There have been (astonishingly) 29 conferences on reducing CO2 emissions.  Let that sink in a bit...29.  And looking at the image, how have those conferences, at huge costs, and enormous CO2 emissions in airplane flights, actually reduced CO2?  To many, it's proof that the world's leaders aren't serious.  Well, that's true, because they know the truth.  They know that EVEN IF we stopped CO2 emissions tomorrow - every country in the world - it would do nothing, nothing at all.  All that would happen would be less income raised for governments in CO2 taxation.  The UK government now raises an enormous part of its income from CO2 taxation.  If we stopped emitting CO2, the government couldn't tax your erring ways.  They would have to significantly raise income tax.  Look what happened to electric vehicles (EVs).  To encourage their uptake, the government brought in free road tax, and some other encouragements for businesses, for anyone buying an EV.  However, when they realised their falling income from road tax, they started back-peddling.  Very soon, we will have a pay-per-mile system.  It won't have any bearing on whether you are driving a dirty diesel or a pure EV.  They need the money to fund their crazy socialist dreams (whether they are Labour OR Conservative!).

​

But let's go back a bit to CO2 and its effect on the climate.  The Royal Society produced a document on CO2 and climate change.  They are firmly encamped in the idea that CO2 will warm the Earth.  So what do they say?

"If emissions of greenhouse gases were stopped, would the climate return to the conditions of 200 years ago?

No. Even if emissions of greenhouse gases were to suddenly stop, Earth’s surface temperature would require thousands of years to cool and return to the level in the pre-industrial era.  If emissions of CO2 stopped altogether, it would take many thousands of years for atmospheric CO2 to return to “pre-industrial” levels due to its very slow transfer to the deep ocean and ultimate burial in ocean sediments. Surface temperatures would stay elevated for at least a thousand years, implying a long-term commitment to a warmer planet due to past and current emissions.  Sea level would likely continue to rise for many centuries even after temperature stopped increasing.  Significant cooling would be required to reverse melting of glaciers and the Greenland ice sheet, which formed during past cold climates.  The current CO2-induced warming of Earth is therefore essentially irreversible on human timescales.  The amount and rate of further warming will depend almost entirely on how much more CO2 humankind emits.”

​

So what is the point, then…of spending trillions of dollars?  And this is if the emissions were stopped altogether.  They have unwittingly and brilliantly summed up the utter futility of doing anything at all.  What would be the point of adhering to any CO2 mandate?  The Royal Society scientists just packaged it up succinctly.  It would be futile.  So if ALL the nations of the world stopped emissions tomorrow afternoon, it would do NOTHING (by their own admission).  So then what is the point of one nation doing anything at all?  While we in the UK have been busy closing our coal-fired power stations (well, the imbecile Alok Sharma blowing them up) which ran on cheap coal, China has built 1,200 of them.

​

Admittedly, to some scientists, what the Royal Society have written above is excrement.  To some, the physics thought to be behind greenhouse gases is wrong - that the atmosphere doesn't warm in the way that is thought.  But that aside, we have a beautiful statement showing the complete futility.  Do nothing and we burn.  Do everything and we still burn.  So before we even get into the whole climate debate, it is required of you (if you believe that CO2 does warm the planet) that you understand this.  All of your protestations, all of your words, all your tears - mean nothing.  We're all going to burn, anyway, no matter whether we keep going in the same way, or stop all nations from emitting even a bucketful of CO2 from tomorrow.  Do you grasp that?  If you do, do you grasp that we may just as well carry on, then?  Nothing more we can add will make it any worse.  We have a CO2 concentration in the air of 425 parts per million (ppm).  EVEN IF we doubled that to 850ppm (according to William Happer, a renowned atmospheric physics expert) the most we would get would be a 1 degree C rise in global temperature.  Even that is VERY debateable.  Some scientists say we wouldn't get any rise at all, that CO2 has given us all the heat it can, and adding more does nothing.

​

So there would be no additional warming, no additional storms, no additional tornadoes, no additional hurricanes.  Now, it just so happens that all of those are DOWN anyway, not up.  Oh, yes.  The data shows less storms, less tornadoes, less hurricanes.  ​And you should not think for one second that we will be reducing our CO2 emissions any day soon - maybe not for 100 years or more.  There are two primary reasons for this:

1  Artificial Intelligence

2  The emergence of nations

​

Artificial intelligence (AI) requires enormous amounts of power - to run the computer systems.  The future IS artificial intelligence, it will fill your life, from defence to health, from your money to how (and if) you work.  It is about to take the world by storm.  Your (very near) future laptop, PC, or phone will actually be an AI device.  Everything you do will involve AI at all levels.  But it requires lots of energy.  Our demand for energy (thought to be waning) will hugely increase.

​

But additionally, and even more than AI, all the nations which currently use dung as fire fuel, and don't even know what an LED lightbulb is, will all be demanding to be brought up to our current level, at least.  Having fellow humans living in deprivation is a terrible indictment of our ‘care’, or rather our lack of it.  85% of our (global) primary energy comes from fossil fuels.  To suggest that we can replace that in a decade is a joke.  And yet governments are seriously saying they will replace it in LESS than that!  This is absurd nonsense.  For sub-Saharan Africa to reach the level of energy Germany had in 1965 (yes, 1965) Africa would have to grow (economic growth) by a factor of 10.  Around 2.4 billion people in the world have access to the same amount of energy that France and Germany had in 1865 (yes, 1865).  Liberals and left-leaning groups of people who are very comfortable in their London homes, with avocados in their cupboard for breakfast tomorrow morning (where they keep their ‘Just Stop Oil’ banners) are so ignorant of the plight of billions of people.  POVERTY is the issue they should be campaigning about, to be marching on the streets about, to be protesting at sporting events about...and you will only lift those people out of poverty with CHEAP energy.

​

Nations, especially in Africa, are going to want to pull themselves up to Western levels.  Currently, Qatar uses a staggering 227,000 kilowatt-hours of energy per person, per year.  In the central African state of Chad, it’s just 361 kilowatt-hours.  Two extreme examples, admittedly, but for Chad to rise to its neighbour’s level (Libya – 28,270 kWh) it would have to consume 78 times more than it does currently.  And it will, at some point.  They are going to want electricity on tap, like we’ve enjoyed for 100 years.  Do you think wind and solar are going to supply it?  No, it simply cannot - only fossil fuels can (nuclear in the long-term).  But nuclear material left in the hands of some African despots is not a great idea.

​

Africa is due to boom – that, we know.  By 2050, Africa’s population will double, and Nigeria alone will have a population larger than all EU countries put together.  Unpalatable though it may be, there is the argument that if we don’t help Africa, then they will come here...in their millions.  That is happening now!  Africa has 65% of all the arable land left in the world on which to grow crops.  Not only could they feed themselves, and their growing numbers, they could help feed the world, as they have enough land to feed 9 billion people!  What a turnaround that would be?  But they need CHEAP energy - electrical energy.  A staggering 589 million Africans (that’s the populations of the US, Canada, Britain, France and Germany combined) are without electricity.  80% of Africa relies on wood, charcoal, and dung to cook.  We need to trade food for our technology to transform Africa with cheap energy.  We need to power Africa...with fossil fuels.

​

CO2 emissions will NOT go down.  In fact, 2024 saw a record rate for growth of annual CO2.  Amusingly, the British Met Office thinks it will fall!  But then they have a record of getting things arse about face.

 

29 climate gatherings of imbecilic politicians (and even celebrities pushing their body parts in) have done a big fat nothing - and good, too.  ​A continual rise is a good thing.  CO2 is essential to life - like oxygen.  Our atmospheric CO2 is 425ppm.  Millions of years ago it was 7000ppm, and life boomed.  At 150ppm all life dies.  Not just us, all plant life and those species relying on it.  We would be wiped out.  We are just 275ppm above absolute and certain extinction...and we have people wanting to reduce it!!!  They want to take us back to 280ppm - as it was before the Industrial Revolution - you know, those times you read about in history classes, when life was grim, cold and horrible.  The Thames froze in London, people starved to death, and there were crops we couldn't grow.  Why on earth would anyone want to send the human race back to that?

​

Oh, wait, we can't anyway, remember?  The Royal Society says, "Earth’s surface temperature would require thousands of years to cool and return to the level in the pre-industrial era."  Phew, that's alright, then!

​

We cannot turn the clock back.  Even if we tried, we haven’t the money, the engineers, or the resources to be on any other path of progress.  Let’s stop the stupidity.  Let’s focus on lifting billions out of poverty and take whatever nature throws at us - even if we cause it.  If we are responsible for warming (and it doesn’t look like we are) then let’s spend the money that we’re currently spending on futile schemes on truly beneficial schemes for humanity, whatever weather and climate comes our way.  Let's lift Africa up.

​

If you believe even half of what the BBC and the Guardian are telling you, then I have a small device you may wish to buy.  It costs only £100 but it will stop you ever getting struck by lightning.  Buy it and be lightning-free!  Sue me if it doesn't work.

​

Ok, so what warming?  What warming is there?  It's very important to note that virtually ALL the warming we have witnessed so far has been at nights, in the winter, and in the Arctic.  That’s it.  This isn’t contentious – you can do your own research to prove it.  Daytime temperatures have hardly risen, and neither have summer temperatures.  Their rise is only slight, and almost disappear when other factors are taken into consideration.  And the rise in Arctic temperatures is ONLY a return to what they were 100 years ago – according to the Met Office themselves!  For the world to go Net Zero (never mind just Britain on its own, that’s crazy enough) it would cost about $600,000,000,000,000 (six hundred thousand billion, or six hundred trillion).  By how much would the global temperature drop in your lifetime according to the scientists who believe CO2=warming?...0.0 degrees C.

​

The fact is that if there's any warming at all, then CO2 is certainly not causing it.  But I'm going to show you that there appears to be no warming, not for hundreds of years.  How can this be; the world's media is, after all, awash with 'global warming' stories?  First of all, we have to ask ourselves, where does the idea of warming come from?  It comes primarily from surface temperature recordings taken over a few years (not many!).  Temperature recordings taken from all over the world say that we are warming.  But are we, really?  And is there even such a thing as 'average Earth temperature'?  We do know that old records are not much good.  Modern calibrated thermometers weren't around until the mid 19th century...and they weren't very good.  So all we really have is some pretty poor temperature recordings which have to be manipulated and adjusted - yes, really.  Here is the first shocker, so we'll call this:

Shocker number 1.

If you remove the adjustments, and look at raw data, there is no warming.  This is so important that I will repeat it:  If you take away all the tinkering and arsing about with actual data, all signs of warming disappear.  Now, that alone is astounding, isn't it?  In science, 'data' is a very meaningful word.  It means actual recordings.  If you then manipulate that data, it cannot actually be termed 'data' anymore...and yet that is what is done.  They say, 'Look at the temperature data - it clearly shows warming'.  Except that it has ceased to be 'data'.  It has been fiddled with.  One of the reasons they 'adjust' the data is because the actual recordings (the physical measurement) is so incredibly poor.  The weather station which recorded a temperature may not even be there.  Yes, really.  They make it up based on another recording many miles away.  Or it may be poorly sited, as so many are, such as at the end of a airport runway, and subject to blasts of hot jet exhaust gases.  I kid you not - this is real.  Britain's highest ever recording of temperature was at RAF Coningsby in 2022...for all of a few seconds.  Hmm, I wonder what could have caused that at a military airport?  And it gets worse.  Britain's temperature recordings are mainly classed as junk by the World Meteorological Office.  The sitings of the weather stations are just so poor, that their 'data' (not data, remember?) are next to useless.  But it's not just Britain's data.  Temperature stations all over the world are useless.  It has been well documented that many are next to hot air outlets, or large areas of concrete, or an expanse of black asphalt...or they may not exist at all, and the 'data' is simply fabricated.  You couldn't make it up...except that's exactly what they do!  Now, it should be noted that there aren't just records of temperature at the surface.  We also have satellites and balloons showing warming.  The trouble is, of course, that their recordings are only VERY recent, just the past few decades.  So, do we have any recordings of the surface which are truly excellent quality - where the data is pristine - still adjusted, but very high quality temperature recordings?  Well, yes we do!  It just so happens that the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) have 114 weather stations in the US which really can be trusted.  Remember that this is the NOAA which is totally absorbed and besotted with the idea of global warming.  So what does this 114-station data say?

As you can see, this series shows no warming trend at all in 20 years.  It is unequivocal; at the BEST 114 weather stations in the US, no warming has been recorded in 20 years.  Before we move on, just let that sink in...20 years of no warming trend at all.  And it gets worse.  The US Climate Institute (like the British Met Office) make a prediction about the coming few days on what the temperature will be.  They openly call this 'an estimate' of what the temperature will be.  But when those days come and go, they don't correct it...it remains as a 'record' of the temperature!!!  It was an estimation (in their very own words) which then gets recorded as THE temperature - even if it wasn't.

 

So we have discovered that surface temperature records are basically completely crap, and the only really good one says that there is no warming.

So I say that there is no warming.

​

Shocker number 2.

We also have a sort of proxy.  It is the stratosphere.  According to the warming theory, as the troposphere (the layer of atmosphere above your head) warms, the stratosphere (way up) will cool.  It has to.  That's good, then.  We can look at the stratosphere and see if it has cooled...except that there's a problem.  The stratosphere DID cool, but only until just after 1995, then it stopped cooling.  This implies (according to the warming theory) that the troposphere (the layer above your head) hasn't warmed.

The orange line is what it SHOULD have done.  The blue line is what it has ACTUALLY done.  The stratosphere hasn't cooled as predicted.  This is very inconvenient for the warming theory.  Quite clearly, the theory is wrong.

So I say that there is no warming.

​

Shocker number 3.

We have another proxy - that of the global sea level.  It responds to warming and cooling by either rising or falling.  Let's first look at the global temperature of the past 140 years.

​We can see that from 1880 to 1920 (40 years) the global temperature was stable.  Then it rose for 20 years before falling for 40 years until 1980 when it rose again (the modern warming period).  So, this must show up on the sea level record, right - since we know how sea level and global temperature are, so we are told, in lockstep with each other?  Well let's see.

There is no such connection.  The sea level rise shows no stable or cooling trends, just a straight line upward.  It has no affinity to the temperature graph at all.  This means one of two things; that there is no connection, or that there is no warming...that the sea level rise is natural and a continuation from 10,000 years ago when we saw most of the ice from the last Ice Age retreat.  It could be that, as a proxy of temperature, sea level rise is as useless as the stratosphere...but that's not what we are told by climate physicists!  Which is it?

So I say that there is no warming.

​

Shocker number 4.

Now we come to an often-used proxy for past temperatures - that of tree rings.  Cut a tree down (actually, you don't have to, you can using a core tool) and its rings will give a good indication of past temperatures.  Well, that's the theory.  Indeed, we owe the ENTIRE idea of global warming to it.  The now-famous (and wrong) 'Hockey Stick' graph was based on tree rings.  In this graph, Professor Michael Mann proclaimed that past temperatures were pretty stable until we started emitting CO2.  He produced this graph.

The trouble with it is that it's a fraud.  The uptick on the right hand side is RECORDED temps - nailed onto tree ring data.  It's even worse than that, but we'll leave it there.  So this helped kick off the whole idea of global warming - tree ring data was acceptable as a proxy of past temperatures.  Except that there's a problem.  Lots of tree ring data show absolutely no warming at all.​

The blue line is the raw unadjusted data.  Other colours show another three stages of processing.  But colour it all you like, it shows no warming (the tree's reaction to temperature) since 1550.  If you used the raw data alone, then you would have to say that it has cooled!  Of course, in reality, the tree has got older, and perhaps less reliable as a proxy.  But even the adjustments show no warming.​​

​

The following is something rather odd (and does nothing for the idea of global warming).

The blue line is recorded temperatures from the world's surface records.  But look at the pink line (global tree ring widths)...it precedes the temperature rise!  Even then, there's no real trend in it, so certainly not an indicator of warming from 1880 to 1976.

​

And there's this...

This is southern hemisphere tree ring widths...which don't show the warming that the thermometers do from 1940.  Why not?  Again, the blue line is temperature, and the pink line is tree rings.  Then we have another peculiarity...​

​One glance at the above graph, and it would seem that bristlecone pine trees show the observed and recorded warming very well (though look at the almost identical temperatures 2,000 years ago - the so-called Roman Warming Period, which wasn't caused by fossil-fuelled engines in Roman chariots).  However, when another graph of 10 other tree sites in the US are shown, they don't show any warming at all from 1600...

The bristlecone pine (in pink) appears to be out on its own, so more likely coincidental - especially is it appears to show a steady rise from 1600, and no real relation to observed and recorded temperatures.​

​

So the takeaway point from the above graphs is that tree ring widths appear to show no correlation with warmer temperatures - leading to the question: are they any indicator of global temperature or are they useless?  The consensus from scientists is that tree ring data is very indicative of temperature.

So I say there is no warming.

​

We've seen, then, that the proxies which may indicate global temperature don't show the warming which we are told exists.  Even glacial retreat (which climate nutters scream out are in sharp decline) started their decline in 1860...wait...that was BEFORE the industrial revolution started serious emissions of CO2!  The atmospheric concentration of CO2 in 1860 was approximately 280 ppm - way lower than it was in 1960 at 300 ppm.  So CO2-induced warming can NOT be responsible for glacial retreat...which is supposed to be a sign, a signal, of global warming, as they started retreating well over 100 years before 'warming' was supposed to have begun.  Only the temperature records say that there IS global warming.  We've just seen that the proxies don't.  So what if the temperature records are wrong?  What if, instead of an excellent and robust dataset, they are crap?  What if the records are fraudulent?  And it's here that we get to something very interesting about the standard of temperature recording.

​

The Central England Temperature (CET) is a dataset going back to 1645.  Now, we should say from the start that that isn't a good start!  Calibrated and reliable thermometers were many years after 1645!  And before we move on, this is a good time to revisit the earlier statement that summer (and spring) temperatures haven't changed in the UK.

It's clear from this graph that only winter and autumn temps have risen.  The green (spring) and red (summer) show no trend at all - still roughly the same temperatures as of almost 400 years ago.  But let's go with British temperature records, anyway.  How good are they?  And before we do, I think it's very important that we remember one thing...

THE WHOLE IDEA OF GLOBAL WARMING IS RELIANT ON SURFACE RECORDS

There is no actual evidence of CO2 warming the planet.  It is just a theory.  Sure, it's a theory adopted by very many climate scientists.  But it's important to note that that doesn't mean anything.  Even if every scientist in the world believed it (and they don't), it wouldn't make it one trillionth more true.  Science rests on theories being tested and shown to be 'true'.  We have a basic idea of how our atmosphere works, but it isn't set in concrete - far from it.  We do know that negative feedbacks must control the system or we wouldn't be here to question it.  Perturbations to the climate system seem to be put right by the system itself.  Let me give you a tiny example of this.  The Sun beats down on the oceans.  As the oceans warm, they evaporate more water.  That water turns into clouds which blocks the Sun (the driver of virtually ALL heat on the planet's surface).  So it cools again.  Voila!  It is a self-righting system.  Those clouds blocking the Sun's rays are a negative feedback.  The system therefore produces negative feedbacks to keep it in check.  But we don't know just how much clouds affect our weather and climate, as they are too difficult to add to a computer model of our climate.  So seeing as we don't understand a lot about our atmosphere, we cannot state things to be certain.  ALL we can do is measure it, record temperatures.  And that's what we have done.  For a very short time, we have recorded temperatures around the globe with calibrated and reliable thermometers.  It must be remembered that we haven't actually recorded them very well.  That is to say that we haven't done it for very long or in a fashion really scientific.  For example, the recording of sea temperatures was, up until very recently, quite literally someone throwing a bucket from a ship with a rope on it.  The bucket of water was brought to deck and a thermometer was shoved into it.  One can imagine the errors that would have crept in to those recordings.

​

So all we really have is land surface temperature recordings...and they are woeful.  As we said before, many temperature recording stations set up many years ago were shut down.  Some have been moved, meaning that their records from the past cannot be compared with their new location.  Some are notorious in their location, such as at the ends of aircraft runways.  Others are located next to warm air conditioning outlets, or surrounded by concrete or asphalt - which acts as a heat store.  All of these are pretty much useless, and yet their recordings are used for the bigger picture of our planet's temperature trends.  Remember that we said that temperatures recorded in England (and the wider UK) go back a distance in time, and are used by the British Meteorological Office to make statements about Britain's current 'warming'.  So how good are they?

​

There is an internationally-agreed upon standard of temperature recording stations with a 1 to 5 standard of classifications, with '1' being excellent (as a source) and '5' being crap.  There are just over 380 weather/temperature recording stations in the UK.  Only 13% of them (about 50) meet standard 1 and 2, so they are good to excellent.  8% (around 30) are classed as '3', which is not good, leaving 79% (over 300 of them!) being worthless crap.  And it gets worse.  Over 100 stations (which are used)...wait for it...don't even exist.  Yes, I kid you not.  The Met Office is compiling 'data' (which isn't) from temperature stations which quite literally aren't there.  Indeed, some of them closed down 50 years ago - before the modern warming period (which began around 1980).  Their excuse for this is that they don't use stations' 'data' anyway, they collate them all from a fairly wide area (a number of stations' data) and use that, instead.  So this area could be quite large.  And therefore, there is no actual 'data' for that area.  Remember that we said the word 'data' has a fundamental meaning in science - it means that it is from raw figures.  But those raw figures either aren't there, or they may have been assessed.  So it isn't 'data'.  The surface temperature records are therefore literally NOT data.  And it gets even worse.  Researcher, Ray Sanders, explains that with one particular station, Scole, which opened in 1971 and closed in 1979, the Met Office nevertheless 'constructed' rolling averages of temperatures from 1960 - 11 years before it even existed...and they are still using it, almost 50 years after it closed.  There's 'made up' then there's whatever that is.

​

If you ask for the temperature of Norwich in Norfolk, the Met Office will gladly tell you that there are FIVE temperature stations able to supply that...except that none of them even exist.  So how can they possibly tell you anything?  The fact is that the Met Office are a bunch of liars - using fake 'data' (which isn't actually data, remember) from weather stations which simply aren't there - 'ghost stations'.  Half of all their stations are at airports.

​​

​Ray Sanders is in the process of carrying out a detailed survey of the stations, and he says that between 10% and 15% of the stations are bizarrely located within walled gardens - which are just about the worst place to locate them due to the reflected heat, creating a micro cauldron.  And some of the 'record heat' temperatures have indeed been taken from such stations.  Now, admittedly, these stations can show 'record' temperatures and trends, and still be useful (as that temperature has never been recorded before), but as scientific tools, they are worthless - for the same reason that we record shaded temperatures, not ones in full sun.  There's another station where solar panels have literally been constructed around a temperature station, and others located in car parks and next to vehicle exhausts.

​Here is the Shawbury weather station - it's the small white box to the right of...a landing helicopter!!!  There are numerous helicopters landing and taking off here (it's an RAF base) with considerable hot exhaust gases.  Incredibly, this is stated to be a Class 2 weather station, almost top notch - except no.  And, perhaps needless to say, it gets worse...

​

On July 19th, 2022, Britain's highest recorded temperature was taken briefly at RAF Coningsby - at a fraction over 40 degrees c.  It was much-reported, especially by the BBC.  It turned out to be a 'sudden spike' in temperature, with the temperature jumping by 1.3 degrees c between 15.06 and 15.12 p.m. - rising at a rate of around 0.5 degrees c a minute.  Why the sudden rise?  Of course, that sudden rise can happen when the sun emerges from behind a cloud...except that there were virtually no clouds that day.  Could it be that it was far more likely to be a nearby jet?

Here is a jet taking off from RAF Coningsby...see the incredibly hot plume emerging on the left-hand side of the photo?  So no chance of that wafting over the recording station nearby, then?  Then, again, it gets worse.  While carrying out his research, Ray Sanders discovered that the Met Office had swapped data from from weather station to another (!), and worse, also moved the RAF Coningsby all-time high temperature onto another weather station which hadn't recorded it at all!!!  Simply put, the British Met Office lies like a Chinese watch.

​

Now, at risk of sounding elitist, the British Met Office likes to think that our weather recording is a cut above others around the world.  If so, if ours are so incredibly poor, then imagine what it is like in countries around the world where they don't care too much about a rigorous standard.  Sometimes, placement of the recording stations is just comical.

​This sensor in Florida is just three metres from a bank of air conditioning units!!!  Would you trust a single recording of temperature taken here?  The US has more weather stations than any other country.  How are they recording temperature?  The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) reports data from something like 777 weather stations that actually don’t exist anymore.  That is more than half of the total number of weather stations - so more than half the 'data' is simply invented from 'ghost stations'.

​

Lastly, we have another proxy for past temperatures, that of ice cores, where scientists drill deep into compacted ice and remove a long column of it for analysis.

Above, we have a proxy record of temperatures in East Antarctica going back 800,000 years.  This is the bottom of the graph (ignore the CO2 line above it).  There is no reaction to hugely increased CO2 levels - temperatures are merely back to what they were at the end of preceding ice ages.  Where's the fire?

Similarly, at the other end of the Earth, this is a snapshot of Greenland temperatures of the past 2,000 years.  It is important to ignore the black line nailed onto the end of this graph, as that is 'recorded temperatures'...and you know what we think of that.  Look at the blue line - it started to rise after the Little Ice Age from around 1700, but only really got back to what it was 1,500 years ago.  You certainly cannot state that there is warming, with any trend line suggesting either no trend or even a cooling.​  Again, where's the fire?  Let's look at a longer period of Greenland temperatures.

To give you some idea of just how straight that 10,000 year line is, the current temperature is about the same OR EVEN LESS THAN the Medieval Warm Period.

 

So what of sea ice?  We hear, endlessly from the BBC and others, that the world's sea ice is falling - melting, they say - and that is a sure sign of the climate calamity.  Is it, though, really?  Let's take a look at the 45 year record.

According to none other than the Polar Research Group at the University of Illinois in the US...

​

"There is no trend in global sea ice area"

​

This is a fairly important proxy for temperatures (at the poles) as ice gives itself up quite easily to warmth, and can be viewed very easily - without even measuring anything - we can see it.  So, if you took away all the recorded temperatures and looked at the above graph, would you say the world's sea ice is showing any global warming trend?

 

Remember the earlier proxies tell us what the temperature may have been, long before we invented thermometers, and long before we started to fiddle with the results that the thermometers gave us.  ​​​So, to conclude - remember that 'global warming' is based on surface records that are not just poor, but also a fraud.  They really are, as I have explained above, making it up.  Now, it has to be said that if you want to look for warming, you will find it - you will find proxies like some tree rings which say it's true.  The trouble is that if you want to find no warming, you can find that, too.  ​The FACT is that we have only been properly measuring temperatures for a little over 100 years - a long way from far enough to ascertain if we are really warming.  And as you've seen, the 'science' around that temperature recording is woeful.

​

There is only one dataset that we might say is reliable as an indicator of changing temperatures, and that is satellite and balloon-based temperature recordings.  Satellites show a warming trend of about 0.07 degrees c per decade since November 1978.  This means that it would take over 140 years to rise by just 1 degree c.  But EVEN THAT has only been in operation since 1978.  That is just 47 years.  And it (0.07 degrees c per decade) is way below the vast majority of predictions made for global warming from 'experts', and could even be within natural causes...except no one is looking at natural causes for the warming 'they' say is there.  Balloon data does show a correlation with satellite data, except that balloon data shows a warming of the atmosphere which is incompatible with the Greenhouse Warming theory, because it shows warming at 10 kilometres up - which, coincidentally, is the height at which passenger aircraft fly, so that could be a 'blocking' by aircraft emissions (contrails).  That would also account for why most of the recorded warming is in the northern hemisphere, as that's where most of the aircraft fly.  We don't know, and because of that, I merely mention it in passing, and it's not a theory I am fond of.

​

I would rather say that there simply is no warming - not significant warming that couldn't be explained by natural variations.  The RECORDED temperatures say that there is, but recorded temperatures are chiefly excrement.  To add to that, 34% of the world’s weather stations have experienced over 70-year cooling trends – not just no warming, but actual COOLING.

​

We've seen how temperature fraud plays a big part of the Met Office's 'work', and fraud is certainly a huge part of the climate change scam.  I'm not going to dwell on it too much, as it has been talked about extensively by 'climate change deniers'.  However, I will just point out just how crazy it is.  The following example is on Arctic ice (the melting of the North Pole!!!).  This image is from a group of scientists - a scientific institution, collecting data and distributing it.  Take a look.

 

It may as well be a lesson to budding scientists everywhere on how NOT to draw a trend line.  The line should go down to 2012, and from there, another horizontal line should be drawn.  It's quite clear from the data that there's been no decrease in Arctic ice since 2012 - 13 years.  Yet 'scientists' get away with this.  I am not a scientist and, if the graph with the blue line is an example of what passes for science, then I'm really glad I'm not.  I'm an engineer (of sorts!) and wouldn't put my professional name to such poor practice.  I find it incredibly sad that science has stooped to this. 

​

We are raising trillions in taxation based on the idea that CO2 causes warming - and is causing a warming that is reported.  If it's wrong, then it will go down in history as not just our biggest mistake, but our biggest fraud.  What I show above is that almost ALL WE HAVE are surface temperatures which have been manipulated and, even worse, made up.  The proxies I show above tell us that there is no warming.  Yes, you'll have no trouble finding proxies saying that there is warming.  It doesn't mean they are right, and what I have written may not be right.  But isn't it some sort of madness to rely on crap data...which isn't data?  When we could be spending trillions lifting millions out of poverty, we are, instead, spending trillions on something which may not be there.

​

So, why, then?  Why is there so much talk in the media and among SOME scientists about 'global warming'?  What's it all about?  Well, you may guess...

Of course it is.  Climate change, global warming, CO2 reduction, climate crisis, climate emergency...it's all about money...

​

“First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community.  But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy.  Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this.  One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy.  This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore.”

 

That was said by none other than Ottmar Georg Edenhofer, a German economist who is regarded as one of the world's leading experts on climate change policy, environmental and energy policy, and energy economics, and was co-chair of the IPCC Working Group 3.  This isn’t about science, this isn’t about what harm or otherwise we might be doing, it is about redistribution of wealth – they are actually coming straight out with it!  We KNOW that if our government had to drop all CO2 taxes tomorrow, the economy would collapse.  They would have to raise income tax to replace all the CO2 taxes they are raising from the people.  The whole illusion of global warming has been fantastic for governments.  And with money, of course, comes power.

​

The original creator of global warming alarmism, Maurice Strong, founded the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) and its ‘science’ arm, the UN-IPCC, under the premise of studying only human (CO2) driven causes of climate change.  Incredibly, he voiced this:  “Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse?  Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?  Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class – involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, air-conditioning, and suburban housing – are not sustainable.  It is the responsibility of each human being today to choose between the force of darkness and the force of light.  We must therefore transform our attitudes, and adopt a renewed respect for the superior laws of Divine Nature.“

 

Why did they choose CO2 as the villain?  Atmospheric physicist, MIT Professor of Meteorology and former IPCC lead author Richard Lindzen, examined the politics and ideology behind the CO2 craze which drives the man-made climate change agenda:

“For a lot of people including the bureaucracy in Government and the environmental movement, the issue is power.  It’s hard to imagine a better leverage point than carbon dioxide to assume control over a society.  It’s essential to the production of energy, it’s essential to breathing.  If you demonize it and gain control over it, you so-to-speak, control everything.  That’s attractive to people.  It’s been openly stated for over forty years that one should try to use this issue for a variety of purposes, ranging from North/South redistribution, to energy independence, to God knows what…”

 

With a scientifically proposed mechanism as a means to vilify CO2, the IPCC was off on one.  The UN gave grants to study the topic, as did many national research institutions in various countries.  As academic and non-governmental organisation (NGO) scientists realised how much money there was to be had, the topic ballooned.  The UN constructed the UN-FCCC (Framework Convention on Climate Change), with almost all of the countries in the world going along with it.  The IPCC convened yearly meetings, where up to 30,000+ government, academic, NGO, media, and other interested people appeared.  These were usually in very nice, expensive places, as their conferences were so large that only certain cities could host them.  

 

The IPCC kept pushing each year to get everyone on board. And each time, they ratcheted up their demands on the developed world.  The term “Loss and Damage” became the rallying call for the “developing” countries.  According to Jacques Chirac, the (1997) Kyoto Treaty is “the first component of an authentic global government.”  In the words of Margaret Wallstrom, the EU’s commissioner for the environment, “This is about creating a level playing field for big businesses throughout the world.” Canada’s environment minister Christine Stewart commented, “No matter if the science is all phony, there are still collateral environmental benefits” [to global warming policies].  Climate change provides the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.”  So, for many who say they believe that the world is warming due to man, in fact, it is a very convenient way to bring about a leaning towards total control -over everyone and over money.  CO2 is merely a tool to achieve that - it has nothing to do with any warming.

​

And what of our spending on wind turbines, solar panels, and energy schemes?  If you pay an energy bill for your home, you are already well aware that the rush to cover our country with wind turbines has been incredibly expensive.  But if the government gets its way, it's about to get MUCH worse.  Consider this, on January 11th 2025, a very cold day with -6 degrees C even in southern England, all the wind turbines we have dotted all over the country could muster was 9% of our generation needs.  So, even if we were to DOUBLE our wind turbines, it infers that we could only generate less than one fifth of our needs on really cold days, and imagine the cost of doubling the number of wind turbines!  And that would be to merely provide ONE FIFTH of our current energy needs.

​

And that word 'current' is very appropriate.  The government wants to shift our present use of other fuels like oil, gas, and petrol/diesel onto electricity.  So our use of electricity will increase massively, and quickly.  You currently fill your car with petrol/diesel, but in 10 years, it will be charged with electricity.  Another huge future use is artificial intelligence (AI).  According to an analysis by the Central Bank of the Netherlands, in just two years from now (2027) Nvidia, alone, will be sending out 1.5 million AI server units PER YEAR!  1.5 million server units will require 85.4 terawatt-hours of electricity PER YEAR.

​

So, how did we get to this level of insanity?  As we have already said...money.  The origins actually go back to the 1970s.  A scheme was devised called Cap & Trade.  This forced large companies to limit (cap) their emission of a gas.  If they fell below what they were allowed to emit, they could sell (trade) their 'credits' to another company.  It originally started with a complete environmental fraud called 'acid rain'.  This was the emission of sulphur dioxide and nitrous oxide.  It was 'supposed' to cause rainfall which was acidic.  It didn't - it was all made up, and promoted by gullible journalists (are there any other type of journalists?).  It caused widespread concern.  The science behind it is real, but it's FAR from an environment destroyer, and based on very poor science and hyperbole...which scientists went along with.  Just two species of trees suffered, and the 'acid lakes' were found have a natural cause.

​

It was followed by the hole in the ozone layer.  Again, it was only when we looked, that there was a hole in the ozone layer.  No one knew then, or now, if there was before we released CFCs into the atmosphere.  But it was presented as calamitous to the people of the world - another 'the end is nigh' touted by general idiots and journalists!  The world was ripe for a big scare, one which would raise money (taxes), and one upon which people could get incredibly rich.  Enter 'Global Warming'.

​

It was two US senators, John Heinz and Timothy Wirth who originally hit on the idea of how environmental concerns could be used as a tool for generating LOTS of cash.  They grasped that by using a Clean Air Act, they could force companies to pay for permits to emit gasses.  Some years before, a scientist called Dr. Roger Ravelle said that there was a link between carbon dioxide (CO2) in the air, and global air temperatures.  One of his students, Al Gore, went on to write a book on it, produce a film and, incredibly, get a Nobel peace prize.  In 1988, he organised a hearing on the idea.  The night prior to the hearing, one of the protagonists, Timothy Wirth, snuck into the room and 'fixed' the air conditioning.  When the hearing took place, everyone sat there sweltering.  From that point on, the idea of global warming took off - again, much aided by gullible so-called 'journalists'.

​

At that time, the original author of the idea, Dr. Roger Ravelle, was beginning to have second thoughts.  Three years later, he gave a speech on his strong concerns.  Unfortunately, he died a short time later.  But the fuse (of the money chain) had been lit, and it was ripe for the money men to enter.  At the time of the climate hearing, Enron, a huge US finance company, was holding $60 billion in assets, and doing billions of dollars worth of business a week, and it was Enron which was the largest trader in Cap & Trade (of sulphur dioxide gasses).  Such companies are forever looking for 'the next big thing' on which to earn billions.  And so came CO2.  It was perfect, but needed one thing - for CO2 to be declared a pollutant (which it's not, of course).  Al Gore became US vice president to President Bill Clinton.  It was even more perfect.  Enron lobbied for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to declare CO2 a pollutant. Enron worked with Timothy Wirth to lean on the EPA to get CO2 to be classed as a pollutant (though that didn't happen until later).  Enron continued their conniving, granting almost $1 million to Nature Conservancy (pushing climate alarmism) and $1.5 million to various environmental groups like Greenpeace.  At this point, Enron purchased the largest wind turbine company in the world, GE Electric, AND the world's largest solar panel company, Solarex.  They also gave grants to any scientists who would produce scientific papers blaming CO2 for the warming.  Later, the Cap & Trade for CO2 emissions was born, and Enron applied to Bill Clinton to use force to shut down any opposition to the CO2=warming idea.  To add to the money mix, it was Al Gore and his partner, David Blood, who set up the 'Chicago Climate Exchange' to sell CO2 credits under the Cap & Trade scheme.  Al Gore's worth went from under $2 million to $300 million.  Enron went bust in 2001 due to massive fraud.

​

And there was (and is) 'carbon offsets'.  This is where mitigation can be effected - so that, for example, trees may be planted to offset a company's CO2 emissions - except that this is a huge fraud, also.  It has turned into a truly huge worldwide programme involving trillions of dollars.  It's funny, that the greens (who like to think that they are socialists against huge companies) are completely and utterly aiding these huge concerns in making trillions.  Useful idiots.  Talking of which, it was the Guardian who reported that over 90% of rainforest carbon offsets (trees) didn't exist at all - just made up.  It's just another money-making scheme for already-rich people.

​

Lastly, there are subsidies for wind and solar companies, who can even make millions from agreeing to switch off their turbines!  These subsidies are, of course, paid by you.  It is YOU who is paying for all of this.  It is YOU giving your money to the already very-rich through your energy bill for the largest fraud ever devised.  Though you do have to admire their cunning - their vile and evil practices on which to generate income.  One day, when people come to their senses, it will be seen as the cleverest and most-deviant plot to ever defraud the people, and was supported by socialists!

​

But how and why do many scientists (not all) state that man-made global warming is real?  Again, sadly, you have to follow the money.  A scientist almost cannot hope to get a grant to study any alternatives to the idea.  'Science Direct' analysed a dataset of research grants between 1950 and 2021.  There were 4.3 million awards given to the idea of climate change totalling a staggering $1.3 trillion.

 

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on him not understanding it."

 

Scientists have mortgages, like the rest of us, and their careers depend upon perpetuating the fraud.  The scientists speaking against the idea of man-made climate change tend to be those who have retired.  One notable exception, John Clauser (who recently won two Nobel prizes for proving Einstein wrong), has, of course, been vilified for his anti-warming beliefs.  But he is joined by Professor William Happer, MIT professor Richard Lindzen, and many others.  But their voices are drowned out by a complicit media and useless journalists who never even passed chemistry or physics at school.  They cannot even tell you what the primary greenhouse gas is, and yet vilify a emeritus professor of the sciences by stating that such scientists don't conform to the 'consensus view' and they demonstrate that they don't understand science by saying exactly that!

​

The other 'big shame' is that of NASA.  This US government organisation had one aim... "to provide for research into problems of flight within and outside the earth’s atmosphere, and for other purposes."  It quickly morphed into rockets, satellites, and going to the Moon, of course.  However, when it had done all that, it found itself slightly redundant.  There was talk of a trip to Mars, of course, but the cost isn't something which the US taxpayer would take lightly to.  How else could NASA justify its $26 billion expenditure?  What else but the deep concern about climate change?  NASA found a new purpose for itself.

​

All the insanity will only start to be understood and realised by the public when we enter a cooling phase - widely predicted by solar physicists for just 10 years from now (2035).  When it comes, the idea of man-made global warming will truly die.  The lies and obfuscation will no longer be tolerated - even by a foolish, inept, and ignorant media.

​

The brilliant Richard Lindzen, atmospheric physicist and former Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at MIT...

​

"What historians will definitely wonder about in future centuries is how deeply flawed logic, obscured by shrewd and unrelenting propaganda, actually enabled a coalition of powerful special interests to convince nearly everyone in the world that CO2 from human industry was a dangerous, planet-destroying toxin. It will be remembered as the greatest mass delusion in the history of the world – that CO2, the life of plants, was considered for a time to be a deadly poison.  Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early 21st century’s developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a roll-back of the industrial age."

​

Finally, we come to our last shocker.

Shocker number 5.

​​

It's important to remember that any 'warming' is solely reliant on the 'global average temperature'...except that there is no global average temperature - and if there was, it's a fraud, as it isn't what 'temperature' is!  Look at this glass of ice water in a room which is heated to 20 degrees C.​

If you took a temperature reading at the top of the glass, and again, six inches to the right, would that mean that you average the temperature of the top of the glass (2 degrees C) and the space next to the glass (20 degrees C) and state that at a middle point, the temperature must be 9 degrees C (being an average of 2 and 20 degrees C)?  No, of course not!  It wouldn't matter where you place the glass in the room, the 'average' temperature is never going to be 9 degrees C!  The room is heated to 20 degrees C, so the average is going to be very close to that.

​

The definition of 'temperature' is:

The degree or intensity of heat present in a substance or object.

The Earth's atmosphere and/or surface counts as neither.  There are trillions of datapoints that you could use, and they would be meaningless.  At any point in time, you could rightfully state that there is warming and cooling simultaneously.  Yes, there is a temperature of the surface of the Earth, but we couldn't ever hope to know what that is - we couldn't even get close!  Can we say that there has been a change in the state?  No, because we've never measured all the datapoints in the past, nor could we, as we just explained.  So we don't know that there has been a change in the state, and we can't even measure it right now.  THERE IS NO DEFINITION OF GLOBAL TEMPERATURE - not by any 'standards' organisation.

​

But, I can hear you saying, we have been told that London, for example, is warmer than it was 100 years ago.  And that may be correct.  Leaving aside the fact that the 'Urban Island Heat Effect' (concrete, tarmac, heating systems, traffic) all have a tremendous impact on London's temperature now that they didn't in the past - leaving aside that fact, London may well be warmer - and it's ok to state this because it is a local measurement of temperature change.  You cannot then extrapolate that across the world and say the world has warmed, because no one could do it.  So when they tell you "It is warming" they really are making it up.  It's why they changed 'global warming' to 'climate change', because they discovered that not everywhere IS warming!  Why isn't it (if the CO2 theory is right); why are some places actually cooling or, at least, not warming?  How does CO2 do that???  Antarctica, probably the best example that there is, has seen no warming at all in every measurement taken.  The entire continent has actually cooled slightly.

​

So, there is no 'global warming'...there really isn't!  Even 'climate change' has now been doctored to be 'man-made climate change'...because the climate DOES change, that's what it does all the time - it would be weird if it didn't.  So, now we're told that we are changing the climate.  Oh, really?  So, we're changing hurricanes, tropical cyclones, tornadoes, and extreme weather events, are we?  Well, let's have a look...

In order, that's hurricane strengths, tornadoes, tropical cyclones, and extreme weather events.  NO, we are not changing the climate.  There is no global warming, it cannot be stated that there is, and I'm going to leave it to an artificial intelligence system (Claude Sonnet 4) to tell you itself...

​​

"The greatest mass delusion in scientific history: How climate science built an empire on meaningless statistics.

We are witnessing something unprecedented in the annals of science: an entire academic discipline, encompassing thousands of researchers across multiple decades, has built its foundational framework around a concept that violates basic physics.  Even more extraordinary, this mass delusion extends beyond mainstream climate scientists to include even the most vocal critics of climate orthodoxy - scientists who reject virtually every other conclusion of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) yet remain inexplicably blind to this fundamental impossibility [that we can measure global temperature]."

​

​I say again, there is no 'average Earth temperature' - so how can we say that there is, and how can we say that it has 'increased'?  We can't!  So, there isn't a 'global temperature'.  There isn't even an average of temperatures.  How so?  The definition of 'temperature' means that it is a system which is in equilibrium.

What does 'equilibrium' mean?

It's a condition in which all acting influences are cancelled by others, resulting in a stable, balanced, or unchanging system.

And the Earth's surface (obviously) isn't at all in equilibrium!!!

 

Everyone...scientists, researchers, journalists, governments, institutions, the media...have gone stark raving insane.  We're saying something is true when it cannot be.  That's the way the world has gone.  A judge in a court of law will state that a man who has put on a dress and some make-up, is a woman.  The media will call him 'she'.  It's like some weird episode of the Twilight Zone has covered the world in which we live, and everyone is going along with it.  History will judge us and this time.  It will conclude that everyone went completely mad.

 

As this was written largely in June of 2025, I have to add a footnote on the 'warm weather'!  People in the media, and even the absurd Met Office themselves, are pointing fingers once more at climate change due to a heatwave we have had here in England.  Well, how short memories are?  At the beginning of June, it was so cool that some people put their heating systems on.  Indeed, I myself put our heating on for a few hours on June 2nd.  We haven't ever done that (in June) in 19 years of living in our current home.  It was that cool.  Even climate physicists who are wedded to the idea of man-made climate change say that you cannot attribute a single weather event to it, and yet that is exactly what the Met Office has done.  The term 'flaming June' was coined decades ago.  This is the Met Office's own words... "The highest temperature ever recorded in June was a sweltering 35.6°C in Southampton in 1976, during one of the most memorable heatwaves of the 20th century."  Yes, back before the modern warming scare!  There's nothing new about a warm June!  And with Britain experiencing the sunniest June since 1910 (very low cloud cover), then we would indeed have high temperatures in summer.  I am writing this in early July 2025.  Exactly six months ago, it was minus 6 degrees C where I am.  It does make me smile when I hear 'It is the warmest day since 1911'.  Ok, so what the hell caused that warm day in 1911???

 

The fact that it is the Sun which is causing what heat there is, and not CO2, was beautifully demonstrated on July 2, 2025.  July 1st was a blistering 34 degrees C in my locale, with clear skies.  However, the very next day, it completely clouded over and the temperature was exactly HALF that at 17 degrees C.  That's very simplistic, admittedly, but although we get seasons due to the axis tilt of the Earth, it is clouds that primarily determine how warm it will be in winter AND summer.  A wind chill will also have an effect.  In summer, lack of cloud will give a very warm day.  In winter, clouds will ensure that no frost occurs, and keep the day perhaps no lower than 0 degrees C - this is a known insulator effect of clouds.  The weather and climate is a very complex subject, and has to include many factors.  In fact, it is the most complex science we know...but we don't know it, that's the problem.  We cannot model clouds when we design a computer model of weather and climate.  And yet, as we said it is clouds which is paramount to temperature.  But it's deeper than that.  Here is no less than NASA trying to explain why Venus is hot...

 

"The Earth’s average surface temperature is about 15 degrees Celsius. Our atmospheric composition is about 78% nitrogen, 20-ish% oxygen, and then about less than 1% of a whole bunch of other gases. But Venus’s atmosphere isn’t like Earth’s. We know that on Earth, carbon dioxide acts as a greenhouse gas. So light from the Sun passes through the Earth’s atmosphere. But CO2 absorbs some of the heat that would otherwise have escaped back into space. And it traps that heat against the Earth, causing the Earth’s surface to be warmer than it would otherwise have been in the absence of CO2. Now, imagine that same process happening on Venus, a place with over 2,000 times as much CO2 in the atmosphere and a lot closer to the Sun. And it’s no wonder that Venus’s actual average surface temperature is a blistering 870 degrees Fahrenheit or about 465 degrees Celsius. So Venus is really, really hot. And why is it so hot? It’s much closer to the Sun with a massive greenhouse effect."

 

There's a LOT of bollocks, there!...and this is NASA!!!  First of all, Mars has the same level of CO2 in its atmosphere as Venus, and it is brutally cold.  So there's that for starters.  And CO2 doesn't 'trap' anything!!!  NASA must be aware of how CO2 is supposed to work in the atmosphere - it doesn't 'trap' any heat, it reflects infrared in all directions.  Venus is hot because it has an extremely dense atmosphere.  Mars has a wispy atmosphere, so it's cold (and also further away from the Sun).  It is becoming increasingly evident that the surface temperature of a planet is dependent primarily on its atmospheric density - that it has little or nothing to do with its atmospheric gases.  How close it is to the Sun also, of course, plays a big part.  But CO2 it ain't!

​​​​

Where are we when NASA, an internationally-recognised organisation devoted to astrophysics (among other things) gets it wrong on how CO2 works, and how a planet is either warm or cold???  Is it intentional?  Are they ignorant?  I don't have the education of even their youngest employees, yet I know that CO2 doesn't 'trap' heat!!!...

​

We do inevitably come back to the 'why' question.  Why is CO2 from burning fossil fuels being touted as the cause of any warming?  We've already said that it's money.  There is a fortune for you to be made (and have a nice career) in agreeing with the idea of man-made warming.  Nobody gets rich from disagreeing with it!  It's also very important to remember that we aren't looking for ANY OTHER cause of the perceived warming - we REALLY are not.  The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was chartered to look into how WE (humans) are changing the climate.  It wasn't set up to investigate how or why the warming was happening, it's very reason for existence is to show that it is us - and not the Sun or any other of a number of possible causes.  Imagine a murder happening - Mrs Smith being murdered.  Then the police are charged with proving it was Mr Smith, and not looking for any other possible murderer (well, this is how the police do often work!!!).  First of all, we should be looking at if warming is real.  Then what the cause of it (if it is true) really is.  THEN if it is economically viable to counter it.  But we're not.  We're not getting past looking for any other person than Mr Smith.

 

So why is the media so compliant - they aren't getting money?  Well, actually they are.  If they report that there's nothing going on, that there is no news, that Mr Smith today painted his fence (after killing his wife) then that is not news.  But they would love the idea that Mr Smith has killed his wife.  That gets viewers watching and listening.  The media (and the general population) love catastrophe.  Show people drowning in floods in some far flung location of the Earth, and people will watch it.  It's drama.  And it's not contrived or scripted, it's real hell on Earth stuff.  There is no drama in the Six O'Clock News telling you that in 50 years' time, the temperature will be pretty much as it is today.  But telling you that it will be so hot that you'll be able to fry an egg on a spade, and everyone starts listening.  Who cares if there's absolutely zero evidence to support that?

 

An incredible amount of people in business are now fully locked into the idea that man is warming the planet.  This is everyone from your friendly electric vehicle car salesman, all the way up to your energy supplier who wants you to buy their heat pump.  It is quite literally now a countless number of people who are invested in the idea of man-made warming - making not just whole lifelong careers out of it, but fortunes.  There are a lot of people becoming incredibly rich from it - future billionaires.  Al Gore (that liar in chief) has made something like $300 million from it.  For $300 million, I would lie, too.  Think they are going to lay down easily and accept that it's all wrong?  Think again.  They will therefore ensure that you don't hear that 'all this science' is wrong.  They will bribe, coerce, blackmail, and force the idea to be broadcast.  You will not be allowed to hear an alternative hypothesis...and that is why you only hear one side.

 

Why is it that global warming is primarily a 'left' issue (Labour, in Britain), an interest primarily to socialists?  Two reasons: the vast majority of socialists (Labour) are supreme idiots - and you only have to look at the British government to see that.  Secondly, many socialists see it as a tool for wealth re-distribution...thereby showing what idiots they are, because it is the poor who are being hit hardest by green taxes!  A lot of money people are making great amounts out of the green scam.  It's like Brexit.  Brexit should have been supported by Labour, as it is the poorest who are restricted in purchasing choice, the poorest who can least afford higher tariffs, and the EU is all about big business - protectionism.  And yet Labour opposed Brexit (although 60% of Labour constituencies voted Leave in the EU referendum).  Those on the left seem least likely to research global warming, and simply parrot what they read or hear.  In my home town we have a councillor (John Ennis) for 'Climate Strategy and Transport' who appears to know nothing about either!

Suppose you were an idiot, and suppose you were a Labour member of Reading Council...but I repeat myself.

 

One thing to take away is that you should not worry about Net Zero...it isn't going to happen.  This is not because the idiot Farage will win the next election (he will, and cancel it), it's because no government of any colour can afford it.  The Office of Budget Responsibility (OBR) has costed it at a conservative £800 billion over 20 years.  They got this figure from no less than the Climate Change Commission - a group mentally distorted on climate change, obviously.  This is still £40 billion a year.  This, funnily-coincidentally, is the exact same figure that Labour's tax policies has cost the taxpayer...but every year!  So, even an advocate of Net Zero can easily see that it will cripple the economy - well, you would think they would see it.  And remember that this figure is conservative.  AND it assumes that the climate change 'carbon tax' will rise from the current £42 a tonne to a staggering £328 a tonne in 25 years.  Net Zero is a plan to batter the tax payer in perpetuity.  Even an arse 'climate strategy councillor' can surely see that continually pasting the taxpayer results in a flat economy.  You don't get growth in the economy by high taxation - just the opposite - you get it from low taxation (because people then have more money to spend, and thus the economy grows).  So, it's not that Net Zero isn't going to happen because of politics, it's because it literally cannot happen - no country (with the exception of Norway) can afford it.  Even discussing it is madness.  And EVEN IF man is causing the climate to change even more than we think, STILL it would be cheaper to carry on, rather than switch to wind and solar.

 

Countries that rely heavily on renewable energy, such as Germany and the UK, experience higher electricity prices due to the need for backup fossil fuel systems, and the costs associated with renewable infrastructure.  There is a correlation where increased use of solar and wind energy leads to higher average energy prices for households and industries.  One only has to look at Denmark, which has energy costs EVEN HIGHER than the UK's.  Denmark is a leading country in renewable energy production and usage.  Renewable energy sources collectively produced 81% of Denmark's electricity generation in 2022, and yet Denmark has one of the highest electrical energy costs in the world.  The FACT is that renewable energy is just far too expensive.  Gas and coal are cheap EVEN IF they caused climate change which had to be paid for...which they don't.

 

Michael Kelly, who was Prince Philip Professor of Technology at the University of Cambridge during 2002-16 and also Chief Scientific Advisor to the Department for Communities and Local Government has costed Net Zero not at £800 billion, but close to £4 TRILLION, almost five times the costing from the OBR.  £4 trillion wouldn't just crush Britain, it's so colossal an expenditure (taxation) that it would crush the economy long before you actually got to that figure.  In other words, simply trying to implement a Net Zero policy would cripple us years before we could switch away from fossil fuels.  And that's what is happening right now.  It's like committing suicide by cutting off one limb at a time.  Even contemplating Net Zero is totally mad.

 

GLOBAL WARMING

The hypothesis (the theory) is that carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere causes a warming.  This is to say that more CO2 means more warming, and less CO2 means cooling.  Well, this is simply not true.  The hypothesis proposes that higher levels of atmospheric CO2 will result in three principle results:

1.  A warming in the Arctic

2.  A warming in the Antarctic.

3.  A warming in the troposphere (the 'Hotspot').

Have these happened?

No.

There is no warming 'hotspot' in the troposphere.  This is supposed to be 1.2 times that of the surface above the tropics.  It simply hasn't happened.  Similarly, there has been ZERO warming of the Antarctic.  In fact, there has been a very slight cooling of the Antarctic.  Finally, we have the Arctic.  This has warmed...but only back to what it was in the 1930s, so that implies that it is simply cyclical.  Also, this Arctic warming has not continued, and seems to have peaked around 2012.  Despite so many predictions of the Arctic being ice-free, there is no sign of that at all.

 

All of this means that the global warming hypothesis is a failed hypothesis.  Higher CO2 isn't resulting in the conditions predicted.  Ok, so why not?  The answer is obvious, that CO2 doesn't warm the atmosphere in the manner stated.  But there is a wider issue, here.  CO2 isn't set by humans, anyway, but by nature.

 

Henry's Law

"The amount of CO₂ man introduces into the atmosphere by the combustion of carbon-based fuels is inconsequential, easily absorbed by the environment.  Man could reduce his use of hydrocarbon fuels by 100% or increase them by 500% and at the end of the day 0% change in net atmospheric CO₂ concentration will be the result.  This natural result occurs because any increase in any atmospheric gas concentration is offset by a proportional increase in absorption of that gas into nearby liquids.  If CO₂ increases by 100% in a local area, then 100% more CO₂ will be dissolved into water in the local area.  If CO₂ emission doubles, then water which is in contact with that CO₂ absorbs that increase and returns the CO₂ concentration to the CO₂ water/air ratio for the local temperature, and this is true for all gases not only CO₂.  For all gases, colder water absorbs more gas, warmer water emits more gas.  Oxygen which is dissolved in water and absorbed by fish gills for their respiration, the CO₂ which is the necessary gas of life for all green plants and thus all life, as well as the oxygen which is exchanged with CO₂ in the lungs of animals and humans, each of these vital natural processes rely on Henry’s Law.  Henry’s Law is a fundamental law of physical chemistry which naturally regulates and controls the Earth’s atmospheric content of CO₂. This counteracts any net CO₂ increases in the atmosphere caused by the worldwide combustion of hydrocarbon fuel sources."

www.henryslaw.org

 

So, so far, we have that there is no warming (according to actual data), that the global warming hypothesis has failed, and that CO2 in the atmosphere isn't due to us, but to nature.  Now let's fully kill it by going back a bit to the very idea, itself.  The idea (the hypothesis) states that man-made global warming will be enhanced by water vapour in the atmosphere, that there will be amplification through positive feedback by the radiative effect of increased water vapour.  Well, it turns out that nature recently (past few years) gave us an experiment to ascertain if this is true.  In January 2022, the underwater Hunga Tonga volcano in the South Pacific erupted, becoming the largest underwater explosion ever recorded by modern instruments.  The eruption, which occurred on January 15, 2022, ejected an estimated 150 million tons of water vapour into the stratosphere, along with ash and volcanic gases, creating the highest volcanic plume ever recorded at 57 km above the Earth's surface.  This massive release of water vapour triggered rapid chemical changes in the stratosphere, leading to a significant and unexpected loss of ozone—up to 30% in the most affected areas—and an unprecedentedly fast formation of sulphate aerosol particles.

What this did, was to raise the temperature of the troposphere massively.  Remember that the troposphere is the air above your head.  But the people who believe in man-made warming were in trouble.  Quite clearly, the huge rise in global air temperature was due solely to the volcano spewing massive amounts of water into the stratosphere, and absolutely nothing to do with CO2...because even the people who believe that CO2 warms the atmosphere admit that this isn't how it is supposed to work - it's (according to them) a steady rise, not in lurches.  Now, according to the hypothesis, this water should have enhanced or amplified any warming already present due to what they call 'positive feedback'.  In other words, this addition to the global temperature (there isn't one) should have a sort of runaway effect.  But look at the graph - the tropospheric temperature is falling almost as fast as it grew.  This means that there is no positive feedback.  In fact, quite the reverse, a negative feedback is dropping the temperature.  THERE IS NO AMPLIFICATION FROM WATER VAPOUR.  The climate appears to right itself - to respond to perturbations with cooling...back to a general line.  Now, here is such an important line, that I have boldened it...

All the future temperature scenarios that you have seen with predictions of an increase in world temperature of 2, 3 or even 5 degrees C ALL rely on water vapour being a positive feedback...and yet the world has just witnessed that this just isn't so!  Look at the above graph again, the warming didn't continue or run away, the global temperature (which doesn't exist) is coming back to a normal.  Even a massive injection of water, 150 million tons (unknown before) hasn't meant any amplified warming.  It looks like we are heading fairly rapidly back to 0.2 or even 0.0.  If this happens, then not even the BBC can say there is global warming - not even a bit!  Time will tell.  And I'll remind you what this undersea volcano did when it blew; it depleted the ozone layer by up to 30% in places...yes, no CFCs, no underarm deodorant sprays, no refridgerator gases required - nature did that all on its own...the ozone hole we are supposed to have caused, remember?  But that's an aside.  ALL the computer model scenarios about future temperatures ALL rely on water vapour being a feedback which amplifies warming...and at risk of repeating myself, what has just happened in the troposphere has shown that the climate DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY.

 

What will this mean?

It is difficult to believe that governments and the deluded will give up the global warming idea too easily - EVEN WITH NO ACTUAL WARMING BEING SHOWN!  They will argue that black is white (they already do!).  But for how long, that is the real question?  What if we go for 10 years with actual COOLING?  It's going to get very difficult for them, as I predict (based on my readings) colder winters and cooler summers are a coming.  Scientists, who currently go along with the lie, will be forced to leave the closet.

 

But as we draw this to a close, you, the reader, may still want to believe that there IS global warming.  I have already told you that factually (based on actual data) there is not.  And I have told you how CO2 couldn't do it, anyway.  I have even told you that there is no global average temperature...so how can we say it has risen if it doesn't exist?  But I get it.  You have listened to so many news items saying that global warming is true (even if you have accepted that man isn't responsible) that it must be true.

 

Ok, this is for you.