When the lies unravel

One of life’s great intrigues is this Climate Change business.

First we were told that the world was warming at an alarming rate.  We were given dire predictions about lands sinking beneath the waves and vast tracts of the earth being turned to desert.  Unfortunately for the proponents of the theory this didn’t happen.  Temperatures, instead of rising are falling.  Undeterred, they simply changed “Global Warming” to “Climate Change”.  Now it doesn’t matter what happens to the climate as all their bases are covered.  Temperatures rise?  Climate Change.  Temperatures fall?  Climate change.  The only problem they have now is in proving that these changes are man-made.

This is a major problem as by now the world has cashed in on the scare.  Businesses are springing up everywhere producing wind turbines, electric cars and other “carbon neutral” devices.  The biggest business of all, of course is “carbon trading”.  Every man, woman and child is now paying for this theory.  All our fuel bills have gone up, be it electricity, petrol or gas and all in the name of saving the planet.  What on earth happens if their theories are wrong?  How are they going to excuse the fact that we have been ripped off?  What are they going to say to the thousands, nay millions who were employed world wide in the “carbon free” industries?  What are they going to say to the countries whose entire development has been hindered or halted?

Quite simply it must never happen.

But what happens if scientists provide proof that the climate is changing naturally [as it has done for millions of years, long before man appeared] and that the climate is in fact controlled by the Sun?  Suppose for a moment that an eminent body of scientists ran an experiment that proved conclusively that cloud cover [which directly relates to temperature] is controlled by solar particles and not by Uncle Fred’s use of incandescent light bulbs? 

The problem is that just such an experiment is being carried out.  CERN is currently doing just that.  This could spell disaster for the current theories so what are they going to do about it?  Quite simply they have ordered CERN to produce the results but NOT to interpret them.  This way they can “adjust” the figures to prove whatever they like.  I can also guarantee that those results will not be put in the public domain.

In the meantime, the propaganda machine rolls on.  I see the latest is that the BBC are trying to muzzle any dissent.  Apparently if you question the Climate Change business you are a “sceptic” or a “denier” and therefore don’t deserve airtime.

After all, we can’t let the truth get in the way of a good story?

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on StumbleUponDigg thisPin on PinterestShare on RedditShare on Tumblr

Comments

When the lies unravel — 35 Comments

  1. I think all this ‘climate change” is a complete load of bollocks.
     
    The fact, as you rightly say, is that “the climate is changing naturally as it has done for millions of years, long before man appeared.”

    Was the ice age not, in fact, climate change ? If nothing changed before these so called experts woke up where are all the dinosaurs then?
     
    Oh yes, I forgot – in Leinster House.


  2. I must say I admire the tenacity with which you flat earthers cling to your self important viewpoint. I guess it makes you feel special that without any education or information on the subject you feel able to rail against the whole scientific community of climatologists. It’s time to say it. You guys are a bunch of fucking idiots.

  3. TT – I am disappointed.  I had you down as an intelligent free thinker, but being an open minded person myself, I am prepared to change my opinion.  I am a bit baffled about the “self important” bit?  Can you explain?  How am I boosting my self importance by questioning the Climate Religion?  And as for “the whole scientific community” – that is what I would call a sweeping statement.  I am quite sure I could easily find some eminent climatologists who are here with us in the Flat Earth Society.

  4. Yeah I come across the “free thinkers.” They want to teach creationism in schools because they say evolution is not an established scientific fact. Sound familiar? Self importance? The guys who say the moon landings were faked. I’ve met ‘em. They think their radical point of view makes them interesting. Intelligent. Stand out in a crowd. Know more than the great unwashed etc. I have said this to you before GD. Find a climatologist. Talk to him/her. Form you opinion based on scientific study of the issue; not on other bloggers rants. Sure you can find the odd, and I mean odd, climatologist who disagrees with the overwhelming majority of his peers. Chances are he’s bought and paid for by the oil industry. We have seen examples of that. Have a great weekend GD. It’s way to fuckin’ hot here in the U.S. Same in Africa.

  5. There is no point in responding to the likes of TT.  Climate Change is a religion not a true science based on provable facts.

  6. tt – must be keeping ‘abreast’ of the situation, whilst being totally pissed – in the meantime I’m bloody freezing in mid-summer !!

  7. They have just announced that last night was the second coldest July night on record for Ireland.  We failed by 0.1 degree.  Heh!

  8. Abe Lincoln knew……… you just need to fool some of the people, all the time.

    By the way we still got our winter duvet on the scratcher here and it’s almost August! 

  9. I agree GD. One thing is for sure though, its getting bloody colder. Where’s our Summer? What we weve been having for the past number of years is a South Artic summer. I’ll keep the winter woolies out, ‘cos they’re going to be needed for some time me thinks. Anyone got Skis?

  10. Grandad, tt is an idiot.  He is the type that swallows whatever NBCABCCBSBBCMSNBC news tells him to believe.  There is no arguing with him because as you pointed out it’s a religion.  He doesn’t argue with facts just personal attack.
    Yesterday it was 103degF here and you’re having a cold summer so that proves that “Climate Change” is real and it’s all the fault of people using incandesent light bulbs and their cars.  That is what is to blame.  It has nothing to do with any natural occurances. The high temps here are directly related to my Ford Explorer SUV and my 100watt light bulbs.  It’s a no-brainer.  In other words if you don’t use your brain then you’ll believe this.

  11. I guess he meant you GD. And it’s not a religion. I mean what a fucking dumb thing to say.Religion. It’s established science. Pretty much the opposite of religion. Still, clearly you guys know better than the scientists who have spent lifetimes studying the issue. Such conceit. Such stupidity.

  12. TT – I call it a religion because it is something that is accepted on faith.  As for it being “established science” – what’s that?  Are you saying that the argument is settled?  Are you saying that the proof is so definitive that the case is closed?  That is a load of unadulterated crap.  One of the fundamental rules of physics is that apart from the basic laws of physics NOTHING is written in stone, and it is conceit to say it is.  As for a lifetimes study, it’s a mere forty years since they were warning of an impending ice age and were seriously considering covering the Poles in coal dust to absorb heat.

  13. As far as the scientific community is concerned and as far as anything can be proven then YES. Man made climate change is a fact. The argument IS settled amongst the the people who have a fucking clue what they are talking about. Get in your car, burn fuel, drive down to Dublin University and fucking ask someone. Until you do that I humbly beseech and implore you to write about something you know something about.

  14. And what do you mean it’s accepted on faith. By whom? Where the fuck did you get that from?? It’s accepted on SCIENCE by SCIENTISTS. Jesus Christ what is wrong with you lot?

  15. Sigh – TT – you prattle about conceit and stupidity …. how about adding in lies in spades, omission, innumeracy on the part of the “lifetime scientists”, media censorship (haloo! BBC!), shedloads of public money (hundreds, probably thousands of times more than that *claimed* funding from “Big OIL”), dimented scientifically illiterate activist eco-loons, hedge funds, carbon “traders” and a Christmas tree with the fuckin lyin asshole Al Gore on top – a ram raid on taxpayer’s moneies pretty much unparalled outside of World War….  honestly, get a grip.  

    That’d be “The Science is settled” morphs to Established Science? as Anthropogenic Global Warming morphs to Climate Change? and pretty much everything hot or cold is anointed as evidence for Global Warming. No debate – only diktat and scaremongering – and the pillaging of public funds…. and the shrill calls for the facial tattooing of unbelievers?

    I have spent a career in technology and science and was luke warm on AGW until I looked into The University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit – what I found was profoundly shocking – they lied, made the data fit the theory (big time) – even adjusting it at the behest of their paymasters….. Take a look at Hansen and Mann….   But you wouldn’t would you – as a believer? 

    Cute to re-brand it as “Climate Change” which as any fule knows is what climate does and always will do – AGW was an egregious perversion of science and that perversion continues under a new brand name.   

    Note that I’m NOT saying humans haven’t been “pooping in their own water supply”.  The Global Warming movement shows all tha classic signs of a fanatical cult, replete with the leaders zooming from meeting to meeting in flash cars and private jets….

    So tt …  No mate, the science most certainly isn’t settled and it’s high time some of the faking assholes were brought to book. 

     

     

     

  16. The people who know if the science is settled are the scientists. And they say it is. By the thousands. Not bloggers. How difficult is that to grasp? If you have a leaking pipe you talk to a plumber. If you want to know about climate change you talk to a climatologist. Isn’t that obvious. I feel like I am teaching kids to tie their shoelaces. You can’t make the facts fit your irrational ideology. It works the other way round. That’s all folks. I’m done. Don’t travel too far. I wouldn’t want you science deniers falling off the edge of your world.

  17. tt – did you train to be dense or does it come naturally?

    The people who know if the science is settled are the scientists.
    Oh really ? I’d never have guessed.

    And they say it is. By the thousands.
    Uh-oh – tut… bet you didn’t count them yourself (IPCC numbers perchance?).

    Not bloggers. How difficult is that to grasp?
    So climatologists and scientists don’t blog – you need to get out more

    If you have a leaking pipe you talk to a plumber.
    You do? I’m capable of fixing a leaking pipe thank you.

    If you want to know about climate change you talk to a climatologist.
    Just one?

    Isn’t that obvious.
    ???

    I feel like I am teaching kids to tie their shoelaces.
    Patronising git (who can’t mend his own pipes)

    You can’t make the facts fit your irrational ideology.
    Try talking to Prof Jones at UEA – and as a trained scientist – I don’t do ideology. 

    It works the other way round. That’s all folks. I’m done.
    As per usual with warmist trolls

    Don’t travel too far. I wouldn’t want you science deniers falling off the edge of your world.

    dickhead 

  18. Well as far as I can see ‘Climate Change’ isn’t being denied by the ‘deniers’ at all.  The question is whether mankind is affecting it (we probably are) and how much (very little in the overall scheme of things). 
    Anyone who thinks that this can all be cured by wind turbines, carbon credits and electric cars is just plain bonkers!
     

  19. Putting everything aside, you can’t honestly think there’s harm to be done in looking into more friendly technologies?

  20. Perhaps “Global Warming” and “Climate Change” are too complex to understand with our current tools and state of education.  This really isn’t something you measure by looking at the weather today, or this year, it’s a long-term pattern.  It really doesn’t matter anyways, we are not going to take significant steps to mitigate it, and even if we do, we are already 100 years to late to avoid major problems with just emission reduction.  The glaciers are melting, the sea is already raising and rainfall patterns are shifting.  What is easy to measure and indisputable is that CO2 levels in the atmosphere have about doubled.  Hopefully technologic advances will continue to enable us meeting our global needs for food.  The remaining question is, will we save the oceans from catastrophic acidification or just watch to see how marine life tries to adapt to the changing ph levels.
    As with all change, there will be winners and losers, though sometimes, like with war, many of the “winners” may be just the ones that lost less than others and only look relatively better off.

  21. Meltemian – Nice one!  ;)

    Not Green – An interesting article.  Personally, it wouldn’t worry me, but the Warmists [using the same science and the fact that it was a “scientific study”] should take it as a proven fact.  They can’t have it both ways…

    Primeculture – Welcome!  This is an argument frequently put forward by the Warmists.  “If we are wrong then at least we are doing some good anyway”.  If this whole business led to the invention of small portable hydrogen cells or some other similar technology, I would agree.  However the only effects I have experienced are the imposition of “carbon taxes” [which don’t help towards our efforts to get out of recession] and those ubiquitous windmills which, of all the technologies are probably the least efficient and have the worst visual impact. So the only result so far is negative.

    RichNau – Welcome to you too!  Your opening sentece really says it all.  I totally agree that short term changes prove nothing but by the same token I don’t think that measuring over a period of a hundred years or so will prove anything either.  The only way we could come close to understanding climate change is a) to study [accurate, and not from fucking tree rings] temperatures over several thousand years and to understand ALL the factors that contribute to atmospheric change.  The former they have tried to produce through incredibly inaccurate methods [as I said – tree rings, and also polar ice-core samples] and the latter is still under investigation.

  22. A very important topic, Gd. The Powers That Be know it’s a lie but that does not matter because their plan must move foward. They are using climate change not only to rip us off, but it plays a major part in the ‘sustainable’ agenda, which will be used as a control device.

    Take some time and have a good read.

    http://www.newswithviews.com/Shaw/michael131.htm

  23. Global warming started i5,000 years ago when the Cro Magnons invented fire. They are the ones responible for melting the glaciers.

  24. Quiet Reader – There is one hell of a lot of material in there!  I would take a while to digest……….

    Bee Cee – Welcome, and I think you are probably right.  It was those bastards who set  us onto the trail of destruction where we now find ourselves.

  25. Grandad – Science creates value by gathering available data, applying logical tools (mostly math) and using that for predicting a future outcome.  As more data and better tools become available predicted outcomes may shift.  The role perception, insights and imagination play is a 2-edged sword; it can lead to novel ways of looking at the data and new breakthroughs or block your ability to see what you are looking at, even when a different conclusion is obvious to most competent observers.  Another tricky area is interpreting and extrapolating data.  For instance, the fact that tropical vegetation once grew on Antarctica doesn’t mean that the South Pole once supported tropical vegetation.
    Tree rings are reliable data about the growing conditions in the exact location of where the tree was growing and carbon dating confirms when the tree grew.  These are facts that can be used to paint a picture of reality.  How you interpret it is art, but not free form, it has to be logically tied back to the facts.  Global pictures are more complex.  For instance, many places are receiving record heat and drought.  Here in the San Francisco area, we have been having a cool summer (ski resorts are closing this week end) other places are having record floods.  None of that is evidence of Global Warming.  Almost all of the glaciers around the world have shrunk; ocean temperatures around the world have risen.  That is evidence of Global Warming.
    The polar ice cores accurately capture the makeup of the local atmosphere at the time the ice was formed.  Arguments could be made how that atmosphere might vary from the general atmosphere, I suppose, but then you would have to argue why it would be an unreliable indicator; in the alternative, you could accept that it is not just a coincidence that CO2 has been increasing at an increasing rate as we and our ancestors have been become more skilled at producing the gas and we have cut down the forests of the world.
    The strategies we have proposed to mitigate CO2 production have been silly, often well meaning but far from strategic.  China and India are on the move to gain parity in energy use in the hopes of increasing quality of life for their massive populations.  That is going to drastically increase CO2 production no matter what the rest of us do.  Agriculture in Canada and Russia will probably benefit, depending on what happens to rainfall.  US agriculture will probably be among the biggest producer losers.  The biggest challenges will be satisfying the World’s need for food, massive endangered species, shifts in areas of rainfall (including desertification for some and flooding for others), rising sea levels and acidification of the oceans. But that is just the straight-line projections.  The surprises are what are hard to predict: Oceanic methane releases (increase of decrease probability?); changes in the oceanic currents; increase in earthquakes (from changes in the load on the crust as the glaciers disappear); changes in habitat supporting diseases; and the list goes on. 
    Global Warming is real.  Denying it or thinking it is a conspiracy won’t make it go away.  We need people to start making smart choices in dealing with it.  The dam has broke and the best I see are well-meaning people bringing a teacup of sand to the river shore while others don’t even believe what is coming.
    For 45 years I have wanted to convert hydrogen into helium and electricity but the coal, oil and nuclear industries have successfully blocked sufficient funding for serious research.  Sure it is one of the most difficult challenges, but not impossible, and when achieved could give us energy without dependence on limited resources; which of course will lead to other challenges; but it will reverse the CO2 issue.

  26. The farce of man-made global warming is being used against us and denying that won’t make The Controllers go away.

    It’s obvious what they have planned for us. Read the UN documents. Investigate Agenda21. Figure it out. We are in a gradual transformation with not a nice ending.

    Get over the ‘conspiracy’ label, and really think about things.

  27. RichNau – There are a couple of things about the whole business that worry me.  I’ll start by saying that I don’t deny that the climate is changing.  That is a given as the climate has been changing for millions of years.  There have been times when the climate was much hotter than at present and times when it was much colder.  We all know that.  My problem is with man’s input into this.  Climate is probably one of the most complex of all mechanisms and is determined by many factors.  Building a mathematical model to predict climate is, I would maintain a little dangerous as we maybe don’t have all the facts to feed into that model.  If one small factor in that model is omitted or even incorrect that the output from the model could be completely inaccurate.  For example, they are currently working on the CLOUD experiment at CERN.  This experiment has the potential to radically change the climate models, so you would imagine that the climatologists are very keen to see the results confirm their models.  Yet the CERN scientists have been warned “not to attempt to interpret” the results of the experiment.  Why?  What could the reason for this possibly be?  The only reason I can think of is that the climatologists are so unsure of themselves that they want to make sure that the CLOUD experiment confirms their theories, even if it means manipulating the raw data, and we have seen before how damned good they are at that?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>