By Dark Politricks
Climate is a big story at the moment especially with the recent hack into East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit that released thousands of files and emails into the public domain that seem to prove that the seemingly respectable scientists within the unit were falsifying data, deleting data and emails to hamper freedom of information requests, tweaking computer models to make the results fit a predefined outcome and worse of all in my eyes colluding with one another to prevent scientists with alternative views from participating in the peer review process.
This last accusation is such a major issue because the Anthropogenic Global Warming camp is always referring to their peer reviewed studies when attempting to convince people of the high standard of scientific endeavour that has gone into each report. If the report is not peer reviewed then its not worth jack they say. We now know the reason why many studies that don’t conform to the AGW theory are not peer reviewed and it not because the study is worthless its because the peer review process has been controlled with a regime of gate-keeping that prevents alternative points of view from entering the arena.
Now there is a lot of hot air floating around the web at the moment and not all of it will be contributing to climate change. Just because we have found one group of dodgy scientists does not mean all of them are. The same goes for climate change in general. We would be stupid to believe that all climate change is man made and we should also not believe that 6 billion people most of which live in huge industrial cities would not contribute to the earth’s climate in some way.
Yes climate change is occurring. However the earths climate has always been changing and will continue to change long after we humans have been wiped out from whatever plague eventually beats us if nuclear bombs don’t do it first. We have had numerous ice ages over the millennia which prove the earth’s climate goes up and down. The UK was covered in ice a few thousand years back and sea levels have risen and fallen throughout history. The debate is whether the climate change over the last half century or so has been caused primarily by man or whether we have just entered a warming cycle.
The earth’s population is increasing very rapidly with over 6 billion people all yearning for a western style of living. Whilst we live in relative comfort the developing countries are quickly catching up and see any attempt to limit their development or standard of living as western hypocrisy in action. However if all 6 billion people on the face of this planet lived lives like Londoners or Californians and consumed as much energy and resources as we have done during the peak of our industrial civilisation then the planet just wouldn’t cope.
Therefore the question is what to do. Do we settle on some median level of living standard which would generally be a rise for the majority of people in China, India, Africa and South America and a relative drop for us in the west or do we try to stop the developing countries developing any further so that we in the west can continue our way of living. Do we reduce population levels to a level that is sustainable as some proponents of Malthusian theory would like or do we totally change the way we live to accommodate everyone whilst reducing our burden on the earth and using new clean and renewable technologies to help sustain a growing population.
Its suggested by many people that the growing population in developing countries would level out once living standards were raised as middle class families only tend to have 1-2 children, enough to replace those that die, whilst poor families have many more offspring due to high mortality rates plus more children equals more help in bringing in wages to the family. Its not a simple question to answer and I don’t profess to know the solution. However when looking at climate change we should remember the following.
Although its often claimed by Al Gore and other proponents of AGW that there is scientific consensus around man made global warming in fact many scientists have gone on record publicly to oppose the view that climate change is man made. There are currently over 31,000 scientists names on the petition at the the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine website. and there have been numerous books published by opponents of AGW as well as documentaries on TV that have looked at AGW from a skeptics view. Therefore the debate is not settled and there is not a scientific consensus. It is a falsehood to claim otherwise.
41% of the British people do not believe climate change is man made. Therefore the majority of the public is not buying into the AGW theory. However this does not mean that the majority of the people do not care about the environment or believe that humans have no effect on the planet. We can still believe in recycling, sustainable growth and development and the benefits of clean and efficient energy without having to be convinced that we just by living are causing the earth to die.
The AGW argument is being used politically to drive more global governance and more taxation of the average man and woman. The new EU “president” said only last week that 2009 will be the first year of global governance thanks in part to the Copenhagen conference. The USA is driving through a cap and trade law that will increase the average families tax bill by up to $1700 a year. The head of the UN’s environment program has floated the idea of a tax on the rich countries within the OECD of up to 1% of global GDP to be used to combat global warming.
Many articles on the Internet use graphs and data collected from the IPCC to debunk anti AGW theories such as
- The earth is in a period of cooling.
- The medieval warming period.
- The new ice age claims of the 70′s.
- Temperature driving CO2 rather than CO2 driving temperature.
Sites such as http://www.ossfoundation.us which contains an article on each of these points as well as many more. However the recent climategate scandal seems to suggest that the IPCC data these rebuttals are based upon is fraudulent. Therefore if these eminent scientists at East Anglia have been manipulating computer models, ignoring contradicting data and using their influence to control the peer review process that is so often trumpeted as the gold standard method of scientific validation then how can we believe or trust anything based on this data? The answer is we cannot.
Al Gore the chief priest of AGW made a film called inconvenient truth which is now being shown in schools in the UK to primary school children. This film inconvenienly for Al Gore contained 9 “errors” or statements that a UK judge said were presented as scientific truths when in fact opposing theories existed which should have been aired to provide a counter balance.
Al Gore has become very rich through promoting AGW and there are claims he will become the worlds first carbon billionaire chiefly through schemes he has set up to profit out of the AGW theory. He is also a partner in a carbon trading scheme that is set to make millions once cap and trade laws are implemented. Therefore he has a very big vested interest in promoting the AGW theory and cannot be said to be independent or non-partisan in any shape or form.
Nasa space studies have shown that the year 2008 was the coolest since 2000 and that the 10 warmest years on record occurred since 1998. However their data also suggests we are in fact in a cooling period, the same cooling period which Kevin Trenberth in the leaked emails from the CRU said
“The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t ”.
Recent NASA studies have also suggested that the earth’s climate is most definitely affected by solar activity which can be traced back to the industrial age.
The science on man made climate change is clearly not settled and whether recent climate change is man made or not the powers that be have obviously decided that its the perfect tool to utilise in bringing around global political changes that will affect every western family, consolidate certain powers and make a certain group of people very rich. For every disaster contains an opportunity and the hard sell on planet earth’s demise at the hand of human activity is no different from any other.
Hopefully the climategate scandal will slow down this rush to punish the most overtaxed generation this planet has ever known with yet more taxes and instead focus on measures that we would all agree would help our planet without hurting the average man and woman. Here are just a few ideas.
Stop the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that cost hundreds of billions each year and spend that money investing in new clean, cheap and renewable energy sources.
Make laws that make it illegal, punishable by long terms in prison for any company or person to purchase a patent that could be deemed beneficial for the peoples of the world and not act on it. Too many stories exist of big companies doing this and we may have had electric cars or vehicles running on water many years ago.
Stop the deforestation of the worlds rain forests. Make laws that force loggers to plant two trees for every one that is cut down. Train poor farmers in how to re-use the land so that they are not constantly in search for new land to let their cattle graze. Surely the age of paper is near an end? Newspapers have been replaced with the web, books have been digitised so we are only left with a need for toilet paper and most of that is recycled nowadays anyway.
Re-nationalise the railways in the UK and lower rail fares to cost price. At the moment its cheaper for me to fly from Heathrow to Glasgow, Manchester or Tyne-side rather than get the train. If there is no incentive for people to use the train then people will continue to drive and fly and the main reason is the shocking state of our privatised railways. We need to re-open all the closed branch lines and invest in high speed networks. When it becomes cheaper and easier for people to use the railways like in other European countries then we will move from cars and planes back to trains.
Over taxation does not work it just breeds resentment and distrust of government. We need to incentivize people by making it cost effective to change to a cleaner or more environment friendly activity. Give tax breaks to people who drive electric cars, use less water, electricity and gas and you will encourage people to change without pissing off huge swathes of the population. Its the carrot and stick argument and the carrot always works better than the stick. A case in point is the congestion charge in London. The aim was to reduce traffic in central London by charging people to drive through peak hours which was a stick method. At first people stopped driving but now we are almost back up to pre charge levels which goes to show you that given a choice people will just get used to the stick rather than change their behaviour.
There are many other ways we can help ourselves and our planet and I am not against trying to live a cleaner and greener life if it benefits me, my relatives and mankind. However I do resent being forced to do anything especially when its based on lies and deceit. The CRU hack has shown that the AGW lobby is being less than honest with the general population and is employing scare tactics and falsehoods in its campaign to scare mankind into more taxation. We must resist all forms of scientific blackmail and we should never be afraid of letting the unadulterated facts speak for themselves. The climategate scandal has shown that the pro AGW lobby is reluctant to do that which means they have lost all credibility in my eyes.
Please sign the Number10.gov.uk petition against the CRU scandal which states:
We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to suspend the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia from preparation of any Government Climate Statistics until the various allegations have been fully investigated by an independent body.