I would recommend people to read this which Frank Davis found:
It is quite a long read but it demolishes the main argument of Climate Control – that carbon dioxide ’causes’ global warming.
The author is Mike Van Biezen who is:
Mike van Biezen is adjunct professor at Compton College, Santa Monica College, El Camino College, and Loyola Marymount University teaching Physics, Mathematics, Astronomy, and Earth Science.
Note that his subjects are Physics, Mathematics, Astronomy, and Earth Science. They are not epidemiology or ‘climate science’. They are real sciences. The climate plays a part in earth science, but only a small part.
There is too much stuff for me to summarise adequately, but here are a few points:
- Recent (the last 100 years) temperature measurements show that the warmest ‘record temps’ happened earlier than the coldest ‘record temps’. That is, more ‘record cold snaps’ have occurred in the recent past than ‘record heat waves’.
- Satellite measurements do not agree with weather stations. They show no significant warming as compared with earth-bound stations which showed rapid warming.
- The charlatans at the IPCC use the 1980s, which were rather cooler, as a base. If the 1930s were taken as the base, then there would be nothing remarkable about today’s temps.
- From 1940 to 1980, the trend was substantial cooling. That should not have been so since CO2 emissions were growing and growing.
- Urban heat islands skewed data. Cities emit latent heat at night. Thus, even if daytime temps are nothing remarkable, the average for the whole day would be higher than in earlier times.
- When earth temps are higher, atmospheric CO2 levels are lower and vice versa. This is because warmer oceans lose CO2 and colder oceans absorb CO2. It is a question of solubility.
- Very roughly, the molecule CO2, by virtue of its construction, is not good at holding heat. Water vapour, on the other hand, is good at absorbing heat. Thus, a 40% increase in CO2 emissions will not translate into an equal amount of absorption by CO2.
- Many warmer periods have been recorded in the last several hundred years than is the case at present, before the industrial revolution. Eg, Bruges, in Belgium, use to be a port. It is now 10 miles inland.
- Glaciers have been retreating for 150 years. It is nothing new. That is because they grew extraordinarily during the little ice age.
- ‘Data ‘adjustment’ has been used to falsify evidence. The original data was ‘disappeared’, but the author managed to find it. Here is one example:
The top graph shows the original data and the bottom one show the affect of the ‘adjustments’.
There are several other examples.
I know of no explanation which has been publicised as to the reason for and method used for these ‘adjustments’.
My point is that the IPCC ‘scientists’ MUST know what is going on. Further, Civil Servants MUST ALSO know what is going on.
There is only one reason that this sort of trickery is being countenanced, and it must be political. But it must also be above NATIONAL politics – witness that the IPCC (the UN climate control organisation) is international.
The same applies to the FCTC (UN tobacco control). There must be some POLITICAL reason for the vast expenditure on tobacco control worldwide which supersedes mere health. It could be, for example only, that whoever the rulers might be, they see tobacco as sheer, ‘unacceptable’ waste of land and resources. Tobacco plantations, and all the associated activities of tobacco, are economically ‘immoral’ from a ‘sustainability’ point of view. In other words, health is only one consideration, and possibly not the most important one. Sugar plantations could also be viewed in the same sort of way. Imagine the thinking: If all the land so used was used to produce ‘healthy’ food, then the world population could be easily fed by healthy porridge. A few years of propaganda, and everyone would think that there is nothing in the universe which tastes better than porridge, especially with one teaspoon of jam on top.
Think about this Brave New World.
Almost all industry would be automated so that there would be few jobs. But few people would need jobs if porridge a-plenty was free. Clean water would be available throughout the world. Football would provide entertainment, along with TV. And everyone would be able to talk on social media, provided that the subjects of discussion were approved. Celebs would be a permitted topic, but not multi-culti politics. Multi-culti politics would be denounced as racist. Even the Pope would approve.
And 70% of the People would approve in opinion polls. And 70% of People would be in favour of a ‘crack down’ on dissidents.
In law, Common Law would cease to exist. All law would be relative and statutory. Activities would only be legal if proper regulations were in place. Ecigs are a perfect example of the future.
But the human spirit is is revolted by such a scenario, even if it is only 30% of human spirits. Rebellion would ensue, and it would produce the greatest civil war that can be contemplated. A World Government would produce a World Rebellion.