Man made climate change is the result of fossil fuels burnt in Western Industrial nations……developing nations are to be ‘allowed’ to burn fossil fuels because it is only fair that they catch up on the ‘progress’ of the developed nations who otherwise would have an entrenched advantage for the foreseeable future.
Michael Mann’s ‘Hockey Stick’ graph was said to be the ‘smoking gun’ in the evidence draw that revealed just how guilty the West was in creating global warming.
Set aside the fact that the Hockey Stick was shown to be wrong you could be justified in asking what is the evidence that the industrialised West caused the rise in temperatures? Are there any other possible causes?
One factor might be population. Indeed the BBC itself recognised this, up to a point….making no cogent conclusions from the fact.
The question is which population has increased?
Population in the West has been declining rapidly for decades…but that of third world and developing nations is rising massively…..in 1800 the world population was 1 billion, in 1930 it was still only 2 billion but by 1999 it reaches the staggering number of 6 billion.
What is interesting is the graph that illustrates this:
Notice anything? Pretty similer to the infamous temperature ‘Hockey Stick.’
The vast, vast majority of population growth since the 1950’s has been in third world and developing countries…..they all need to cook food, warm their homes and heat water amongst a myriad of other uses, including their own industrial processes that burn fossil fuel….and with such an increase in population comes large scale deforestation…one of the biggest causes of climate change.
So who is to blame for climate change if you accept ‘man made’ causes? Is it the West who began industrialising in the 1700’s or is it the Rest whose population increase coincides with the same increase in temperature? We were told recently that it is a mere 25 years before CO2 causes warming….and yet the climate lobby admit that only global warming since the 1940’s or so is caused by man. For nearly 200 years of massive industrial activity there was little warming…in fact it often became very cold….but increase the population massively and bingo…almost instant temperature change on a massive scale.
If the West is not to blame why are we closing down our efficient and much cleaner industry to save the planet when other countries are continuing to pump out massive quantities of CO2?
If things are so urgent…how many times have we been told we have ‘X’ months to save the planet?….why is it then OK for massive ‘pollution’ from China and India and Brazil to continue?
What’s the theory behind that policy then…the planet is going to die…but at least the Chinese and Indians will die having had a little bit of wealth induced happiness?
As with other subjects the BBC’s reporting is coloured by its own politics…anti-Western, anti-industry, anti-capitalist and pro-green, pro socialist world view.
It takes a simple measure…a coincidence? that temperature rises as CO2 levels rise (in fact temps rise usually before CO2…as CRU’s very own Phil Jones admitted)…and constructs a theory from that upon which we base our whole industrial and social policies.
But as shown here it must be equally valid to compare the rise in population with that of temperature and work out a theory from that…….but that would be pointing the finger of blame at ‘The Rest’ and not the West…which is a political no-no for the BBC.
Who’s to blame? Not the US. Our emissions have fallen 12% since 2005. Curiously, George Bush and Big Oil were still in charge when the decline started.
All the US did was treat Kyoto for what it was, nothing more than a useless bit of paper signed by certain leaders to boost they “caring, sharing” luvvy credentials. That did not mean the US would, contrary to the anguished, hand-wringing, anti-American propaganda, laid on with a trowel by the left-orientated Eco-freaks, fail to do anything about their levels of pollution.
All their not signing meant was that they would not play the game of pulling targets out of thin air and claiming they would be adhered to, as the signatories did, for no other reason than boasting right if they got near their targets and the ability to gleefully wag their fingers at everybody else.
Instead of chasing pointless targets simply for their own sake the US just quietly got on with pollution reduction in a sane and sensible way and in a prudent manner best suited to their industries.
I think we all have been brainwashed to varying degrees, so I think this post is a bit silly. You can produce a hockey stick by assuming all the thin tree rings are caused by cold weather, then stick on the end of this tree ring record the 20th century global temperature record, but you have to ignore evidence using isotopes, that some of the thin tree rings where caused by hot droughts. You also have to ignore evidence such as bore hole data, sea sediments, seeds in peat and even historical records that show that the Medieval warm period which peaked about 800 years ago was at least half a degree Kelvin warmer than the peak of the present day warming.
The final key to unlock this brainwashing is to look to Astronomy’s roll in Climate Change. Astronomers have advantages over Climate scientists in the fact that we have more than one planetary atmosphere to analyse, with the bonus of the two nearest planets having carbon dioxide atmospheres. From this the calibration of carbon dioxide warming for the 20th century is estimated to be about 0.007 Kelvin for the 0.1 millibar increase in CO2, using the Unified Theory of Climate which solves the problem of explaining the temperatures in all parts of the atmospheres of all the planets in the Solar System, including the Earth and the carbon dioxide atmospheres of Venus and Mars. An answer that was not possible with the Arrhenius method of calculating the Greenhouse effect, as well as proving that carbon dioxide warming is around one hundredth that assumed by the IPCC.
We can also show that the calibration of solar warming (reaching the Earths surface, rather than total Solar irradiance) for the 20th century was 0.76 Kelvin due to high energy cosmic ray changes to cloud albedo.
So to remove the brainwashing.
(1) For “Its not Carbon Dioxide” read about the Unified Theory of Climate.
(2) For “it’s Solar magnetism” read about Cosmoclimatology. David Archibald does long-term Climate from Space and Piers Corbyn does short-term Weather from Space.
Alan, on this subject I think it’s appropriate to give mention to such people as Christopher Booker, and to websites such as Watts up with that, Bishop Hill, Climate Realists and no doubt many more where the long and sorry history can be read. In addition, there was the, I think it’s being called, 28Gate matter which puts the bbc squarely in the ranks of the misinforming. You probably know that they claim to have collected together all the socalled experts on climate in order to ‘settle the scienct’. However, they refuse to release the names of those who attended. However, the internet being the wonderful thing it is, has ensured that the names are now widely known and that just about no one who was at this propagandafest could claim to have any expertise in climate related matters. But on the basis of this meeting, the bbc has decided that they don’t need to give the unbelievers any air time to put their case forward for little of no man-made climate change. From what I’ve been reading, the Sun (not the newspaper) has a significant role to play in how our climate (or is that weather, I get confused how the terminology is used by the climate hystericals) behaves. And the other interesting thing is that, particularly with entities such as the bbc, no matter how much evidence is produced to show that the basis of their beliefs is wrong, they still don’t change their beliefs. Weird or what?
For a good introduction to the probable relationship between variations in solar activity and climate change on earth, see chapter 20 of “THE SUN – A Biography” by David Whitehouse (John Wiley and Sons Ltd, Chichester, 2006, ISBN 0-470-09297-1) in particular pages 227-232.
Also see Donna LaFramboise’s website which as well as pulling apart AGW claims, lays bare the myth of the IPCC comprising ‘the world’s top scientists’.
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2013/03/06/ipcc-invites-in-the-activists/
Follow any of these links within the above article to get a flavour of how the IPCC is dominated by environmental activist groups:
•Peer into the Heart of the IPCC, Find Greenpeace
•WWF Influence at the Highest Levels of the IPCC
•Here an Activist, There an Activist
•How the WWF Infiltrated the IPCC – Part 1
•How the WWF Infiltrated the IPCC – Part 2
•IPCC Scientists – Guests of the Environmental Defense Fund
•Ka-ching! More Greenpeace Money
•WWF’s Chief Spokesperson Joins IPCC
•78 Names
•Greenpeace and the Nobel-Winning Climate Report
And her book ‘The Delinquent Teenager…’ is a must-read, an absolute eye-opener for even the most seasoned of sceptics.
“you could be justified in asking what is the evidence that the industrialised West caused the rise in temperatures?” What rise in temperatures?
A massive 0.8% in the last 100 years!…oh..less the last 16 or so years where you’re right…when everything has gone very quiet…but you know that’s not statistically significant…..you have to have at least 1500 years of temperature standstill and the second coming of Christ before you can safely conclude there is no global warming.
Try as I might I still can’t get the temperature to rise, even with buying another patio heater.
Here in Western Canada we’re due for yet another bout of snow tomorrow with temperatures at -4C. Normally we’re at +12C by now.
TPO – the BBC are remarkably quiet about unusually low temperatures (as usual). Crops here in the UK are several weeks behind their usual growth patterns. Last April the oil seed rape (canola in Canada) looked as though it was about to flower and this year it is scarcely above ground level. This global warming is a very strange phenomena.
Why is it that to cast doubt on AGW is to be ‘in denial’, as ‘the science is settled’, (not that science can every be ‘settled’)?
Yet at the same time the BBC is convinced that the EU is not about forming a European super state, (which part of European UNION do they not understand, or the treaty declarations of ‘ever closer UNION’?).
Similarly it believes in ‘moderate’ Islam, (an insult to Islam according to the Turkish president), despite an unchanging Koran, (no ‘reform’ then) and the ultimate triumph of Islam being core beliefs of Muslims.
Surely the first is to doubt a theory whereas the later two are to doubt facts. Doubting a theory isn’t denial whereas doubting a fact is.
The mitigating actions against ‘climate change’ are basically an extract from the socialist’s handbook, including re-distributing the wealth of the industrialised West to ‘developing’ nations. Crippling western economies with carbon reduction targets and carbon taxes whilst allowing the emerging economies to run riot with fossil fuels hastens their goal of ‘social justice’. Strange, really, as the rate at which China in particular is adding to CO2 in the atmosphere dwarfs anything we in the UK are doing. The environmental-socialists-evangelists surely want to reduce CO2 emissions regardless of origin if they are, as they claim, a real and present danger to mankind’s survival.
A massive contradiction, and one you won’t hear discussed on the BBC.
Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that CO2 emissions caused some of the global warming in 1976-1998. With the Chinese among others burning so much more fossil fuel in recent times, this warming ought logically to be racing ahead and be beyond any doubt. Instead the supposed global warming seems to have stopped since 1998. The BBC ought at the very least to acknowledge the complexity of the subject.
They did once,a long time ago. ‘Horizon’ ran a
episode called something ‘the 5 pillars of global warming’ (ironic in so many ways) This was long before C4’s ‘global warming scandal’.
I wish I could remember the correct title,I might then be able to track it down.
Carbon Dioxide produced by people with brown-skin causes only a tiny fraction of the damage of that produced by the evil white man. FACT!
Try sitting next to me in the Commons when I’ve just had a curry, white boy.
How are so many conned by so few, into spending so much, for so little return (and so much damage), because of a misunderstood “science” which, to the layman in his own experiences of life and the world, is so at odds with what is actually happening?
How can we be so dumb? More importantly, why are we so powerless to DO anything about it?
Because the lack of social mobility downwards means that the upper class twits rule OK.
http://www.tumblr.com/blog/301070village
As the Guardian is the most widely read paper at Broadcasting House……
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/aug/18/aliens-destroy-humanity-protect-civilisations