A question on Global Warming.
If they say man-made global warming is a scientific reality and we are close to the tipping point where, if we do not act to radically reduce our carbon emissions, we will permanently and dangerously damage our environment.
So why are the British people burdened with high green taxes to save the planet when we share the planet with a few more countries, a few very large countries, who are increasing carbon emissions on a massive scale?
The UK or indeed Europe cannot radically reduce carbon emissions for the planet as a whole because our total carbon emissions is minimal in comparison to the rest of the world.
I understand that the planet has experienced global warming a few times over the last few million years when man was not around. What’s that all about?
A very good question!
First, we have the problem that climatology, just like sociology, is not a science. Rather it is a pseudo science - an area of study in which observations and theory cannot be subjected to the rigour that science demands. The problem is that for both these pseudo sciences the basic precepts are incomplete. Furthermore we do not know how incomplete they are. The computer modelling of the climate is based on these precepts, and whereas it is difficult enough predicting the weather accurately in any detail over the next fortnight, climate change requires the running of these programs to model decades and even centuries of weather and climate development, with an ever widening potential discrepancy in geometric proportion to the length of the period which the program is simulating.
At the time I left school in 1970, after completing geology to 'A' level, I was putting together in my head a model of the history of the earth using the knowledge of geology that I had gained and which was showing me with remarkable lack of doubt that the earth's climate IS ALWAYS CHANGING! I recall looking up at the sky in awe of this Eureka moment for me, and wondering which way it was going at that point in time: warmer or cooler. I was only 18 years old and I was trying to recall whether the weather had become warmer or colder in my short time on this earth. This was not much use, the time scale was too short, so I therefore resorted to the very field (of science?) that had shown me climate change, that field of study being geology. It took little deduction to realise that the Ice age, which had occurred in very recent geological history, and which ice Age was and still is receding, indicated to me that the climate was and still is getting warmer.
Now, these changes are natural and occur as a result of natural changes in many factors from solar activity to the phasing of the earth's varying distance from the sun set against the inclinations of the earth's axis relative to the sun. Geology shows us time and again that the climate has changed dramatically in the past at varying rates of change. The earth's magnetosphere has only just begun to be explored and is far from being understood in any detail, especially in respect to possible long term effects on climate.
Proving that human activity has influenced the climate change that is taking place naturally relies on many long tenuous lines of inquiry that reach well beyond human knowledge as it stands today, and which almost certainly extends into areas of science that have hardly begun to be understood and only recently have been detected. The disciplines involved range from chemistry, through environmental chemistry, to astronomy and into astrophysics. Among scientists in the area of chemistry alone there is discord, in particular on question of which gases are truly greenhouse gases, if any, and to what extent and degree so called greenhouse gases are causal or merely indicators of change already taking place.
My personal belief can be no more than a careful, hopefully intelligent, appraisal and evaluation of the lobby that claims that we humans are without doubt the cause of a significantly accelerated global warming.
My conclusion is that they are liars.
On the claim that we humans are likely to be the cause of effective increased rate of global warming my reply has got to be that, not only do we not have knowledge enough to be conclusive, but we cannot be anywhere near certain that we are having any effect on the climate at all.
Over eagerness to seize onto perceived findings appear to play a big role in the beliefs of the climate change lobby, especially in the formulation of opinions of some of the political animals involved. Add to this the government funded jobs that have been created in the wake of conclusions drawn during the Blair years in the meteorological and climate institutions, and the banding together of various parties with mutual interests in this, and we undoubtedly have one of the biggest scams of all time. Taxes, fake industries, and very large scale misdirection of tax payers' and energy customer's money has resulted. It requires but a short connection to be made between the purveyors of the false basis for this scam and the profits made by the companies manufacturing the eye sore wind turbines and windmills etc and the circle would be complete, cause one and effect one; cause two and effect two; cause three and effect three; and perhaps cause four and effect four, the last cause being the very same first cause and the last effect being the very same first effect, and then we really would understand the political Global Warming scam.
One could even go on and imagine that the EU were involved.
I hope that this answers your question.
PS: Vote UKIP !
Earth's motion around the Sun, the Magnetosphere, and Solar Flares
Whilst there are many known climactic variables and very likely factors that are not yet known or suspected, this is one such known variable that, though known, may not have been fully assessed in terms of its magnitude of influence or the rate of effect on climate change.
And then we have the earth's magnetosphere.
And Solar Flares.
And Lord Monkton goes on the offensive also !
UKIP Lord Monckton Mocks & Destroys Greenpeace Arguments