Deliberate Obfuscation of Truth

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:

  1. 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’.
  2. Satellite measurements do not agree with weather stations. They show no significant warming as compared with earth-bound stations which showed rapid warming.
  3. 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.
  4. From 1940 to 1980, the trend was substantial cooling. That should not have been so since CO2 emissions were growing and growing.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. Glaciers have been retreating for 150 years. It is nothing new. That is because they grew extraordinarily during the little ice age.
  10. ‘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.



5 Responses to “Deliberate Obfuscation of Truth”

  1. The Blocked Dwarf Says:

    . Eg, Bruges, in Belgium, use to be a port. It is now 10 miles inland.

    Perhaps not the best example, Bruges has always been inland by several miles. But it had direct access to the sea via the ‘The Golden Inlet’ a tidal inlet that eventually silted up.

    • junican Says:

      Thanks for that BD. The ‘facts’ that I stated were from something that I read pertaining to sea levels in the past. There was a reference to the phrase ‘Bruges – the Venice of northern Europe’ or something like that.

  2. J Brown Says:

    I don’t think that anyone considers this ‘global warming’ anymore, but more ‘climate change’, which can somewhat be supported by the unusual and rather violent weather that has been occurring over the past years throughout the world. But let’s delve a bit deeper…we all believe that we are being ‘governed’ by government, and that government is being ‘governed’ by large corporations, and some secret quorum of billionaires, etc. One of the impacts of the climate change theory is to reduce our dependency on fossil fuels (which, as an aside, is probably a good thing as this resource is assuredly finite). In any event, by continuing with carbon control, we are therefore impeding one of the biggest and richest business concerns on earth….oil, natural gas, etc., and thus hampering the workings of this cluster of puppeteers. So, what is this then….a grass roots revolution against the puppeteers, disguised as an environmental issue? A conspiracy led by Western countries to reduce the power of oil producing countries? Presumably if western governments did not feel that climate change was ‘real’, considering their links to big business, etc., none of these carbon reducing issues would be occurring, no? If, as this article says, data is being manipulated to indicate climate change, then one should ask….why???

  3. junican Says:

    One of the impacts of the climate change theory is to reduce our dependency on fossil fuels (which, as an aside, is probably a good thing as this resource is assuredly finite).

    If that resource was sufficiently finite to run out in the short-ish term, why shouldn’t the environmentalists just wait until it is all gone? What would be the point of ‘saving’ it? Personally, I doubt that fossil fuels will run out for a very, very long time.
    Be that as it may, the really important thing is whether or not burning those fuels makes much difference to world temperatures. As you know, the world has been an awful lot warmer and an awful lot colder in the past. I’m not especially referring to a full ice age. There was the little ice age in the 1600s and the medieval warm period. I believe also that there was a warm period in Roman times.
    I think that there is a lot of ‘knee-jerk’ reactions among ordinary people, and, indeed, among more knowledgeable people. The thinking would go something along these lines: “How can you keep pouring smoke into the atmosphere without it having an effect?” That is what the global warming zealots have been relying upon. It makes propaganda easy.
    But the detail is not for here and now.
    I see your point about why Government should fall over backwards to go all out for carbon reduction if it knows that climate control is a sham. I might turn the question around and ask, if Government was convinced that climate change was real, why has it not been dredging rivers and building flood defences for the last 30 years or so?

    • inisfad Says:

      The discussion is really no longer about ‘global warming’ but about ‘climate change’. Nor is there any more proof needed about ‘air pollution’ from fossil fuels, either. There was discussion about ‘climate change’ and fossil fuels over 40 years ago, when I was still in school. So this is not a new topic. The fact that government has moved slowly in this regard, is pretty much in line with the arguments that you pose – wondering if this scenario is actually viable and real. Certainly, while the reasons may be entirely different than what we surmise, one cannot dispute the fact that the climate has become more violent – more flooding, more ‘super’ storms, etc. I can only imagine the response if suddenly, while we were totally dependent on fossil fuels, there was none left. To wait until ‘it’s all gone’ would certainly be beyond problematic, if you think of the result. Everything would grind to a halt, would it not? No electricity, no travel, etc., and we would be thrown back into the 18th century. I imagine that it is a good thing to understand that fossil fuels are not renewable, and to move toward other forms of fuel, whether or not the use of fossil fuels actually impacts the climate.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: