).
2. There is a scientific consensus. 97% of all scientists agree. The issue is beyond debate. (the dictionary interpretation of “consensus” is wide spread agreement; unanimity).
The historic sequence of this is, as follows:
1970s to mid- 1980s – the era of Global Cooling scare. Every major climate organisation endorsed the ice age scare, including Climate Research Unit based at University of East Anglia (CRU), NAS, NASA. Even John Holdren (now a fervent Warmist and previous advisor to President Obama) warned in 1971 that pollutions and volcanic ash could start a new ice age.
1980s to 1998 – the era of Global Warming. Temperatures start to rise. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was formed in 1988 to examine how CO2 and other greenhouse gases impact the climate (more about that later). The IPCC adopted the assumption that global warming was caused by human activities causing an increase in CO2 emissions and set about finding evidence to prove or support it. The Hockey Stick graph is produced based on computer modelling, showing temperatures on an average to slightly declining level until the start of the Industrial Revolution and then a steep rise in temperatures thus producing the hockey stick effect and at the same time eliminating the well- established Medieval Warming period and the Little Ice Age. This scientific model was later discredited by the discovery that the tree rings evidence used had been adjusted by ordinary temperature readings to produce the desired effect. This misuse of computer modelling was further illuminated by the connected Climategate scandal where scientists at the CRU at East Anglia University were discovered through leaked e-mails to be correcting data and other evidence in support of their pre-conceived assumption. The Hockey Stick Graph so discredited, was omitted from the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report in 2007.
1998 to 2000s – Climate Change. Temperatures cease to rise but Co2 emissions continue to do so. (How is this occurring, if an increase in human activities creating CO2 emissions (AGW) is a pre-condition to a rise in temperatures?).
Finally – The Precautionary Principle (Principle 15 of Agenda 21 – we should act anyway, just in case)
“ We’ve got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing” – US Senator Timothy Wirth 1993.
“no matter if the science warming is all phony…climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world” – Canadian Environment Minister, Christine Stewart.
The link between the Club of Rome and Agenda 21 to climate change is here brought into the light.
Despite all these doubts and discrepancies, the IPCC continued to repeat the AGW hypothesis in their “Summary for Policymakers”. The Summary was published before the scientific reports on which it was based and often inconsistent with them. The media, and in particular the BBC and Sky, repeated this frequently without any assessment or balanced publication of any contrary view. That was to be prohibited as heretical and a denial of the gospel truth. (Dr Robert Balling – the IPCC notes that “no significant acceleration in the rate of sea level rise during the 20th century has been detected.” This did not appear in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers.)
CLIMATE – THE COUNTER VIEW
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe in it”
There is not a scientific “consensus” on global warming caused by man- made CO2 emissions (AGW) and 97% of all scientists do not agree. “Consensus” is not a term familiar to science. People very rarely wholly agree. Indeed, contrary opinions expressed in full and reasoned discussions over a period of time mostly produce a more efficacious final decision.
Christopher Monckton (previous advisor to Margaret Thatcher), in examining the survey on which the 97% was based, found that only 64 of the 11,944 papers had been marked as representing the view that more than half of recent global warming was anthropogenic (caused by mankind). That is 0.5 % not 97%. Climate scientist, Dr Mike Hulme – claims such as 2,500 of the of the world’s leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate are disingenuous….. the actual number of scientists who backed that claim was only a few dozen.
Dr Lee Gerhad – I never fully accepted or denied the AGW concept until the furore started after NASA’s James Hansen’s wild claims in the late 1980s. I went to the (scientific) literature to study the basis of the claim starting with first principles. My studies then led me to believe the claims were false.
Science is not consensus and consensus is not science.
Past Changes in the Climate
It is accepted that the world’s climate does change. There was the Ice Age when snow ice and frost covered the majority of the Earth. Then came a gradual warming process, followed in the last 10,000 years by the Minoan, Roman and Medieval Warming periods, all of which were warmer than today even though the CO2 concentration was only 70% of today’s. The Medieval Warming Period (950-1250 AD) saw Greenland settled by the Vikings – the clue is in the word “Green”- who departed during the early part of the Little Ice Age (1250-1850 AD). Before end of the Little Ice Age, temperatures had begun to rise steadily again until 1998 when the rise stopped and flattened but C02 continued to rise.
For human advancement warmer is better than colder.
The IPCC asserts an increase in C02 emissions causes global temperatures to rise. However, every record shows that temperature increases before CO2 does (Dr Tim Ball). CO 2 increase follows a rise in temperature and is not a pre-condition to a rise in temperature. In 1998, temperature ceased to rise but CO2 continued to rise. CO 2 represents 0.O4% of the total world greenhouse gases and the human contribution represents 3.5% of that 0.04%.
“Scientifically, it is sheer absurdity to think that we can get a nice climate by turning a CO 2 adjustment knob” (Dr Klaus-Eckhart, German Physicist & Meteorologist, 12th May 2012)
Some salient facts:
The IPCC computer Models predicted a warming rate of 2.6 degrees Centigrade (4.7 degrees Fahrenheit) dating back from 1984 up to 2020. The actual warming in reality was 1.7 degrees C (3.1F)- over stating it up. More CO2 and warmer weather means more world food production CO2 is plant food and means more plant growth. More CO 2 helps to feed more people worldwide Our current geological period has the lowest average CO2 levels in the history of the Earth There is a 140 million year trend of dangerously decreasing CO2. Following the stall in temperature increase in 1998 which gave weight to the opinion of sceptics that the IPCC hypothesis was baseless, the term Global Warming morphed into Climate Change.
This was clearly intended to broaden the extent of the attack. Modern warming begun before CO 2 began to rise sharply, Melting glaciers and rising seas predated increases of CO2. Both are directly the result of the natural warming that begun gradually in the year 1695, marking the beginning of the end of the Little Ice Age. The previous interglacial period, known as the Eemian warm period – between 130,000 to 150,000 years ago – was 8 degrees C (14.4 degrees F) higher than today. Polar bears evolved about 150,000 years ago and survived the Eemian warming period even though there was seldom any polar ice.
Polar bears are fine and will survive as they have done in the past under warmer conditions. As regards other scares:
Rising sea levels – levels have been rising since the last Ice Age, but no signs of it accelerating due to human activities. “Up to the present, there has been no convincing recording of any acceleration in sea level rather the opposite: a total lack of any sign of an accelerating trend” (a 2017 study by Nils-Axel Morner). “The sea level is linear for at least 100 years, there is no acceleration of the increase, A signal due to AGW is nowhere visible” (Klaus-Eckhart Puls).
Wildfires – Much publicity has been given to wildfires and their connection to Climate Change in USA, the Mediterranean and Australia. Part of the problem in Australia was due to restrictions put on farmers/landowners by environmental lobby groups which aggravated the situation but generally it would appear that there have been no substantive increases in wildfires. “There is less fire in the global landscape today than centuries ago (2016 study from Swansea University published by the Royal Society). The study also stated that “fire is a fundamental ecological agent in many of our ecosystems and only a problem when we choose to inhabit these fire- prone regions or we humans introduce it to non-fire-adapted ecosystems.”
Floods – there is no substantive evidence to prove that floods have increased significantly over the last 50 years. Floods have often been made worse by changes introduced by environmentalists such the prohibition against dredging. “A direct statistical link between anthropogenic climate change and trends in the magnitude/frequency of floods has not been established (Extreme weather expert, Roger Pielke Jr. on UN IPCC quotes)
I shall not continue but leave it to you to read, research, evaluate and come to your own opinion. Suffice it to say that I have come to the conclusion that, at best, the case for global warming and/or climate change caused by mankind has not been proved and, at worst, it is a shameful deceit on the public. Consider the sequence – Ice Age, Climate Warming, Climate Change, Precautionary Principle – Res ipsa loquitor (things speak for themselves).
If the climate is changing or warming, this does not necessarily that it is actions by mankind that is causing it. When talking of climate or indeed of today’s weather the two most important elements are the sun and cloud cover. In 1991, two Danish scientists published a paper showing a striking correlation between quickening of sunspot activity and the rise in temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere in the twentieth century. A colleague, Henrik Svenmark studied data compiled by NASA from satellites all over the world. It showed a remarkable correlation between the extent of cloud cover and the relative intensity of cosmic rays. With his fellow scientist, Friis-Christensen, Sevnmark, they decided to publish their findings in 1997. It was suggested to the IPCC that the influence of the sun on climate change should be added to the list of topics worthy of further research but it was rejected out of hand. It conflicted with the preconceived notion that global warming was man-made. The authors were threatened with loss of funding and received derisive comment from fellow scientists at a conference of Nordic Scientists. However, when invited to join in the general scorn, Markku Kumala, (the Finish chairman of the International Commission on Clouds and Precipitation) to much surprise observed that Svensmark idea “could be right”. Other studies were beginning to lend credibility to the theory that variations in global temperature had been influenced by fluctuations in cosmic rays, not just in recent times but far back into prehistory.
I recommend for your reading:
“The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science” by Dr Tim Ball PHD, University of London
“Scared to Death” by Christopher Booker and Richard North – Chapter 14 (Global Warming: the new Secular Religion)
“Watermelons” by James Delingpole, writer and journalist
“The Politically Correct Guide to Climate Change” by Marc Munro (founding editor of the Award Winning website ClimateDepot.com)
“Inconvenient Facts” by Gregory Wrightstone (geologist of West Virginia University).
But there are many other publications and articles available.
The Precautionary Principle
It is not the responsibility of the opponents of AGW to prove that dangerous human-caused climate change is not happening. The onus of proof lies on those who advocate it and propose the incurring of massive costs to solve the alleged problem. In December 2009, 141 scientists wrote a letter to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, on the eve of the Copenhagen Summit asking the UN supporters of AGW to demonstrate proof of their hypothesis. Answer came there none. Instead the adherents of the AGW creed resorted to Principle 15 of Agenda 21 – act anyway, just in case
“We’ve got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing.” (Timothy Wirth, former US senator in 1993). “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony… climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.” (Christine Stewart, Canadian Environment Minister). Despite the expenditure of trillions of world currency, you are urged to continue just in case. This involves higher taxes, higher prices and more regulation. This money could be used usefully for other more immediate problems which are clearer and more easily identified such as pollution in itself.
After all this, the question arises – why would anyone seek to blame mankind for causing a dangerous rise in world temperatures against the evidence, close down debate on the subject by smearing scientists who have contrary opinions, deprive them of their livelihoods by reducing their ability to publish their papers and to secure University and other sinecures and calling anyone who gives a contrary opinion a “Heretic” or “Denier”. Why is the BBC, Sky and other elements in the media promoting this scare campaign without giving the alternative views the opportunity to be heard as part of a balanced public debate. That is the question I asked myself. On researching, it would appear to stem from a movement of fanatical environmentalists bent on producing a government of the world by chosen elites (memories of the Brexit debate). Step forward the Club of Rome, Agenda 21 and the United Nations.
In an era when a belief in God has nearly vanished, into the vacuum steps a new religion of a puritanical nature. “When men cease to believe in God, they believe not in nothing but anything.” – G K Chesterton
The man most responsible for setting up the UN political and scientific structures was Maurice Strong. He was the man responsible with the assistance of Al Gore for setting up the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP). This provided the political platform. Out of that Agency and in conjunction with the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) they created the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to provide the scientific evidence that human produced CO2 is causing global warming. Strong is an interesting character. He was a Canadian with neo- Marxist views and was a senior member of the Club of Rome. (He was born in 1929 in Canada into a family with strong socialist views. His cousin. Anna Louise, was a Marxist and a member of the Comintern. Her burial in China in 1970 was supervised by Chou En-lai). The Club of Rome was formed by rich and influential people, mostly with socialist beliefs, who see the world’s problems in these simple and brief terms:
1. That the planet is increasingly becoming over populated.
2. That resources are fast running out and must somehow be conserved
3. That economic growth is the problem and not the solution,
4. That humanity is the real enemy, particularly rich people and modern developed democracies.
Their solution to these perceived problems appear to be to significantly reduce the world population, to destabilise and restructure modern developed democracies and create a global governance by a self-appointed elite. (shades of the EU)
The First Global Revolution – published by the Club of Rome in 1993:
“the common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these changes are caused by human intervention and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that it can be overcome. The real enemy is humanity itself.
Democracy is not a panacea. It cannot organise everything and it is unaware of its own limits. These must be faced squarely. Sacrilegious though it may sound, democracy is no longer suited for the tasks ahead. The complexity and the technical nature of many of today’s problems do not always allow elected representatives to make competent decisions at the right time”.
The following quotes from Maurice Strong are indicative of the general thrust:
“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialised nations collapse” and “Current life styles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class – involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work place air conditioning and suburban housing – are not sustainable. A shift is necessary which will require a vast strengthening of the multi-lateral system including the United Nations”.
Also a quote from Dr Robert Muller (former UN Assistant Secretary-General) – “Please stand up delegates of the world, hold each other’s hands and let us swear together that we will accomplish this historical miracle before it is too late to save this Earth with a new world order. All the rest is secondary. Let us strengthen and reform the United Nations into a United States of the World or a World Union like the European Union”.
My own observation on this is:
- It is ironic that they chose to subvert industrialised nations as it has been established by the Demographic Transition Model that populations decline as nations industrialise and the economy grows. The problem in most developed countries is too rapid a decline in population and insufficient young people to support massively expensive social programmes for the elderly so that many offset their decline in population by immigration. Recently, there has been a study by researchers at The University of Washington’s Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, which was published in The Lancet and which showed that most of the world is transitioning into a natural population decline.
- The proposals appear to involve the establishment of an authoritarian regime with top down centrally planned governance. No doubt, they believe that they have the high moral ground and are acting in the best interests of their subjects. However, Stalin and Hitler appeared to like such regimes also and with similar beliefs in holding the moral high ground (well to start with- Hitler loved his dog!). And look where that led us!
- If what they propose is not so draconian, who is to appoint the elites, in what manner and how are wrongs to be righted, who will appoint the courts and will there be an army or world police to enforce their laws/regulations bearing in mind there is no evolved history of government to inform it? Why should the “elite” be better at making such decisions than the ordinary man and women particularly having regard to the gravity of the proposed action and their human rights?
- How is population to be reduced? Sterilisation, euthanasia, taking away children in excess of the prescribed number, deliberate introduction of viruses or straight forward culling? In any event, I can think of better ways of addressing a perceived problem of over-population than though the machinery of an authoritarian regime.
- Will this regime set down what we can eat, ration our food and our household utility requirements? All this is hinted at in their unguarded moments.
This is the general thrust and motivation behind the climate warming/change scare. Presented with the risk of global warming (warming is better than cooling) and the risk of a puritanical zealous authoritarian regime, I know which risk I would choose to accept.
Since starting on this Essay, we have experienced the Black Live Matters campaign. The website of this organisation overtly states that it is neo-Marxist and believes in the destruction of capitalist nations.
Extinction Rebellion – To whom the same remarks may apply.
The Climate Change Scare is also intended to make the populace scared enough to change their behaviour in ways which might have a deleterious effect on modern developed nations.
The Common Purpose -In the last 10 years or so, we have also seen our ability to express opinions or make comments increasingly restricted by constant objections to the words we use and the feelings we express – commonly known as political correctness. Where this comes from, I know not. They do not appear to have been debated and discussed in our Houses of Parliament and made law but we are expected to adhere to them. Is this the influence of the organisation known as The Common Purpose?
Covid 19 – In addition, we have suffered a lockdown from the Covid 19 virus. Its origins are still in some doubt.
You may like to consider whether these are all strands of the same Agenda – the destabilising and restructuring of modern developed democratic nations.
As I stated in my Preface, this is only my opinion based on my readings and researches. I wish that you would likewise form your own judgement in similar fashion. I would be only too delighted if you are able to make me modify or totally change my opinion. If you agree with me, then the question arises how can the potential evils I have identified be confronted, bearing in mind that the current mindset appears to be supported and encouraged by the BBC (they should hang their heads in shame), Sky and most of the Media. Perhaps, form a movement of a political nature and/or discuss with others if a TV channel can be created and funded so that an alternative view of society contrary to the prevailing world view can be presented?
Above all, to make the changes necessary to prevent the erosion of the British culture as it was known and appreciated, we must adhere to it within ourselves. I would recommend the following, particularly to the younger ones:
- Do not hold yourself out as virtuous (like some celebrities do), be virtuous in silence.
- Do not accept everything you are told. Think for yourself. Education is about teaching you how to think.
- Do not rush to change the world for the better, lest you change it for the worse. Read, learn, research, evaluate and gain some years of life experience before springing into action.
- Be courteous and of good manners.
- Do not clamour after your rights. Human Rights is a selfish concept. One man’s right is subject to another man’s right
- Rather than Human Rights, think of your Human Duties (the other side of the coin to Rights)– the duty to your family, the duty to your community, your duty to your country, your duty to your God and your duty to your Self.
- Do not take yourself too seriously and appreciate the absurdity in life. Laugh and be happy.
- Listen to the quiet small voice within you.
The future is with you. Before long, I will be leaving for a (hopefully) better place.
And on that note, I wish you good luck in your researches.
Author : Robin Davies LL.B. Barrister