The Unique Property
Climate Change, Some Questions & Some Charts
Watch on Youtube: https://youtu.be/2mbyU9FSlxA
Our local newspaper gave a whole page to someone with the
preferred wisdom on climate change. The article was full of
anecdotal stuff, including spurious quotes from peasant farmers,
but not a single fact. My response with charts and copious
scientific facts got refused, and I'm told to put my arguments
in a 300 word letter. What is happening to our world?
Let me start with some questions.
1. What is
climate change? When I was at school it was called an
Interglacial. It's nothing new, the earth has had rather a
lot of them. Ice ages, followed by interglacials, and then
another ice age, and so on. All perfectly normal. Why is
this one different? And why is mankind responsible for this
one when we weren't responsible for any of the others,
simply because we, as homo sapiens, were not here? Do please
2. The earth managed quite well with
previous changes which went far higher than current
figures, and even current estimates. Just to remind you,
current temperature levels are close to those a thousand
years ago. So over the course of a millenium no increase
, so what's the problem?
3. What has a carbon
footprint to do with increased temperatures? The
scientific community claims temperature changes are due to
changes in the wind patterns, and ocean currents, and a
build-up of water vapour in the atmosphere, plus changes
in the sun cycles. Do remember that Earth's path around
the sun is not circular but an ellipse, and the energy
received by the earth at minimum
distance is 30% more than when at maximum.
What are all the climate-change freaks going to do about
Many of the
claims about global warming arise because people think it's
something new whereas it is a recurring phenomenon – the
procession from Ice Age to Interglacial and back to Ice Age.
And in the chart below we see quite clearly that our current
interglacial has lower maximum temperatures so far than any
of the preceding interglacials.
Let's have a look at rising
ocean levels. During the last ice age, about 10,000 years
ago, you could walk from beyond the SW coast of Ireland,
right up the English Channel, take a diversion up to
Shetland, and then walk across to Denmark. No North Sea at
To get where we are today means there has been an average
rise in sea level of at least 1.25 metres every century.
By comparison, the rise for the past century is four
inches. Hardly an alarming increase. Indeed, it shows a
dramatic decrease in the rate of rise due to the obvious
fact that most of the ice caps have already retreated
thousands of miles. If anyone disagrees with the official
figures, please quote your references. I am using figures
from an inter-governmental geophysical commission. The
trouble with modern life is that people these days listen
to politicians and tweets in the chat rooms rather than
the scientific community.
Those of you who were paying attention during history lessons
(or was that geography?) will remember that in the last
interglacial Southern England managed quite nicely with lions
and tigers roaming about in temperatures akin to the African
savannahs. Please tell me what harm that did to the planet, I'd
love to know. But for those of you worrying about the supposed
increase in temperatures, it clearly depends on where you start
your counting. Here's a chart of the last hundred years. So,
once again, no increase there.
Temperatures have varied enormously over the years. Even in my
lifetime a field which used to be a prosperous vineyard in the
time of Chaucer was covered in so much snow the year I was
brought to the UK that we used to have a photograph of a double
decker bus stranded on the main road. We could only see the top
two or three feet of the bus. The weather is still too
unreliable for the old vineyard to be brought back into
commercial use. Is that an example of global warming?
That earlier period is known as the Medieval Climate Optimum,
and we are told it was caused by increased solar activity and
changes to ocean circulation. No-one mentioned CO2, yet Britain
at least was warmer then than it is now.
The weather is fickle. During the late sixties I remember
climbing out of the kitchen window (we couldn't open the door
because of the weight of the snow) and walking a mile and a half
to the pub in a straight line. There were no visible roads, no
hedges, only snow.
In the eighties my home backed onto a lake on the outskirts of
London. My son spent ages with a pickaxe one day trying to get
down as far as water. We had bonfires and baked potatoes day
after day on the lake.
If you check articles in the newspapers for the fifties and
sixties, you will find rather a lot claiming that we were about
to return to an ice age. And then what happened?
Five years later I walked along the boardwalk between St
Leonards and Old Hastings wearing just a pair of shorts and
sandals. The date? Feb 1st. But let's look at the charts. There
was a definite run-up in the later eighties and the nineties,
but then the temperatures level out:
The so-called Greenhouse Effect charts show a similar pattern,
and show an increase in water vapour, but I cant see any CO2.
Perhaps you can:
People complain about the rising temperatures. Why? We are in an
interglacial, that is what happens. That's why it's called an
interglacial. On the other hand, as I said above, weather
patterns are fickle. Are temperatures rising? The usual
preferred weather cycle is 30 years. Using a 30 year average we
can see that mean temperatures are not rising at all at the
moment. They were up until the mid nineties, but only for a
decade, but since then the figures have been flat.
Does CO2 cause temperatures to rise? Just look at the chart
correlations. It isn't CO2 but rather water vapour that is the
trigger. That has been known for decades:
It has also been shown that increased CO2, far from causing
acidification to shellfish, causes them to grow bigger. Is that
really a problem?
However, how many of you know how temperatures are calculated? A
friend of mine was a geophysicist at Bath University (that's how
I came to be at one of their symposiums), and he presented a
paper showing how over a hundred sets of figures were drawn up.
I'll give just one example, but this is typical of how the
climate change fraud was perpetrated.
There were two gauging points in Colorado in the USA. Both were
out in the sticks a hundred years ago. One is still in the
countryside, but the other is now in a busy Denver suburb. The
one in the countryside gives the same reading as 100 years ago,
the one in the city suburb gives a higher reading. Some of us
assume that proves that the earth isn't warming up, but city
living will provide higher temperatures. For the records, the
climate change freaks combined readings from the two stations
and averaged them to prove the climate was warming up.
Lighten up folks, the planet is just doing its thing and you
won't stop it. When tigers roam the South Downs again you can be
sure that it won't be long before temperatures are heading back
towards the next ice age. That's the way it has been for as far
back as we can check. If you think otherwise just give me some
facts, and some answers to those questions I asked at the
beginning of this article. But don't quote politicians, quote
the scientists writing in Nature
, and similar quality
journals. Do remember that this whole charade was kicked off not
by scientists but by a politician. And do remember that one
pseudo-scientist even boasts that he was paid $1.3 million for
his support for the CO2 fraud.