An Alternative Climate Change Perspective
Quite a common phrase you hear in regards to climate change and man made global warming is, “The science is settled” however this is a complete fallacy, science is never settled by its nature and is always being contradicted by new evidence so it is more of an ongoing pursuit of truth which is never settled and always open to new information that might potentially alter the foundations of current interpretations.
This is not the reason why that phrase is used in this particular circumstance, it is to reinforce a talking point and idea in people that there is no alternative debate or possible theory that might disprove the ‘science’ that humans are destroying the planet through c02 production, frequently the news will state, “All scientists agree on climate change” and similar outlandish lies.
In this article we are going to take a look at various sources of information which will show that this is not the case, and how climate ‘scientists’ such as the staff as the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) conspired to silence other scientists on the debate and used government connections and crafty tactics to fabricate data which would back up their argument that helped form the policies now being used to massively reduce the quality of life for the average citizen.
Since the early 2000’s politicians have been saying we are at a ‘tipping point’ and that we only have 10 years to save the planet, Al Gore predicted in his 2006 documentary ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ the Polar Ice Cap would have melted and the sea level would rise as much as 20 feet placing most cities underwater.
According to the WWF (World Wildlife Fund for Nature) website:
“Polar ice caps are melting as global warming causes climate change. We lose Arctic sea ice at a rate of almost 13% per decade, and over the past 30 years, the oldest and thickest ice in the Arctic has declined by a stunning 95%.
If emissions continue to rise unchecked, the Arctic could be ice-free in the summer by 2040. But what happens in the Arctic does not stay in the Arctic. Sea ice loss has far-reaching effects around the world.
Global average sea level has risen by about 7–8 inches since 1900 and it’s getting worse. Rising seas endanger coastal cities and small island nations by exacerbating coastal flooding and storm surge, making dangerous weather events even more so. Glacial melt of the Greenland ice sheet is a major predictor of future sea level rise; if it melts entirely, global sea levels could rise 20 feet.”
Interestingly this study from The National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) states otherwise:
We have been studying climate change and potentially associated sea level changes resulting from melting ice and warming oceans for a half century. In the 1970s our primary concern was global cooling and an advancing new ice age. Many believe that increasing quantities of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere could result in rising levels of the sea in general. The record does not show this to be true. There is no evidence whatever to support impending sea-level-rise catastrophe or the unnecessary expenditure of state or federal tax monies to solve a problem that does not exist.
The National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has updated its coastal sea level tide gauge data which continues to show no evidence of accelerating sea level rise. These measurements include tide gauge data at coastal locations along the West Coast, East Coast, Gulf
Coast, Pacific Ocean, Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico, as well as seven Pacific Island groups and six Atlantic Island groups, comprising more than 200 measurement stations.
Their research shows that there has been no more than a foot rise in sea level every century and that level has remained the steady over the last 170 years:
The relative sea level trend is 2.92 millimeters/year with a 95% confidence
interval of +/- 0.09 mm/yr based on monthly mean sea level data from
1856 to 2023 which is equivalent to a change of 0.96 feet in 100 years.
Source: https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=8518750
The NOAA collect data from around the World from 10 coastal cities: Ceuta, Spain; Honolulu, Hawaii; Atlantic City, New Jersey; Sitka, Alaska; Port Isabel, Texas; St. Petersburg, Florida; Fernandina Beach, Florida; Mumbai/Bombay, India; Sydney, Australia; and Slipshavn, Denmark and the trend in steady sea level rise is consistent throughout their surveys.
Steven Koonin of the Wall Street Journal had this to say in 2014. “The models do not account for the fact that the rate of global sea-level rise 70 years ago was as large as what we observe today—about one foot per century.”
Albert Parker from the Melbourne Institute of Technology and Clifford D.Ollier from the School of Earth and Environment, Western Australia express in their analysis on IPCC predictions vs evidence based forcasts:
IPCC extreme predictions have been made worse by other local panels.
Evidence from real sea level measurements does not support models.
Claims and subsequent analyses are speculative.
These results are not suitable for rigorous use in planning or policy making.
The extreme predictions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have been the inspiration of hundreds of papers by local panels proposing ever-increasing alarming messages. The latest analyses are on the effect on the surf spots of California of a tidal range added to a sea level rise of 1.67 m. We show that the sea level rises estimate by a local panel for California as well
as the IPCC for the entire world are up to one order of magnitude larger than what is extrapolated from present sea level rise rates and accelerations based on tide gauge data sets (California-8, Permanent Service on Mean Sea Level PSMSL-301, Mitrovica-23, Holgate-9, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOAA-199 and US-71). These extrapolations are consistent with present temperature warming rates and accelerations of different global temperature data sets (University of Alabama in Huntsville UAH and Remote Sensing Systems RSS) and IPCC Assessment Report (AR) 5 Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5 sensitivity. As the evidence from the measurements does not support the IPCC expectations or the even more alarming predictions by the local California panel, these claims and the subsequent analyses are too speculative and not suitable for rigorous use in planning or policy making.
Source: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0964569117303071?via%3Dihub
Scientists William Happer, Professor of Physics at Princeton University and Richard Lindzen, Professor of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at Massachusetts Institute of Technology have wrote many papers on the fraudulent aspects of climate science and the peer review process:
“Never, in our experience, has anything in science been beyond dispute. It is astounding that one of the most complex questions in physics (namely, the behaviour of a multi-phase, radiatively active, turbulent fluid) should be labelled by the government — and funding agencies it controls — to be so settled that sceptics are silenced. That models supporting the climate-crisis narrative fail to describe observations confirms that the puzzle remains unsolved. Making this peculiar situation particularly dangerous are world leaders who have abandoned the science and intellectual rigour bequeathed to us by the Enlightenment and its forebears.
In our decades of personal experience in the field we have been dismayed that many distinguished scientific journals now have editorial boards that further the agenda of climate-change alarmism rather than objective science. Research papers with scientific findings contrary to the dogma of climate calamity are rejected by reviewers, many of whom fear that their research funding will be cut if any doubt is cast on the coming climate catastrophe. Journal editors have been fired for publishing papers that go against the party line of the climate-alarm establishment.
Alas, peer review of the climate literature is a joke. It is pal review, not peer review. The present situation violates the ancient principle “no man shall be a judge in his own cause.” Accordingly, all peer reviewed climate publications need to be viewed with scepticism. Some are right, but many have serious problems with confirmation bias.
The IPCC is the single most cited source of the theory that dangerous global warming is caused by human emissions of fossil fuels, CO2 and other greenhouse gases. The IPPC is also, the dominant source of the models used in scenario predictions of dangerous climate warming.
However, the IPCC CMIP models (Coupled Model Intercomparison Project) do not reliably predict temperatures and therefore should be rejected under basic scientific method, demonstrated next.
CMIP5. John Christy, PhD, Professor of Atmospheric Science at the University of Alabama, applied the scientific method to CMIP5 102 predictions of temperatures 1979-2016 by models from 32 institutions.
He explained he used “the traditional scientific method in which a claim (hypothesis) is made and is tested against independent information to see if the claim can be sustained,” and produced the following chart:
At the bottom, the blue, purple and green lines show the actual reality temperature observations against which the models’ predictions were tested.
The dotted lines are 102 temperature “simulations” (predictions) made by the models from 32 institutions for the period 1979-2016.
The red line is the consensus of the models, their average.
The graph clearly shows 101 of the 102 predictions by the models (dotted lines) and their consensus average (red line) fail miserably to predict reality.
The IPCC is a government controlled body and dismiss reports that are not in line with the policy makers opinions:
IPCC Fact Sheet: “’Acceptance’ is the process used for the full underlying report in a Working Group Assessment Report or a Special Report after its SPM has been approved…. Changes …are limited to those necessary to ensure consistency with the Summary for Policymakers.” IPCC Fact Sheet
and
“IPCC Fact Sheet: How does the IPCC approve reports? ‘Approval’ is the process used for IPCC Summaries for Policymakers (SPMs). Approval signifies that the material has been subject to detailed, line-by-line discussion, leading to agreement among the participating IPCC member countries, in consultation with the scientists responsible for drafting the report.”
Climategate
The Climategate scandal started in 2009 when emails and documents were stolen and leaked from the CRU (Climatic Research Unit) in East Anglia, England. They showed how lead scientists from the IPCC who created the ‘Hockey Stick’ graph which allegedly shows the global or hemispherical mean temperature record of the past 500 to 2000 years – did so in an unscientific way, collaborated to silence critics and engaged in data manipulation which was portrayed as evidence that backed up the theory on man-made global warming which forms policy today.
The archive contains over 1000 emails and 3000 documents which span over 13 years and has been released in two sets. The documents were stolen allegedly by Chinese hackers and then uploaded to a server which was then distributed to climate sceptics and mainstream media outlets.
After five investigations were completed the climate scientists were absolved of any wrong doing, it was claimed the emails had been taken out of context and many reports emerged that upheld the same opinion and state vehemently no misconduct had taken place.
On further examination of the investigations carried out it appears that they were not conducted in a thorough and objective way and were stacked with conflict of interest and a complete lack of research and scrutiny.
Below are some examples using a report by Ross McKitrick, Professor of Environmental Economics, University of Guelph Canada:
Source: https://www.rossmckitrick.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/rmck_climategate.pdf
The Muir Russell report also known as the Independent Climate Change E-mails Review (ICCER) was produced with Keith Briffa (member of the CRU) and John Mitchell (a CRU review editor)
The House of Commons Report consisted of 5 panels of witnesses to give evidence for one session of which only one panel containing two members were critics of the CRU who were not experts on the subject matter or sufficiently qualified to provide evidence on the matters being discussed. The rest were employees of the CRU and University of East Anglia and strong supporters of climate change policy. They also sidestepped many major issues that would be unsatisfactory in any other circumstance, see the following excerpt:
“The Committee looked at Jones’ “hide the decline” email as the main exemplar of dishonesty:
I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd [sic] from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.
They heard from Jones that he was not trying to hide anything because he had discussed the divergence between proxies and observations in journal articles. On this basis the Committee strongly rejected any allegation of dishonesty:
That he has published papers—including a paper in Nature—dealing with this aspect of the science clearly refutes this allegation. In our view, it was shorthand for the practice of discarding data known to be erroneous. (Report, 21)
However the evidence in the email itself and as submitted to the Committee (Ev 147-148) makes clear that the purpose of the “trick” was not to manipulate data in a journal article, but in WMO and IPCC reports for policy makers. It is astonishing that a House of Commons Inquiry would excuse a misleading presentation of data in a report to policymakers on the grounds that the scientist had acknowledged the flaws in the data in a separate article for his academic peers. The fact that Jones had acknowledged the divergence in journal articles makes it worse that he hid the decline in official reports, as it proves that the deception was not inadvertent.”
Context: Hide the decline refers to when several lead scientists at the IPCC were conspiring ways to hide the Medieval Warm Period from the temperature records which would then go on to form the Hockey Stick Graph that makes it appear we are at unparalleled levels of global warming.
The Oxburgh Inquiry was conducted by Lord Ronald Oxburgh and The Royal Society via the request of The University of East Anglia. Lord Oxburgh is well known for his work as a public advocate for reduced carbon emissions. He is President of the Carbon Capture and Storage Association and Chairman of Falck Renewable Resources and UK Vice-Chair of GLOBE International who lobby for climate change policy.
The investigation failed to produce any of the notes, transcripts, papers used as evidence or anything substantial, despite their promise of an independent and comprehensive inquest, the finished report was only 5 pages long and was incredibly vague, also failing to address many of the issues that were raised by genuine opposition in regards to the emails.
Penn State Inquiry This was a brief inquiry not even close to an investigation, they only interviewed two people; Gerald North of Texas A&M and Donald Kennedy of Stanford, both whom already supported the work by the IPCC and the University of East Anglia.
Inter-Academy Council Investigation The Inter-Academy Council was created to advise governments and international bodies on the issue of global warming and man made climate change, it specifically seeks and commission reports that support their theories and their work has been produced with lead scientists from the IPCC, who also paid for the Inter-Academy Council to carry out the investigation.
The Co-chairman of the IAC, Robert Dijkgraaf was interviewed and asked about the Climategate emails he had this to say:
“Those emails are not directly related to the work of the IPCC. This affair shows how sensitive the issue is and what is at stake. Transparency is paramount. Scientists live in a glass house. The more the impact of knowledge grows, the more important it becomes to make clear how you reached a conclusion.”
Read the Ross McKitrick report to see more details of these investigations and the obvious attempt to avoid critical questions and render the probes into the Climategate emails into nothing more than a theatre performance for public satisfaction.
Most of the mainstream news outlets claim it has been debunked and proven to be a hoax but when you read the emails and look at the evidence (or lack thereof) used in the different investigations combined with the conflicts of interest of the investigators themselves the picture looks very different even to the neutral observer.
Here are few of the Climateemails with some context provided as to what they are referring to:
From: gjjenkins@meto.gov.uk
To: p.jones@uea.ac.uk, deparker@meadow.meto.govt.uk
Subject: 1996 global temperatures
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 11:23 +0000 (GMT)
Cc: llivingston@meadow.meto.govt.uk, djcarson@meadow.meto.govt.uk, ckfolland@meadow.meto.govt.uk
Phil
Remember all the fun we had last year over 1995 global temperatures,
with early release of information (via Oz), "inventing" the December
monthly value, letters to Nature etc etc?
I think we should have a cunning plan about what to do this year,
simply to avoid a lot of wasted time.
I have been discussing with David P and suggest the following:
1. By 20 Dec we will have land and sea data up to Nov
2. David (?) computes the December land anomaly based on 500hPa
heights up to 20 Dec.
3. We assume that Dec SST anomaly is the same as Nov
4. We can therefore give a good estimate of 1996 global temps by 20
Dec
5. We feed this selectively to Nick Nuttall (who has had this in the
past and seems now to expect special treatment) so that he can write
an article for the silly season. We could also give this to Neville
Nicholls??
* Email from Geoff Jenkins head of Climate Change Prediction at the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research to Phil Jones director of the CRU, it is quite self explanatory, discussion of inventing data and passing it to Nick Nuttall of the United Nations Environment Program
From: Phil Jones
To: ray bradley ,mann@xxxxx.xxx, mhughes@xxxx.xxx
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
Cc: k.briffa@xxx.xx.xx,t.osborn@xxxx.xxxDear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or first thing tomorrow.
I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999 for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with
data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.
Thanks for the comments, Ray.Cheers
PhilProf. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) xxxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
*Email from Phil Jones head of the CRU to the IPCC authors of the Hockey Stick graph in regards to hiding data from the Medieval Warm Period, to see more about this ‘trick’ which is heavily disputed as taken out of context by mainstream media and other IPCC scientists, see this in depth counter argument by expert Steven McIntyre here who says:
“Much recent attention has been paid to the email about the “trick” and the effort to “hide the decline”. Climate scientists have complained that this email has been taken “out of context”. In this case, I’m not sure that it’s in their interests that this email be placed in context because the context leads right back to a meeting of IPCC authors in Tanzania, raising serious questions about the role of IPCC itself in “hiding the decline” in the Briffa reconstruction.
Relevant Climategate correspondence in the period (September-October 1999) leading up to the trick email is incomplete, but, in context, is highly revealing. There was a meeting of IPCC lead authors between Sept 1-3, 1999 to consider the “zero-order draft” of the Third Assessment Report. The emails provide clear evidence that IPCC had already decided to include a proxy diagram reconstructing temperature for the past 1000 years and that a version of the proxy diagram was presented at the Tanzania meeting showing the late twentieth century decline. I now have a copy of the proxy diagram presented at this meeting introduced the very severe decline that was hidden in the First Order Draft and Jones WMO Report”
At 04:19 PM 9/22/99 +0100, Keith Briffa wrote:I know there is pressure to present a nice tidy story as regards 'apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data' but in reality the situation is not quite so simple. We don't have a lot of proxies that come right up to date and those that do (at least a significant number of tree proxies) some unexpected changes in response that do not match the recent warming. I do not think it wise that this issue be ignored in the chapter.
*Deputy Director of the CRU Keith Briffa discusses the issues their lack of evidence to back up the theory on unprecedented global warming and shows how they are being pushed to find a ‘nice tidy story’ to present to the public.
One exception to the rest of the main news outlets though Forbes examined the Climategate emails after the second release and here is their opinion:
“A new batch of 5,000 emails among scientists central to the assertion that humans are causing a global warming crisis were anonymously released to the public yesterday, igniting a new firestorm of controversy nearly two years to the day after similar emails ignited the Climategate scandal.
Three themes are emerging from the newly released emails: (1) prominent scientists central to the global warming debate are taking measures to conceal rather than disseminate underlying data and discussions; (2) these scientists view global warming as a political “cause” rather than a balanced scientific inquiry and (3) many of these scientists frankly admit to each other that much of the science is weak and dependent on deliberate manipulation of facts and data.
The original Climategate emails contained similar evidence of destroying information and data that the public would naturally assume would be available according to freedom of information principles. “Mike, can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith [Briffa] re AR4 [UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 4th Assessment]?” Jones wrote to Penn State University scientist Michael Mann in an email released in Climategate 1.0. “Keith will do likewise. ... We will be getting Caspar [Ammann] to do likewise. I see that CA [the Climate Audit Web site] claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature paper!!”
These new emails add weight to Climategate 1.0 emails revealing efforts to politicize the scientific debate. For example, Tom Wigley, a scientist at the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, authored a Climategate 1.0 email asserting that his fellow Climategate scientists “must get rid of” the editor for a peer-reviewed science journal because he published some papers contradicting assertions of a global warming crisis.
More than revealing misconduct and improper motives, the newly released emails additionally reveal frank admissions of the scientific shortcomings of global warming assertions.”
For more information regarding the Climategate emails take a look at the 180 page book by John Costella which contains over a hundred emails and an in depth examination from an informed perspective.
PDF download: https://ia902809.us.archive.org/35/items/climategate-emails/climategate-emails.pdf
Unprecedented Global Warming
We consistently hear in the media and from policymakers that we are at unprecedented levels of global warming yet this view is only due to the excision of the Medieval Warm Period (otherwise known as the Medieval Climate Anomaly) and Little Ice Age from the records when creating the Hockey Stick Graph to present the ‘nice tidy story’ the advocates for the theory have been demanding.
The research on these distinctive events is variable in conclusions, some back up the theory of unprecedented warming and others claim that the warmest period in history was around 800 years ago, although what these events do show is that there has been consistent fluctuation in temperature and what we see today is not so out of the ordinary and it is well known that tree proxies are not the most reliable of sources so to state with any certainty that we are due for a catastrophe is naive.
The Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age are well documented, below are some examples sighted from academic papers:
The Medieval Climate Anomaly in Antartica by Sebastian Luning, Mariusz Galka and Fritz Vahrenholt
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0031018219303190
“The Medieval Climate Anomaly (MCA) is a well-recognized climate perturbation in many parts of the world, with a core period of 1000–1200 CE. Here we are mapping the MCA across the Antarctic region based on the analysis of published palaeotemperature proxy data from 60 sites. In addition to the conventionally used ice core data, we are integrating temperature proxy records from marine and terrestrial sediment cores as well as radiocarbon ages of glacier moraines and elephant seal colonies. A generally warm MCA compared to the subsequent Little Ice Age (LIA) was found for the Subantarctic Islands south of the Antarctic Convergence, the Antarctic Peninsula, Victoria Land and central West Antarctica. A somewhat less clear MCA warm signal was detected for the majority of East Antarctica. MCA cooling occurred in the Ross Ice Shelf region, and probably in the Weddell Sea and on Filchner-Ronne Ice Shelf. Spatial distribution of MCA cooling and warming follows modern dipole patterns, as reflected by areas of opposing temperature trends. Main drivers of the multi-centennial scale climate variability appear to be the Southern Annular Mode (SAM) and El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) which are linked to solar activity changes by nonlinear dynamics.
This paper focuses on the Medieval Climate Anomaly (MCA), a distinctive rapid climate fluctuation that has been documented from many parts of the world. The best-studied region is the mid and high latitude North Atlantic realm where numerous studies documented a pronounced warm phase during the MCA. This historically led to the introduction of the term ‘Early Medieval Warm Epoch’ (Lamb, 1965), which subsequently changed in the literature to ‘Medieval Warm Period’ (MWP), and finally to ‘Medieval Climate Anomaly’ (MCA) (e.g. Grove and Switsur, 1994). It is generally agreed today that the core period of the MCA comprises ca. 1000–1200 CE. Nevertheless, different time schemes and durations have historically been used in the literature, with the widest scheme comprising 800–1300 CE (e.g. Crowley and Lowery, 2000; Esper and Frank, 2009; Mann et al., 2009)”
Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years by Committee on Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years; Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate; Division on Earth and Life Studies; National Research Council
“The instrumentally measured warming of about 0.6°C during the 20th century is also reflected in borehole temperature measurements, the retreat of glaciers, and other observational evidence, and can be simulated with climate models. Large-scale surface temperature reconstructions yield a generally consistent picture of temperature trends during the preceding millennium, including relatively warm conditions centered around A.D. 1000 (identified by some as the “Medieval Warm Period”) and a relatively cold period (or “Little Ice Age”) centered around 1700. The existence of a Little Ice Age from roughly 1500 to 1850 is supported by a wide variety of evidence including ice cores, tree rings, borehole temperatures, glacier length records, and historical documents. Evidence for regional warmth during medieval times can be found in a diverse but more limited set of records including ice cores, tree rings, marine sediments, and historical sources from Europe and Asia, but the exact timing and duration of warm periods may have varied from region to region, and the magnitude and geographic extent of the warmth are uncertain.” Page 17
The Frozen Climate Views of the IPCC by Marcel Crok
https://www.academia.edu/102998645/The_Frozen_Climate_Views_of_the_IPCC
“In AR6, the IPCC makes the remarkable claim that “global surface temperatures are more likely than not unprecedented in the past 125,000 years.” This claim erases the so-called Holocene Thermal Maximum, sometimes called the Holocene Climatic Optimum, terms that are avoided by the IPCC. The IPCC flattens our climate history thereby making the current warming look “unprecedented” and therefore “unique”. But is this realistic? The Holocene Thermal Maximum is well documented in the literature and can be considered a period that extended from c. 9800-5700 before present (BP8) when temperatures varied considerably in many parts of the globe and maximal Holocene temperatures were reached in many areas, but often at different times. As the Spanish scientist Javier Vinós, author of the recent book Climate of the Past9, notes in Chapter 1:
Multi-proxy reconstructions are useful, but biases and unavoidable limitations of the technique result in their inability to answer the IPCC question: Was the last decade the warmest the planet has been during the Holocene?
As Vinós explains a multi-proxy reconstruction is very dependent on researcher’s choices, starting with the proxies included and excluded, whether land and marine proxies are representative of temperatures in the area, and what their respective weight should be in the mix. Attempting to measure the average temperature of the planet with a few hundred low-precision uncalibrated proxy thermometers that provide a reading once a decade to once a century or two at best is a laughable task. Comparing the resulting global average with our daily modern measurements, including satellites and thousands of high-precision calibrated thermometers distributed all over the world, including all the oceans, and then declaring we can trust that it is more likely than not that the past decade is warmer than any century during the past 12,000 years is an untenable claim.” Page 6
Late Holocene temperature and precipitation variations in alpine region of the northeastern Tibetan Plateau and their response to global climate change by Youmo Li, Duo Wu, Tao Wang and Lin Chen of Lanzuou
“Knowledge of temperature and precipitation variations on the northeastern Tibetan Plateau (NETP) during the recent past can improve our understanding of late Holocene regional climate change and its response to global climate change, in the past and potentially the future. Based on records of multiple geochemical indicators and branched glycerol dialkyl glycerol tetraethers from the sediments of alpine Lake Bihu on the NETP, we reconstructed high-resolution precipitation sequences and quantified the variation of the mean air temperature of months above freezing (MAF, between May and October) over the past ~3500 years. The MAF reconstruction shows obvious fluctuations on decadal to centennial timescales, and the absolute values of the reconstructed temperature range from 0.70 to 3.98 °C, with an average of 2.19 °C. The precipitation record reflects the high-frequency variability of the East Asian summer monsoon (EASM). The maximum precipitation and temperature on the NETP occurred during the Medieval Warm Period (MWP, ~800–1400 CE), rather than during the Current Warm Period (CWP, the last 150 years). We also observed broadly similar patterns of warm–wet and cold–dry climatic variations over the NETP and the broader EASM region; moreover, the decadal to centennial temperature fluctuations were consistent on a large spatial scale. Our results indicate that temperature variability during the late Holocene was primarily controlled by solar radiation, interrupted by multiple decades of successive volcanic eruptions. In addition, anomalous and rapid warming during the CWP may also be related to the unprecedented increase in atmospheric greenhouse gases. Precipitation variability in this region, driven by changes in the EASM, may have been primarily a response to changes in total solar irradiance and associated changes in atmospheric–oceanic modes (e.g., the El Niño–Southern Oscillation, Intertropical Convergence Zone, and Western Pacific Subtropical High). Overall, our results provide robust evidence for global climate teleconnections between different regions, especially in high mountains, in the past, present, and potentially in the future.”
Pacific Ocean Heat Content During the Past 10,000 Years by Yair Rosenthal, Braddock K Linsley and Delia W.Oppo
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1240837
“Observed increases in ocean heat content (OHC) and temperature are robust indicators of global warming during the past several decades. We used high-resolution proxy records from sediment cores to extend these observations in the Pacific 10,000 years beyond the instrumental record. We show that water masses linked to North Pacific and Antarctic intermediate waters were warmer by 2.1 ± 0.4°C and 1.5 ± 0.4°C, respectively, during the middle Holocene Thermal Maximum than over the past century. Both water masses were ~0.9°C warmer during the Medieval Warm period than during the Little Ice Age and ~0.65° warmer than in recent decades. Although documented changes in global surface temperatures during the Holocene and Common era are relatively small, the concomitant changes in OHC are large.”
The Medieval Climate Anomaly in South America by Sebastian Luning and Fritz Vahrenholt
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1040618218308322?via%3Dihub
“The Andean warm phase that preceded the LIA is known as the Medieval Climate Anomaly (MCA), a recognized period of natural pre-industrial climate change associated with marked temperature and hydroclimatic variability in many parts of the world (e.g. Graham et al., 2011; Lüning et al., 2018; Lüning et al., 2017; Mann et al., 2009). The anomaly was first described by Lamb (1965) as ‘Early Medieval Warm Epoch’, which subsequently changed in the literature to ‘Medieval Warm Period’ (MWP), and later to MCA. It is generally agreed today that the core period of the MCA encompasses ca. 1000-1200 AD, even though different time schemes and durations have historically been used in the literature (e.g. Crowley and Lowery, 2000; Esper and Frank, 2009; Mann et al., 2009). The MCA represents the most recent natural warm phase and provides crucial context information for our Current Warm Period (CWP) and its warming process.”
As you can see this is not a black and white situation, the science is heavily disputed coming from the IPCC and climate change advocates regarding the MWP and LIA but because of the nature of the centralised and biased system the IPCC operates much of these opposing views are not getting through. There have been many attempts to shut down academics and scientists who do not agree with the ‘official’ theories – which is shown also in the Climategate emails.
C02 Alarmism
C02 emissions are at the centre of the global warming debate, sighted as the main reason for the reduction and phasing out of fossil fuels and restrictions being places on our lives.
We are told that the C02 that humans produce through fossil fuels and industry is driving climate change and will lead the entire World into disaster if we do not become totally carbon neutral. The United Nations are demanding we reach carbon neutrality by 2050:
From the United Nations official page: https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/net-zero-coalition
“The science shows clearly that in order to avert the worst impacts of climate change and preserve a livable planet, global temperature increase needs to be limited to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. Currently, the Earth is already about 1.1 degrees Celsius warmer than it was in the late 1800’s, and emissions continue to rise. To keep global warming to no more than 1.5 degrees Celsius - as called for in the Paris Agreement – emissions need to be reduced by 45% by 2030 and reach net zero by 2050”
This opinion is perpetuated as the truth by the media claiming it to be undisputed by any serious scientists or academics much like the IPCC Hockey Stick graph yet science journals show that to not be correct.
There is a lot of literature also that shows that the increased C02 we are witnessing is natural and not from human driven emissions, see the following link for a collection of 159 scientific research papers which conclude in their results that there is no significant difference to the Earth’s climate from human C02 production:
Here is a couple of charts often sighted by academics and supporters of the theory that C02 is reaching dangerously high levels:
AP News claim that C02 is at the highest level is has been in 4 Million years:
https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-climate-co2-carbon-emissions-plants-crops-167887410508
While this statement is true if you look back further than 4 million years like in the graph below it shows that the level of C02 has greatly fluctuated over the past 400 million years and there is nothing unprecedented about the levels we are at today:
Many factors determine the level of C02 such as volcanoes and weather events. There have been studies which show that plants are somewhat starved of C02 at the current levels we are at today.
This study by the Smithsonian Institute summarises:
“Speed is not a word typically associated with trees; they can take centuries to grow. However, a new study finds evidence that forests in the Eastern United States are growing faster than they have in the past 225 years. The study offers a rare look at how an ecosystem is responding to climate change.”
Indoor plant growers who add C02 to their crops have found that plants grow best at around 1,500 parts per million, and actually cease to grow at around 300 parts per million (we are currently at 400ppm) so attempting to reduce the carbon in the atmosphere potentially could be a huge problem in the future for food security with massive burdens already placed on farmers worldwide because of net-zero targets and climate change policy.
Renewable Energy
The solution put forward by politicians and think-tanks for our allegedly dire situation is investing in renewable energy such as solar, wind and replacing transport powered by fossil fuels for electric cars.
The cost of the solution proposed would be huge and the complete transfer off of fossil fuels would make Western countries totally dependant on countries in the East like Russia and China who have a complete monopoly over the minerals needed for development of renewables.
It is becoming apparent with time that the alternatives put forward are not sufficient or even close to being a replacement for fossil fuels.
This study shows that wind and solar combined in 2020 only produced 4% of the world’s electricity.
Nuclear is slowly being recognised as a clean energy alternative but it is being rejected by policymakers and politicians alike despite the potential ability to be self sustaining and clean which would not result in deindustrialisation and full dependence on communist countries for vital materials.
The Price of Nature
Not only is the new green deal a total deprivation to the lower classes it is a very profitable endeavour for the ruling elite who are orchestrating it, the estimated value of nature conservation and related activities is 125 trillion US dollars a year (source: https://web.archive.org/web/20210308115331/https://capitalscoalition.org/the-value-of-ecosystem-services-from-giant-panda-reserves/)
The commodification of nature often referred to as Nature Capital and Ecosystem Services is being managed by the Worlds most powerful corporations:
C orporations and philanthropists use tax evading foundation systems to cash in on the new deals being implemented and are already heavily invested in the process and ensuring them and their friends get first dibs on the sinister new control mechanism.
Here are a couple of articles that explain and detail the commodification of nature:
Natives in Africa who have lived off the land for generations are being removed in the name of conservation and have been attacked by violent groups funded by the World Wildlife Fund some have even been killed.
Questionable Intentions
It is difficult to comprehend why our officials and media continue to insist that it is irrefutable humans are responsible for global warming and that we need to dramatically reduce the quality of our lives and be controlled by a social credit score based on carbon usage which will gradually be reduced over time and eventually prevent the average individual of having any prosperity, even resulting in the death of millions of people through famine.
Mototaka Nakamura previously a scientist at the International Pacific Research Centre has spoke out about the issues with climate modelling in ‘Confessions of a climate scientist: The global warming hypothesis is an unproven hypothesis’
“Climate forecasting is simply impossible, if only because future changes in solar energy output are unknowable. As to the impacts of human-caused CO2, they can’t be judged with the knowledge and technology we currently possess.
The supposed measuring of global average temperatures from 1890 has been based on thermometer readouts barely covering 5 per cent of the globe until the satellite era began 40-50 years ago. We do not know how global climate has changed in the past century, all we know is some limited regional climate changes, such as in Europe, North America and parts of Asia. This makes meaningless the Paris targets of 1.5degC or 2degC above pre-industrial levels.
Modellers are merely trying to construct narratives that justify the use of these models for climate predictions.
The take-home message is that all climate simulation models, even those with the best parametric representation scheme for convective motions and clouds, suffer from a very large degree of arbitrariness in the representation of processes that determine the atmospheric water vapour and cloud fields. Since the climate models are tuned arbitrarily …there is no reason to trust their predictions/forecasts.”
Rather than being settled it’s more like the science has been hijacked. The doomsday scenario laid out before us does not represent the opinions of all scientists only the few that have been selected to reinforce the narrative, who are paid generously and elevated to high status in society.
While we shut down in the West, China opens 2 new coal plants every week which shows they have no intention of sticking to the ‘agreed’ climate goals.
One of the most pronounced impacts of climate change policies is on individual rights – the bedrock of Western democracies and one of the staples of freedom for the common man.
This is the opinion of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights group states regarding the issue:
“It is now beyond dispute that climate change caused by human activity has negative impacts on the full enjoyment of human rights. Climate change has profound impacts on a wide variety of human rights, including the rights to life, self-determination, development, food, health, water and sanitation and housing.”
Source: https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Issues/ClimateChange/COP21.pdf
In summary, the climate change situation is so urgent that it must require that our individual rights be relinquished in order to save the planet, and it is ‘beyond dispute’.
The lack of interest in viable solutions like nuclear and keen interest to grind all manufacturing and industry to a halt whilst moving towards absolute dependence on China and Russia to keep the lights on sounds more like communist subversion plan than a planetary rescue mission – but that is not actually so far fetched.
Russia is well known for its infiltration of the ‘Peace Movement’ and espionage in the United States in an attempt to stifle growth and development of new weapons during the 1970’s, but perhaps not so well known is the Perestroika Deception as revealed by KGB defector Anatoliy Golitsyn.
The Perestroika Deception is a Soviet strategy to convince the West Russian communism had collapsed and been reformed by President Mikhail Gorbachev who steered away from it’s plans for World communism into a more democratic society which valued the rights of the individual and freedom. The West would welcome the changes, the Cold War stand off would end and fears of communism slowly dissipate leaving ample opportunity for infiltration with assistance from China to then bring about the demise of Western democracy.
Golitsyn predicted events in the Soviet bloc following the ‘collapse’ of the Soviet Union with 95% accuracy and worked closely with the CIA, also publishing two books New Lies for Old and The Perestroika Deception.
Here is a few quotes from Golitsyn regarding the Perestroika Deception:
“They [the Soviets] intend...to induce the Americans to adopt their own 'restructuring' and convergence of the Soviet and American systems using to this end the fear of nuclear conflict.... Convergence will be accompanied by blood baths and political re-education camps in Western Europe and the United States. The Soviet strategists are counting on an economic depression in the United States and intend to introduce their reformed model of socialism with a human face as an alternative to the American system during the depression.”
“The Soviet transition to a new political structure shows that the Soviet strategists are thinking, planning and acting in broad terms, way beyond the imagination of Western politicians. For this reason Western politicians cannot grasp the fact that the Soviet intention is to win by 'democratic' means. Through transition to a new system, the Soviets are revitalising their own people and institutions, and they are succeeding. Contrary to Western belief, they are holding their ranks together.”
“...the West's main weakness remains unchanged: it cannot grasp the fact that it is facing an acceleration in the unfolding of Soviet convergence strategy which is intended to procure the subservience of the West to Moscow under an ultimate Communist World Government.”
Shortly after the alleged collapse of the Soviet Union Mikhail Gorbachev became obsessed by the environment and made it his personal mission to ‘save the world’ from the destruction of man. He created the organisation ‘Green Cross International’ and headed many of the early conventions which established global warming causes by man as a threat to mankind such as the Earth Summit 1992, he was instrumental in the development of Agenda 21 and sustainable development goals.
Gorbachev’s commitment was ‘ahead of its time’ according to The Guardian, who also went on to say:
“Most of the international tributes to Gorbachev have focused on his liberalisation and reform agenda, perestroika, glasnost, the role he played in ending the cold war and the collapse of the Soviet Union, but the work he undertook on promoting environmental causes after he stepped down as president of the Soviet Union is also significant for its prescience.
Many fellow global leaders were puzzled by his preoccupation with the issue, according to Adam Koniuszewski, who was the non profit’s director from 2008 until 2017. “He brought a level of urgency to questions of environmental degradation and climate change, questions that many world leaders still do not take seriously enough. Many were wondering how is it that such a serious statesperson – someone credited with having had perhaps the biggest impact on global affairs in recent times – could be so interested in questions in the environment?” he said.”
Gorbachev also drafted the Earth Charter with Maurice Strong which proceeded to be a cornerstone for future developments, this excerpt is taken from the Earth Charter website:
https://earthcharter.org
“Gorbachev emphasized that the Earth Charter should be a “peoples document” and speak to the heart as well as the mind. It should stir “people’s souls,” he commented. He wanted a preamble that clearly communicates the unsustainable nature of current patterns of development, explaining that natural law establishes limits as to what is safe and possible regarding the growth of industrialized societies.
Gorbachev has also worked to implement specific Earth Charter’s principles and to have them incorporated into international law.
Over the past decade the Earth Charter Initiative has developed into a world-wide network of organizations and individuals that support and promote its ethical vision for a better world. Over 5,000 organizations have endorsed the Earth Charter, including UNESCO, the World Conservation Union (IUCN), and hundreds of cities and universities. It is being widely used as an educational instrument in schools and universities and the Earth Charter International Secretariat has formed a partnership with UNESCO in support of the UN Decade of Education for Sustainable Development.”
Maurice Strong a self proclaimed socialist, dubbed the Godfather of the environmental movement also credited for Agenda 21: the outcome of the UN Conference on Environment and Development Rio de Janeiro, Brazil 1992 he led with Gorbachev where 178 governments voted in favour of adopting the industry-crippling resolutions based on their recommendations.
Strong held the first ever conference on the human environment in Stockholm, Sweden in 1972 which resulted in the formation of the UN Environment Program that he also ran. He facilitated the development of the Earth Charter, World Wildlife Fund, Commission for World Governance and even the World Tax on Monetary Transactions which provided the United Nations with around 1.5 trillion dollars a year.
Even though Strong had been such a fundamental part of setting up the sustainable development goals and dictates to reduce living standards in favour of the environment he made a fortune from oil companies and was head of the Petro-Canada billion dollar Canadian oil and gas company and he was also involved with notorious Saudi arms-dealer of the Iran Contra affair Adnan M Khashoggi.
Investigations into the United Nations Oil-for-Food-Program found that he took a cheque for nearly a million dollars from a South Korean business man: Tongsun Park who was convicted in a US federal court for trying to bribe other UN officials. After this was revealed Strong resigned from the UN and headed over to China to spend the rest of his days.
His cousin Anne Louise Strong was a communist and lived with Mao Tse Tung for two years, she was a Comintern member with one of its objectives to “by all available means, including armed force, for the overthrow of the international bourgeoisie…”
Natalie Grant Wraga: a historian, scholar and expert on Soviet deception practices wrote about Gorbachev and was convinced that the environmental movement was communism in disguise.
Her article: Gorbachev and Global Enviro-Communism discusses the hallmarks of communism in the green movement and some of the details discussed previously, and combined with the evidence presented by KGB defectors like Anatoliy Golitsyn, Yuri Bezmenov and Stanislav Lunev it makes a compelling case.
Natalie concludes in her article:
“Information available at the present time seems to show that the environmental extremists maintain contact with and are supported by Moscow. The “movement” has all the traits of a Soviet disinformation operation. Facts are exaggerated into a “nightmarish” picture of floods, scorched earth, disease, and death. The target, the industrialized West—scared and confused by Moscow’s sympathizers in “science”, academe, and the slavishly obedient Establishment media—is influenced to accept measures and regulations harmful to the Western world.
These are not the only consequences of the action of the environmental extremist movement. It is promoting conflict, domestically and internationally. We can only marvel at the skill with which the two top leaders have proven able to introduce dissent and conflict into usually pacific circles.
These two leaders, Maurice Strong and Mikhail Gorbachev, are men of considerable experience. They understand economics and politics. They are, therefore, fully aware of what they are doing. Strong has the power of the United Nations at his disposal. Gorbachev, and able public relations men, gained considerable influence in the period following his retirement from president of the USSR. They are consciously harming the United States.
Who profits from the activities of these two men?”
China and Russia and the ruling elite seem to be the main winners of this green new deal, the West has dropped themselves into a new progressive form of communism with a leafy overlay where individual rights are being phased out, prospects of property ownership for future generations is bleak and the entire globe has been turned into a corporate profit machine where people are emotionally blackmailed into supporting their own enslavement and transfer of power into the East from the West.
Act4YouFreedom
Additional References
Lavosisier Group:
http://www.lavoisier.com.au/
Watts Up With That:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/
Climate Fact:
https://www.cfact.org/
C02 Coalition:
https://co2coalition.org/
C02 Science:
http://www.co2science.org/
JustFacts:
https://www.justfacts.com/
Climate Audit:
https://climateaudit.or