More Details on Global Warming Lies

Here is a more detailed discussion on why too much action on Global Warming is probably not a good thing. I realise that I risk Gordon Brown calling me a flat-earther by publishing this but hey I can bear it! See also Global Warming Article

Firstly within WRITTEN History there have been warm periods such as and possibly even warmer than the current 'peak' year of 1998. Yes thats right 1998 was the warmest year on direct scientific record and not any of the later years. this is because of glo9bal cooling (but we will come to that).

The ‘medieval warm period’ was a 350 year stretch of good weather that started around 1000AD. Writers at the time, and archeological evidence suggests that the globe was far warmer then than it is now.

The best and most documented two examples, supported by writers of the time and archeaology that show this are:

Red wine grapes were regularly grown all across Southern England. Yes we do have vinyards in Southern England now - just a few and in very sheltered spots. The grapes they grow are particularly hardy varieties which have only been in existance since the 17th century. Here we are talking about all varieties of grapes being grown all over the South, up as far as Watford. Try that now and you would get a withered stalk and no fruit, even with the more hardy varieties.

The Vikings were farming in Greenland and the Shetlands. Growing crops in areas that are now permafrost and and growing crops we find difficult on mainland Britain due to climate today. So at least we know for certain that Greenland was far warmer then than it has been since.

All this is very inconvenient to Global Warming believers because there were no cars or factories pumping out greenhouse gases in 1000AD yet the Earth still warmed. Confusingly some tree-ring data eliminates the medieval warmth altogether, while others reflect it.

Secondly the most powerful variable which is discounted by the IPCC computer models is the Solar output. Why is this disregarded? Simple - until we had satellites we had no way to measure it and trying to find an indicator that can archeaologically measure it (say in AD85) did not work. So we should just ignore it right?

No we cant. Tiny variations in many parameters input (down in the range of 0.0001%) have been shown to affect these computer models considerably. The Solar variations that we normally measure in the 11 year cycle are as high as 0.1% - thats 1000 times higher than the sensitivity threshhold of the model. There is historical evidence for much wider variation than this in sunspot records that have been kept by Solar observers since around 1650 AD.
The number of sunspots on the Sun’s surface is roughly proportional to total solar output. One well known dip in activity, the Maunder Minimum, occured from 1650–1700 and may have influenced Europe’s little ice age. Since then, sunspot number have risen and fallen in a regular 11-year cycle. An 11-year running average shows only the long-term variation, which shows a rise in total sunspot numbers from 1700 until today (ie the sun has grown more active).


Thirdly we have the vested interests of Governments and politicians. At the moment due to peak oil and oil availability issues it is likely that many, if not all of us, will have to give up on car use. Who wants to be the first politician to ban motoring? Send the army round to collect your Mercedes SLK and scrap it? Nobody.

How much nicer to say 'Look the Scientists say you should stop using your cars because we will all die and the seas will rise and a plague of frogs will infest your armpits.' This way you will give up your own cars willingly. Unfortunately it is another cynical con.

Fourthly Global Cooling. Yes thats right Cooling. The suppressed data that has emerged which was not included in the climate reports is a tree ring study, studying growth over 1950-2000 period which shows overall a remarkable DROP in the mean global temperature. So why are the polar cap ice packs melting? Well the other big variable climatologists ignore is the amount of wobble the earth has on its axis. This is another cyclical thing - the bigger the wobble the more of the earths ice caps gets exposed to the sun. You guessed it - we are on a peak value of wobble at the moment! In addition the propagandists have only focussed on one side of the issue.

Antarctic Ice Is Growing And Thickening! It has been consistently doing so for at least 30 years now. Western Antarctica has shed several ice shelves over time, but Eastern Antarctica has grown greatly in the same time. The climate propagandists ignore the East antarctic.

Fifthly the measurements made by the modern equipment is more unreliable than indirect methods such as Tree ring dating and Ice core sampling.

WHAT I hear you exclaim. Impossible. But no - the scientists shot themselves in the foot again.

The problem is that in fact readings from thermometers or electronic ‘thermistors’ are open to interpretation. This is because the sites of weather stations that were once open countryside become built up areas, so trapping heat, and the type of equipment used changes over time. These anomalies between readings need to be ‘adjusted’.

But can we trust the way such ‘adjustments’ are made?

Recently there was a re-analysis of the data from the past 130 years in Darwin, Australia. This suggested that average temperatures had risen there by about two degrees Celsius. However, the raw data had been ‘adjusted’ in a series of abrupt upward steps by exactly the same amount: without the adjustment, the Darwin temperature record would have stayed level.

In 2007 records across America were examined. It was found that between 1999 and 2007, the US equivalent of the Met Office had changed the way it adjusted old data. The result was to make the Thirties seem cooler, and the years since 1990 much warmer. Previously, the warmest year since records began in America had been 1934.

Sixthly the main Global Warming hypothesis rests only on the work of around 60 scientists and reviewers and not the 4000 often claimed. By contrast a petition by scientists trying to tell the world that the political and media portrayal of global warming is false was put forward in the Heidelberg Appeal in 1992. Today, more than 4,000 signatories, including 72 Nobel Prize winners, from 106 countries have signed it (but one presumes not President Obama).

So it looks like we should all be careful before we let the politicians pass the buck this time.