Latest from UKIP Daily

‘Climate Change’ – Winners and Losers (Part 1)


I have written this article to show that there is no such thing as man-made climate change, and that all the propaganda put out trying to prove that man-made Carbon Dioxide is responsible for Global Warming is nothing more than hype; coming from organisations with vested interests in building renewable sources of energy, or those who are paid a salary to ‘research’ and preach the ‘science’ which says there is ‘man made global warming’.

I will start by clarifying and enlarging on the well-known, over used and abused term; ‘Climate Change’.

What does it mean?

The vast majority of people immediately understand this expression to mean that our planet earth is warming up very quickly, and this is very dangerous to everything and everybody. Further it is caused by man’s activities, particularly by the emissions of Carbon Dioxide from the sources which produce our energy i.e. mainly coal and gas fired power stations. To give climate change its scientific name, it is Anthropogenic Global Warming.

It is not an accident that the term ‘climate change’ has become such a well-know concept. First it was known as anthropogenic global warming, then simply global warming and now to get it below the radar and more easily and universally accepted without too much thought, ‘climate change’.

Considerable efforts have been made by certain groups of people to spread and ingrain  this understanding in people’s minds and so achieve what is in effect; as George Orwell called it in his book 1984, ‘Group Think.’ Many newspapers and the BBC are foremost in this matter as well as specific organisations paid by those interested in the building of renewable energy projects.

It is worth understanding the beginnings and evolution of the belief in man-made climate change.

In 1989, United States Vice President Al Gore decided it was an issue and compiled a presentation on the subject using a wide range of slides and a projector.

His premise was immediately seized upon by many who could see that such a theory could be used to frighten people and then to make them feel good about doing something, however painful and expensive, to stop it.

If carbon emissions could be eliminated by renewable energy such as wind and solar power, then the tax paying people could be induced to adopt these new methods of producing power in order to assuage their conscience.

What could these new methods be?

The concepts of wind power and solar energy quickly appeared before the investors, and then the tax payers.

Wind power because the wind is free, and the sun’s rays because these are free also.

Very quickly investors of all sorts realised that it would be good to put money into renewable energy i.e. wind and solar. Some were also induced to think about hydro systems from the sea and rivers as further methods.

Companies were quickly set up to build wind farms and solar panel arrays, because of what was claimed to be their scientifically acceptable solutions in reducing CO2 output.

However since the energy produced by these methods was vastly more expensive to produce and sell than conventional sources, these companies required huge subsidies from the taxpayer to build, install, and run their equipment, then to feed it into the National Grid.

Below is a necessarily brief summary of the scientific facts.

Has our planet experienced Climate Change? — Most emphatically ‘yes’. It always has since it was formed 4.5 billion years ago, and I am sure always will until the day of the planet’s extinction by whatever stellar catastrophe overtakes it.

Is man now causing additional climate change over and above any norm we can scientifically prove?

The global warmers claim that there is now a universal consensus among scientists that man-made global warming has been proven.

Climate Change sceptics say this is patently not the case. If it was there would be no need for some of the ‘foremost’ scientists in the subject to “cook the books”.

A deeply disconcerting fact is that scientists in this field have been caught manipulating ‘scientific’ facts to show that there is anthropogenic global warming. These scientific cheats work for what should be a highly respected organisation, the United Nations. Specifically one of its many departments, the International Panel on Climate Change.

The most telling example of this manipulation of science is the now notorious “Hockey Stick Graph” produced by the scientists Michael E. Mann, Raymond S. Bradley, and Malcolm K. Hughes. In this graph Mann manipulated the records of the earth’s temperatures over the last thousand years to show that the global temperature has risen steadily only since the start of the industrial age (when man-made CO2 emissions started). To do this he and his associates changed the temperatures on their previously produced graph and eliminated the ‘medieval warming period’ during which some 1000 years ago, the temperature was such that for a period from 1050 AD to 1350 AD the planet was warmer than it is today.

This obvious manipulation of the temperatures was clearly confirmed when an email between Mann’s associates said quite plainly “we must get rid of the medieval warming period”.

This was further confirmed by Dr David Deming’s in a statement to the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works on December 6, 2006. Dr Deming reveals that in 1995 a leading scientist emailed him saying “We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.” A few years later, Michael Mann and the IPCC did just that by publishing the now thoroughly discredited hockey stick graph.

[Ed: Part 2 will be published tomorrow]

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

21 Comments on ‘Climate Change’ – Winners and Losers (Part 1)

  1. Global warming is real and man-made. The fact that Al Gore, Michael Mann or anyone else mangled the message does not change that. The fact that Antarctic ice has increased slightly while Arctic ice has deceased a lot does not change that. The fact that temperatures remained the same for a 15 year period between El Nino episodes does not change that. 2016 was the warmest year on record. 2015 was the second warmest. 2017 will be second or third warmest. Steady atmospheric carbon dioxide increases are indisputably due to human action. The link between global temperature and CO2 is well understood and supported by the climate record. The effects of global warming will not ultimately be beneficial. Dreaming up conspiracy theories about how it is all faked by big business does not change the scientific facts. If UKIP is to convince people that it is on the side of reason it will not help to be labelled as climate deniers and conspiracy theorists.

    • Philip Greenland is called Greenland because when the Vikings discovered it and settled there is was green! They were able to farm and keep cattle and sheep. The clue that it was warmer then than now lies in the fact that the evidence is all nicely preserved in permafrost.

      Since the last glaciation the Earth the earth has enjoyed several warm periods interspersed with cold ones, with each warm period less warm than the last. Our current warm period seems to be over for now as we head into colder times. I’m not sure how many warm periods we have left, but we are now already slowly and inexorably heading down into the next glaciation. The ice on land in Greenland is growing even as we speak and that, sadly, really is what’s real.

      • The ice sheet on greenland is 400,000 years old, but there have always been areas around the edges that are free if ice. Some places in the world, including greenland may have been warmer at times than they are now but average global temperatures have never been as high as they are now. The warming trend has not ended. Fluctuations made it look like it had stopped for a few years but recent record temperatures put it back on the upward trend. See e.g.

  2. I agree that the whole ‘climate change’ thing is a giant scam.
    What alarms me are those that claim that CO2 (carbon dioxide) is some kind of pollutant, when it is an essential (but tiny) part of our atmosphere.
    Humans breathe in the air, absorb oxygen, and breathe out carbon dioxide. So do most animals. On the other hand, plant life absorbs carbon dioxide from the air, and releases oxygen.
    A modest increase in CO2 in the atmosphere actually benefits plant life, and produces more abundant crops. Which doesn’t suit the agenda of the likes of Monsanto, trying to sell their GMO infested crop products.
    Surprising really how many of these scientists haven’t correlated a link between increased CO2 levels and mass deforestation.
    Its just a big con, designed to extract ever more money from the poorest in society.

  3. It is not Global Warming that we have to worry about, but the Ice Age to come. It has been determined from ice core data in Antarctica that Global Warmings take place in a regular pattern interspersed by very cool periods. The period that we are in, was heralded the end of an ice age that had lasted 100,000 years. We are about half way through the current warm period. When it ends, the current world population will be unsupportable.
    Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere follows Global Warming and does not precede it and is increasing because we are still coming out of the last Ice Age, when it falls, that will be the time for real worry.
    As Global Warming has also affected our companion planets which our Carbon dioxide can hardly reach, therefore the insane panic over Climate Change is absurd.
    The real human problem are the ruling classes, who have turned away from democracy to farming the people.

    • “Global warming” became rebranded as ‘Climate Change’ when it was proved that temperatures had stopped increasing about 16 years ago.
      There is evidence that suggests temperatures were much higher during the period dinosaurs roamed the earth. I doubt that was because they all drove around in diesel Mercedes.
      The ‘scientists’ make a big deal about the amount of sea ice decreasing in the Arctic Ocean, but then can’t explain why the amount of ice on and around Antarctica is increasing.
      Scientists are just being paid to peddle the myths created by the elite who rule over us and want to enslave us all. It is a brave scientist who dares to speak out and reveal the truth.

    • Ice ages recur over timescales of tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of years. Over periods of up to 20 years climate is affected by El Nino events, solar cycles and atmospheric aerosols due to pollution and volcanic activity. Climate change is a clear one degree increase in temperature over the last 100 years which stands out clearly against these other effects on different timescales. 2016 was the warmest year on record and probably the warmest for thousands of years. The so-called warming pause of 15 years ended abruptly in 2014. How long will it take people to notice? The warming we have seen in recent decades is sharp and unprecedented in the climate record. The cause is CO2 emissions. This is well understood. If you don’t believe the scientists investigate it yourself without cherry picking information provided by deniers to feed your confirmation bias. The data is still freely available despite US efforts to delete it.

      • It’s quite straightforward Philip. Nature is the cause of climate change. Then the natural climate variation that has been factually observed is the result.

        And I hope you don’t regard the IPCC as a scientific body.
        It’s a political body, set up by the UN, another political body, and should be treated with the same suspicious care that most people treat any other political body.

        • Nature is not the cause of climate change. Climate models are not perfect and have levels of uncertainty but they are good enough to show that the warming is man-made and will continue unless something is done. No I do not regard the IPCC as a scientific body. They make many errors because they are political, but you don’t see the truth by looking for the falsehoods. I have a PhD in physics and am capable of evaluating the scientific evidence without the help of the IPCC.

  4. Good article Gordon.

    I’m reminded of what Harold Lewis, Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of California, Santa Barbara, wrote in his letter of resignation from the American Physical Society in 2010:

    “It is of course , the global warming scam with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist.”

  5. For a balanced view read Michael Crichton – State of Fear (2004).
    It is a novel but the facts are laid out in it.

    The ‘global warming is here’ acolytes all rubbish the book in one form or another. I suppose that should tell us something.

    For me, my profession gives me a wider perspective. Going back to and beyond the era of the dinosaurs, over time, the levels of carbon dioxide have been *magnitudes* higher than they are today. Look for yourself.

    One small burp from yosomite or versuvius (or that one in iceland) is bigger than anything that man can do by way of hobbling industry for years and years.

    But what of Big Henners? I heard that he was dead.

  6. I feel this is fighting a losing battle. Putting aside arguments about man-made or not man-made, there are lots of other reasons to look at alternative energy sources. Strategic security is first, we should not be relying on the middle east and Russia. Every time you fill up your car you are supporting wahhabist funding of mosques in this and other countries, because the Saudi regime uses petrol revenues to pay them off. If you factor in the costs of going to war to defend access to petroleum then the cost of petroleum products would be dramatically higher. Second, pollution. Sitting in a traffic jam behind a diesel bus, who can doubt the pollution they cause. Asthma and allergies have gone through the roof. Third, the UK is uniquely advantaged in alternative sources of energy. Our wind resources are unsurpassed (which is why the UK is the leading offshore wind market, with a mature project financing cycle where projects can be built speculatively by private investors then sold on to patient global capital). My criticism is more around the failure to build an industrial infrastructure around these new energy areas, for example we don’t build a single offshore turbine in this country. Sitting here relying on fossil fuels is like allowing someone to point a gun at our heads whilst emptying the contents of our wallets.

    • Gordon makes a good argument. Throw in the late Roman period when temperatures were also higher then it’s difficult to believe the politically driven man-made climate change argument. Nevertheless, you are 100% right. Fossil fuels are far more finite than wind, light, biomass and tidal. There is though going to be a huge renewable demand as fossil fuelled generation and transportation decreases. To meet the demand and deal with the immediacy of demand, new nuclear will be required. I’m also worried that many of these new technologies need rare earth elements which are very finite. It could be that we are being led down a technological cul de sac and the demise of fossil fuels or their manufacture by other means has been overstated. The convenience, economics and energy density of fossil fuels is hard to beat.

      • Actually not that hard to beat. My own experience is that we had a 2.8 litre van and a 1.6 litre car, i.e. 4.4 litres of internal combustion capacity using petrol/diesel. I swapped the van for a citicar, and the 1.6l diesel for a 1.3 litre hybrid, and now we have a much reduced capacity and when driving locally use all electric. You don’t have to go to absolutely zero reliance on fossil fuels to make a huge difference, in fact the auto industry has done a lot in the last 30 years to make engines more efficient already. You just need to by cars with smaller engines and you can already cut your demand by 50%, which is a massive reduction.

        • How much hydrocarbon is burned to produce the electricity to charge your vehicle? How much to produce the battery in your hybrid? Is there not a lower carbon footprint if you use a modern and efficient diesel/petrol car? I don’t think you have looked at this ‘holistically’.

          Paragraph 9 above. Do you ‘feel’ good about yourself for acting as you have acted?

          • I feel good I am putting less money into the pockets of radical islamists, sending fewer of our soldiers off to fight in useless wars and less pollution into my kids’ lungs, that’s for sure.

          • Graham we now have our own oil.

            Incidentally the only reason we have a problem with Islamic terrorism is because we have fake conservatives running our country.

            With regards to pollution in the deepest mines in the world in South Africa the reason they use diesel-engined locomotives to pull the ore trains around several miles below the surface because they don’t poison the air.

            We should remember that every time we buy something made in China, often things we used to make here, we are doing so because they have cheap reliable energy derived from burning coal. (We don’t make them here anymore because our energy is now expensive because of nuclear, solar and wind.)

        • Dear Michael, I can’t reply directly to your comment for some reason so write it here instead. Your answer makes no sense,UK manufacturing was in decline from the early 1960s onwards, China did not feature in the global economy until 1997 onwards. Renewables did not become a factor in our energy mix until after 2010. The decline in UK manufacturing was nothing to do with our energy being more expensive than China’s. You could argue now that for any new project China would have an advantage because they have cheaper energy, but you can’t argue that as a cause of the decline of UK manufacturing. For example, the UK car industry was killed primarily by itself but also by Germany and Japan in the 1970s and early 1980s, neither of whom had any particular advantage in cost of energy.

  7. It’s not that black and white. We do have an influence on our climate but the question is, how much ?
    As a nation we have very little if any, we are way too small and are no longer a major manufacturing nation.
    India and the whole sub continent, China, Russia the USA and other people do have some impact. Deforestation is as dangerous as carbon fuels and climate change is cyclic anyway, volcanic activity also plays a part.
    There is no question however, about the extent of hype from “green” energy suppliers and investors or governments seeking to blame something else for tax increases. Causing huge damage to our industry and the vulnerable with artificial energy price increases is plain evil.
    By all means save energy and seek better renewable sources but don’t punish us for trying to get on with our lives and make our living.

  8. Good article. It is always a great indication of a scam to follow the money; in this case to Gore who has made millions out of it. I saw him,for the first time, in a video recently where he seemed just like one of those rabid leaders of a suicide cult, perhaps not so different from what we have now.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.