The Truth About Global Warming: We’re Not Causing It, But We’re PAYING for It

One of the greatest swindles on the road to tyranny is ‘global warming’, or ‘climate change’.

It is being used to introduce a whole new strata of taxation, regulation and control in the name of ‘saving the planet’ – and it is all a gigantic fraud. It is not that temperatures aren’t changing, the lie is in the cause.

The Con

Aurelio Peccei, a founder of the Club of Rome, part of the Round Table network, said in the organisation’s 1991 publication:

The First Global Revolution:
‘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 of these are caused by human intervention… The real enemy, then, is humanity itself.’

Al Gore’s documentary, An Inconvenient Truth [by the way, 17 years later, none of the predictions have come true], has been sent to every secondary school in Britain as part of the campaign to indoctrinate young people with the false perception that global warming is caused by human activity with all the potential that has for control, taxation, suppression, international law and centralisation of power.

The alleged villain is the ‘greenhouse gas’ carbon dioxide belching from exhaust pipes and the industrial system in general. It is claimed that this is collecting in the atmosphere and forming a barrier to stop solar heat from escaping.

We are urged to become ‘carbon neutral’ and to watch our nonsensical ‘carbon-footprint’. It is still ok for the rich like Gore to pollute as much as they choose so long as they invest in green technologies or pay someone to plant a tree.

We even have plans for ’emissions trading’ in which companies that want to pollute beyond their government-imposed allowance can buy ‘carbon credits’ from those who produce less than their carbon limit.

Not only is Gore the voice of the carbon-con, he has set up a company to help you buy your carbon neutrality.

It’s the London-based Generation Investment Management, which he set up in 2004 with the former chief executive of Goldman Sachs Asset Management, David Blood. The company is appropriately nicknamed ‘Blood and Gore’.

As an Internet writer put it:

‘So Al can buy his carbon offsets from himself. Better yet, he can buy them with the money he gets from his long-time relationship with Occidental Petroleum. See how easy it is to be carbon-neutral?

‘All you have to do is own a gazillion stocks in Big Oil, start aneco-stockbroking firm to make eco-friendly investments, use a small portion of your oil company’s profits to buy some tax-deductible carbon offsets from your own investment firm, and you too can save the planet while making money and leaving a carbon footprint roughly the size of Godzilla’s at the start of the movie when they’re all standing around in the little toe wondering what the strange depression in the landscape is.’

No Evidence for Carbon-Caused Climate Change

Professor Frederick Seitz, former president of America’s National Academy of Sciences, revealed in a letter to The Wall Street Journal that the IPCC had censored the comments of scientists with fifteen key sections of the science chapter deleted because it didn’t support the political agenda to equate climate change with carbon emissions.

Professor Seitz said: ‘… this report is not what it appears to be – it is not the version that was approved by contributing scientists listed on the title page.’

Two of the deleted sections said:

‘None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed [climate] changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases. No study to date has positively attributed all or part of the [climate changes observed to date] to anthropogenic [man-made] causes.’

Professor Seitz said he had ‘never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer review process than the events that led to this IPCC report’.

The Panel authors admitted that the deletions had been made and said it had been done in response to ‘comments from governments, individual scientists and non-governmental organisations’.

In other words, it is a political, not scientific, document from what is a political, not scientific organisation. The IPCC report is simply a document compiled to support a pre-agreed outcome and hyped by the spinners to emphasise what they want the people to believe.

Professor John Christy, who is named as a lead author of the report, said it wasn’t true that there was consensus among thousands of scientists that humans are causing a catastrophic change to the climate system.

‘I am one scientist and there are many who think that is not true’, he said. Professor Philip Scott from the Department of Biogeography at the University of London continued the theme: ‘The IPCC like any UN body is political. The final conclusions are politically driven.’

Of course, pollution from cars, planes and factories is not a good thing and it would be great if there was less of it to breathe, but that is not the point here.

We need to ask if it is affecting global temperature, because that’s the excuse being used to take more of our income and impose draconian curbs on freedom.

The force behind the governments and Al Gore also controls the transnational corporations and, in the end, all the money goes into the same pot, whether it be reaped from manipulating governments or manipulating corporations.

It’s all a game, a movie that portrays different ‘sides’ when, at the top of the pyramid, there is only one. Global warming is their latest mega scam after the ‘Cold War’, the ‘war on terror’, and all the rest.

So what’s really going on with rising temperatures?

We are told that the Earth is now warmer than at any time since records began. That may be true, but when did the records start?

A BBC report in early 2007 said the year was predicted to be the ‘warmest since records began’ … in 1914. Other global records apparently go back to… 1860.

What does that tell us when the planetary cycles can be measured in hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands, even millions of years?

A study by a team at Harvard University of some 240 scientific reports showed that today’s temperatures are far from the highest in the last thousand years and nor are we experiencing the most extreme weather patterns.

The team studied data on what are called ‘temperature proxies’, like tree rings, ice cores and historical accounts, and their findings were published in the journal, Energy and Environment.

They found there had been a Medieval Warm Period between the 9th and 14th centuries when global temperatures were significantly higher than today.

There was also the Bronze Age period 9,000 years ago, known as the Holocene Maximum, when temperatures were some three degrees warmer than today for millennia.

How was that ‘man-made’? Forests flourished in North America and elsewhere and there was no global catastrophe, just as there wasn’t with the Medieval Warm Period.

The Harvard study also confirms that there was a ‘Little Ice Age’ about 700 years ago when there was a dramatic cooling before temperatures rose again (see Figure 1).

Figure 1: The Medieval Warm Period when it was warmer than today, and the 
Little Ice Age from which the significance of today’s temperatures is often measured.

Professor Philip Scott of the Department of Biogeography at the University of London points out:

‘It’s important people know that climate enabled a quite different lifestyle in the medieval period. We have this view today that warming is going to have apocalyptic outcomes.

‘In fact, wherever you describe this warm period it appears to be associated with riches … What has been forgotten in all the discussion about global warming is a proper sense of history.

‘During the Medieval Warm Period, the world was warmer even than today, and history shows that it was a wonderful period of plenty for everyone. When the temperature started to drop [in the Little Ice Age], harvests failed and England’s vine industry died. It makes one wonder why there is so much fear of warmth.’

The Real Reason for Climate Change

The Earth is subject to endless energy cycles that affect the temperature and weather and the easiest ones to see are winter, spring, summer and autumn, as the tilt in the Earth’s axis causes the two hemispheres to receive either more or less solar energy through the year.

What happens as we pass through the seasons?

The temperature changes. In places like the frozen lands of Canada, they have what they call the ‘meltdown’ when the rising temperatures of spring and summer melt the ice before the fall and winter comes to create it again.

These seasons are only smaller cycles within greater and greater cycles, and these greater cycles ebb and flow the mean temperature by increasing, or reducing, the power of the Sun’s energy.

We see this in the warming and cooling periods of history. The greater cycles are like longer versions of our seasons, that’s all, and we are now in a warming period that will bring weather changes.

National Geographic News reported shortly after the IPCC’s propaganda document was published in 2007 that Mars was also experiencing warmer temperatures, just like the Earth.

The same has been found with other planets. What could possibly cause warming on Mars and other planets at the same time? What is common to all of them? How about the Sun?

In 1893, the British astronomer, Edward Maunder, observed that there were barely any sunspots visible on the Sun and this became known as the Maunder Minimum.

It corresponded with a very cold period and the graphs are blatant confirmation of the direct link between sunspot activity to Earth temperature (see Figure 2).

The Danish Meteorological Institute began a study in 1991 to investigate the connection between sunspots and temperature and they found an incredibly close correlation.

Professor Eigil Fri is-Christensen at the Danish National Space Centre said they went back through 400 years of astronomical records and found the same story. It was the Sun, not carbon dioxide, or CO2, that was driving changes in climate.

Figure 2: The graph of sunspot activity to Earth temperature.

The solar physicist, Piers Corbyn, invented (or reinvented) a technique of long-range weather forecasting after studying sunspots and seeing the effect on weather patterns.

He made money month after month by betting his forecasts, based on sunspots, against those of the official London Meteorological Office.

‘The Sun is driving climate change, CO2 is irrelevant’, he said. It is not just greater heat from the Sun that causes all the subsequent warming; it is also the effect of solar radiation on other weather systems.

The Earth is bombarded by particles called cosmic rays and they combine with water vapour to form water droplets and clouds.

The stronger the solar radiation, visible as sunspots, the fewer particles get through to the Earth and so the fewer clouds are created. With fewer clouds, more so does cloud cover.

What makes cosmic rays decrease? Increased sunspot activity and solar radiation heat gets through.

Geological studies of cosmic ray and temperature records going back six million years have shown that when solar radiation diminished, allowing more cloud-forming cosmic rays to reach the Earth, the temperature dropped.

When solar radiation increased, the opposite happened, not here and there or now and then – every time (see Figure 3).

Figure 3: The connection between cosmic rays and cloud cover 
is blatantly obvious from this chart

Professor Nir Shaviv from the Institute of Physics at the University of Jerusalem went along with the global warming orthodoxy until he began to do his own research.

Then he saw that there were periods in Earth history when we had three times, even ten times, as much carbon dioxide as there is today, and if that did have a big effect on climate then we should see the impact in the temperature reconstruction.

However, that’s not the case. As Professor Ian Clark said:

‘If we look at climate from the geological timeframe we would never suspect CO2 as a major climate driver. You can’t say that CO2 will drive climate, it certainly never did in the past’.

Dr Piers Corbyn, the ‘sunspot’ weather forecaster with Weather Action, said that none of the major climate changes in the last thousand years can be explained by CO2, and Professor Patrick Michaels of the Department of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia, was adamant:

‘Anyone who goes around and says that carbon dioxide is responsible for most of the warming of the 20th century hasn’t looked at the basic numbers’.

The present warming trend began at least two hundred years ago as the planet began to emerge from the Little Ice Age, long before cars and aircraft were invented.

Since the mid-19th century the Earth’s temperature has risen by just over half a degree Celsius, but most of that rise happened over hundreds of years.

The two go up and down together before 1940 when industrial production was a fraction of what it became after the war.

Indeed, when production exploded after 1940 the global temperature fell for forty years and did not begin to increase until 1975 – ironically at a time of industrial recession (see Figure 4).

Figure 4: The Earth temperature-sunspot chart over more than 100 years. It can be 
seen that increased solar activity is the cause of global warming – not carbon dioxide.

Carbon dioxide is a natural gas produced by all life forms and it is what makes living things grow.

Humans produce a small fraction of the CO2 in the atmosphere and this is massively exceeded by volcanoes, animals, bacteria, dying vegetation such as falling leaves, and by far the biggest source of carbon dioxide – the sea.

Around 800 years ago was the Medieval Warm Period, and so you would expect a release of carbon dioxide from the oceans about now according to past experience.

One other thing: if carbon dioxide is the culprit for climate change there should be more warming in that part of the atmosphere known as the Troposphere than there is on the surface.

The maximum warming should be about 10 kilometres from the surface, but this is not what is happening. The bulk of the atmosphere is not warming as much as the surface.

Tim Ball put it this way:

‘The analogy I use is that my car is not running very well, so I’m going to ignore the engine, which is the Sun, and I am going to ignore the transmission, which is water vapour, and I am going to look at one nut on the right rear wheel, which is the human-produced CO2.

‘The science is that bad. If you haven’t understood the climate system, all the components, the cosmic rays, the solar, the CO2, the water vapour, the clouds and put it all together, then your model isn’t worth anything.’


Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather