Thanks Thanks:  2
Likes Likes:  83
Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 46
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    North west London
    Posts
    530

    Default The EU, the UN, Global warming, Extinction rebellion and science.

    Good article on all the above.
    "GLOBAL WARMING" The last hurrah.

    One of the areas in which the UK has lost control during its membership of the EU is that of being able to respond to the climate change agenda. True, both the UK and the EU are signatories to the UNFCCC and members of the IPCC, but it has been the EU that has acquired effective competency in this area. Leaving gives the opportunity for a fundamental review which is sorely needed.

    It is well known that Jean Monnet was the Frenchman behind the formation of the EU having worked on the formation of it since the 1920’s. Monnet worked behind the scenes and rarely surfaced into public view. Similarly a Canadian called Maurice Strong was behind the United Nations environmental efforts including the climate shenanigans. He was a self made multi-millionaire, one of the hugely successful North Americans who have peppered the last two centuries. Like Monnet he was a supreme networker with a huge range of powerful contacts.

    Maurice Strong was inspired by an equally remarkable older cousin, Anna Louise Strong, a journalist who was in Russia in the 1920’s and became enamoured of the Socialist regime and was at least an acquaintance of Trotsky who wrote the foreword of one of her books. She travelled to China and after the Sino-Soviet split, moved there. She knew Mao Tse Tung, and after her death Chou En-lai organised her funeral in Peking.

    Maurice Strong was at least a Socialist by both his and Jimmy Reid’s definition – a Communist wants fair shares for everyone, a Socialist wants fair shares for everyone starting with himself. When he was unfortunately caught out in the Iraq oil for food programme with an unexplained cheque for $1 million he was able to move to a flat he happened to own in Peking until the affair blew over. He was a very effective individual. Growing up in the 1930’s depression undoubtedly shaped his politics and when he heard of the embryonic United Nations in the 1940’s he wanted to be a part of it and believed the UN should be the World Authority controlling society (cf Monnet and the EU). Strong elected to support the ‘soft’ end of the UN – Environmentalism, with the aim of using it to fight Capitalism. After the discrediting of Marxism in the 1980’s, Environmentalism was perhaps the best way forward for the post Marxist – especially linking Environmentalism with Control via quotas and limits.

    Strong was able to run the first UN conference on the environment in 1972, he later financed the embryonic climate change movement and chaired the Rio Earth Summit in 1992. The Rio Earth Summit set up the UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention On Climate Change), the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) having been set up in 1988 by the UNEP (Director M Strong) and the World Meteorological Organisation. The UNFCCC set the ground rules and narrowly defined “climate change” as meaning “a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods” If you state something plainly, up-front it is often missed by the majority of people – like ‘ever closer union’, who don’t believe what you are really saying.

    Under this definition all recent climate change is man made as a given fact and therefore any change to the climate which is not man made cannot be (and is not) recognised by climate scientists. Solar input was narrowly defined as heat from the visible spectrum of the Sun which has little variation.

    The EU and Climate Change
    The EU came into being via the Maastricht treaty at about the same time as the UNFCCC was set up and climate change was the first major area of competence the new EU acquired. It adopted the UNFCCC enthusiastically and used the same climate change definition. As an extension of this the UK’s Climate Change Commission is solely concerned with atmospheric carbon reduction, an exceptionally narrow brief.

    The EU wouldn’t want to and the UK can’t disagree with any of this. The EU wouldn’t because it was far too involved in controlling member states environmental legislation, such as preventing the UK from having its own mandatory controls on Building Regulations for insulation and fire prevention on tower blocks, and on vehicle exhaust emissions which advanced too fast for engineers to cope with. This was at least the partial cause of the Grenfell Tower fire and the current recession in Germany. The UK’s function was to gold plate EU directives for internal (UK) consumption.

    We have therefore a situation where one person, who was not apolitical, significantly influenced the setting up of the climate change ‘bandwagon’ using criteria which were not wholly scientific but have, shall we say, a significant social science input. This is most visible in the periodic reports published by the IPCC which are effectively calling for wealth distribution under the guise of climate change. In general scientific papers which are published tend to be as clearly written as possible to inform the reader. Social science papers tend to be gobbledegook. Climate change as written in background IPCC reports (not the ‘executive summary’) tend to be to the gobbledegook end of the spectrum.

    Enter Science
    Unfortunately science is catching up with ‘climate science’ and the activists have probably realised they only have a short time – maybe two years – to succeed in their mission before it is conclusively proved that the assertion that it is solely the activities of mankind that have caused recent temperature increases is wrong.

    The element omitted from the Climate Change models is the energy from the Sun outside the visible spectrum, principally magnetic energy. Recent discoveries have shown that the recent solar maximum during the second half of the 20th century accounts for all or almost all global warming. One would have thought that such discoveries would have been welcomed by the ‘Warmists’, almost with relief as mankind could relax – at least a bit, but no, the results have been ignored and often the scientists concerned have been vilified.

    The recent discoveries concern how clouds are formed and the workings of the Sun. I think it is generally accepted that, apart from perhaps equatorial areas, daytime temperatures are lower when there is cloud cover. The cloudier it is the cooler it is. There has been recent research into what causes clouds in the first place – an interesting scientific question – with perhaps a surprising answer that in many cases they are caused by electrically charged particles arriving in the atmosphere from Space, resulting from events far away in the Cosmos.

    These charged particles form the basic seed of a cloud and they need to be electrically charged for this to work. They travel through Space in, generally speaking, a constant stream and would produce a constant supply of clouds on Earth. The electricity in the particles is eventually grounded in thunderstorms.

    However magnetic energy from the Sun (Sunspots) via what is known as the Solar Wind interferes with the charged particles and prevents them from reaching Earth. The result is, with increased levels of magnetic energy, there are fewer clouds and therefore higher temperatures. A Danish researcher (Henrik Svensmark) and colleagues published the above research into how clouds are formed between 2013 – 2017. Interestingly part of the research was carried out at CERN but the authorities there are being somewhat coy about disclosing it for fear of upsetting the ‘Warmists’. The science, as published, seems credible and is repeatable if it needs to be verified.

    A little reported fact is the Sunspot activity in the second half of the 20th century has been at its highest level for perhaps 1000 years (now known as the Modern Warm Period), probably since the Mediaeval Warm Period. It is difficult to be precise, but an average number of Sunspots is perhaps 60 per year. Between 1950 and 2000 there were about 100 a year. During a solar minimum there are perhaps about 20 per year. Many scientists have demonstrated the historical links between Sunspots and temperature.

    However the link between sunspots and temperature has only relatively recently (the past 10 years) been understood, and even now not fully. It has however been studiously ignored by the IPCC whilst they continue to follow the blinkered man-made climate change restraint regardless of increasing evidence to the contrary. Historically, it has been very difficult to predict the level of Sunspot activity because the inner workings of Sun have not been understood until about the last few years.

    Valentina Zharkova the Ukrainian born Astrophysicist and Professor of Mathematics at Northumbria University has succeeded in ‘decoding’ the Sun, in that she and her collaborators have produced the dynamo function formula of the Sun, a set of mathematical equations which describe the magnetic output of the Sun. These are not statistical models, but (clever) Mathematics. Again, they are published and verifiable.

    Running her formulae backwards into time produces a very close correlation with past climatic events which gives confidence in the results of running her formulae forwards. These show that following the Modern Solar Maximum (1955 – 2005 (approx)) there is to be a rare solar minimum last seen about 350 years ago. She forecasts this to last for about 30 years from 2020. The previous solar minimum (Maunder minimum) was a time of the Thames freezing in winter and failed harvests.

    Zharkova’s 2015 paper was subject to ‘robust scrutiny’ not least from the ‘Warmists’ who tried to have her no-platformed. She responded to the criticisms with an equally robust defence and a revised paper in 2017 which seems to be accepted. She continues to produce research which is gently demolishing the IPCC claim that Global Warming is man-made and irreversible.

    The Last Hurrah ?
    Could the reason be that there is so much juvenile climatic behaviour at present is because the absence of clothes on the Emperor is about to become apparent ? Could the reason be that there has been no recognition of recent science be that the ‘Warmists’ and compliant governments who have needlessly spent billions on climate change measures and caused a recession in Germany do not want to acknowledge it? Is the current wave of activism by the Extinction Rebellion circus a desperate push by post Marxists, their useful idiots and the herd who follow them, before the reality of a Solar Minimum bites? Published temperatures are a debased currency, but it seems there has been no temperature increase since 2005.

    I have been looking for several years for scientific proof of climate change. I have found none that seems credible and explains straightforwardly how and why it is happening. Lots of papers peddling dodgy temperatures, lots of models, lots of ‘consensus’, lots of ‘climate change is fact’. Not even a conclusive, repeatable demonstration of the ‘Greenhouse’ effect. When was the last time a Treasury model was right? Climate models are several orders of magnitude more complicated.

    Is there is a sinister (post) Marxist plot behind the UN sponsored environmentalism? I am not sure but I am concerned over the closed mindedness to the input by Astrophysicists and other Science to the debate – in fact the lack of debate, the myriad temperature ‘adjustments’ reported over the years and the confusion of science and politics.

    What is needed, and what must be undertaken by a newly independent UK is a fast, proper review of all the science behind the alleged changes in climate, which very much appear to be caused by out of the ordinary solar activity. If we are due for a few decades of cold weather, there needs to be very urgent action to maintain energy supplies within the UK. No government is going to want to undertake this because it will reveal the huge amounts of money wasted on ‘Climate change’ preparation. How is a government to be persuaded to undertake this?

  2. #2

    Default

    " a newly independent UK "

    Do stop.
    I haven’t laughed as much in days
    Remember Thomas Muir of Huntershill

  3. #3

    Default

    The work of the Northumbria researcher is quite compelling. I'd recommend anyone interested in climate change to look this up.

    If she is right, hopefully we'll see a return to salmon abundance in the coming decades.

    If she is right, we'll soon start to see decreasing global temperatures together with increasing CO2 which will surely flummox the warmists. I wonder how long they will be able to flog a dead horse before we have to accept that temperatures are not dominated by human activity? Hopefully we will turn our attention to the real important environmental issues which are generally ignored. I don't think it is coincidence that the biggest environmental issue of the day is one where businesses can make a lot of money. Alternatives to single use plastics, pesticides, herbicides, sustainable land use, improved STW, reduced pollution, reduced deforestation and (the wrong kind of) afforestation, etc are nowhere near as profitable or politically motivated as man made global warming.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    North west London
    Posts
    530

    Default

    Agreed there,
    There are 2 major influences on our climate, as seen over the previous centuries.
    1 the Sun.
    2 The Volcanoes, which fire large amounts of gases into the atmosphere also huge amounts of particles.
    Discounting these is, well, stupid.
    CO2 is presently 0.04% of the atmosphere.
    Anyone think that 0.045% would make a significant difference? Given that the Sun is the prime driver of climate?
    Don't be Government sponsored idiots please.

  5. #5

    Default

    Greta Thunberg
    -16 years old
    -Not a scientist
    -Reads from a script
    -Gets 24/7 media coverage

    Dr. Judith Curry
    -Climatologist
    -Has published over 140 scientific books & papers
    -Says it’s all a hoax
    -Gets no media coverage

    This is what media manipulation looks like.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Wild west of Wales
    Posts
    231

    Default

    You forgot to add that she is sponsored by the Koch family and Exonn Mobil..

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Cheshire
    Posts
    1,419

    Default

    Plus the IPCC were caught with their pants down when they were hacked - and proof came out that they were manipulating and smoothing the data to account for the Medieval Warm period (approx. 900 ish to 1300 ish) and the subsequent mini ice age 1300 ish to 1850 ) - or that they'd used two data sets - tree ring sizes (which you can't attribute purely to temp - pests, drought etc.) with temperatures. The truth is I don't think anyone knows - even the IPCC have agreed that temperature rises have paused since 1995. It could be Sun, Co2, other gases, volcanoes, water vapour, etc etc. - but now because it is taken as FACT that global warming is man made - and all the usual establishment organisations are too lazy to do more science - then funding to work out alternative answers is not forthcoming - and /or branded as bias (lol!) - or heresy.
    Last edited by DrPatrickT; 17-10-2019 at 10:34 AM.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lee Valley, Cork
    Posts
    1,814

    Default

    x
    Last edited by JACK POWER; 17-10-2019 at 11:53 AM.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lee Valley, Cork
    Posts
    1,814

    Default

    I know what to do ... throw Thunberg and Curry into the Tay and whichever one survives is a witch!
    This post is classic of its sort; paranoid, blinkered and anti-science. And simply, utterly wrong. Sounds like you'd be at home in the DUP Isalar. And, before you respond, life is far too short to argue about whether the earth is flat or not. Why not give Arlene a call, she goes in for that kind of thing.

    Yours,
    A Government Sponsored Idiot.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Cheshire
    Posts
    1,419

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JACK POWER View Post
    I know what to do ... throw Thunberg and Curry into the Tay and whichever one survives is a witch!
    This post is classic of its sort; paranoid, blinkered and anti-science. And simply, utterly wrong. Sounds like you'd be at home in the DUP Isalar. And, before you respond, life is far too short to argue about whether the earth is flat or not. Why not give Arlene a call, she goes in for that kind of thing.

    Yours,
    A Government Sponsored Idiot.


    I have a scientific background - if anything, not exploring (not allowing/shouting down) alternative sources/causes and taking climate change as a fact is anti-science.

Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •