The pseudo-scientific conjecture of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming, a world-wide fraud, is finally coming to an end. Here is some of the evidence that CAGW is not a threat to our planet:–
1. Proponents of CAGW don’t consider it a threat.
Here in Australia, the federal Government has provided some details of its proposed massive new tax—a Supposed ‘Carbon’ Abatement Measure, or SCAM—whereby industrial emitters of carbon dioxide are taxed but many people hurt by the concomitant rising costs of electricity and the like are “fully compensated”. Some of the revenue raised will help subsidise more expensive, but allegedly cleaner, production of electricity. The taxation will cost the Government more that it will raise. None of the revenue raised by the new tax will be spent on mitigation projects.
2. Proponents of CAGW don’t propose infrastructural projects.
If temperatures were about to rise alarmingly, instead of taxing a trace gas which has supposedly helped warm the atmosphere very slightly, some worthwhile projects, surely, would be to build pipelines, canals, waterways, roads and other infrastructure, in order to help send water, food, medicines and technological assistance to people affected by droughts, floods, food shortages and the like. Forests could be planted, shady porticoes and air-conditioned malls could be constructed, new and more efficient farms, orchards and plantations could be established, safer housing could be provided. The fact that the pseudo-scientists, politicians and journalists who promote the conjecture of CAGW never suggest ameliorative measures other than promoting subsidies of solar power and wind-turbines, and similar schemes, suggests that they don’t really believe that the average world-wide temperatures—an immeasurable and irrelevant figure, for the most part—will rise dangerously.
If the world’s seas were about to rise alarmingly, instead of taxing a trace gas which has supposedly helped warm the atmosphere very slightly making arctic ice and glaciers melt, and making the seas rise, some worthwhile projects, surely, would be to protect low-lying coastal areas, to build sea-walls and dykes, to dredge silted rivers to clear harbours, to use human ingenuity to forestall, to mitigate, and to prevent damage from rising waters. The fact that the pseudo-scientists, politicians and journalists who promote the conjecture of CAGW never suggest ameliorative measures other than promoting subsidies of solar power and wind-turbines, and similar schemes, suggests that they don’t really believe that the seas will rise dangerously.
3. There has been slight, recent global warming.
As Prof. Bob Carter
explains, a mild warming of only half of one degree occurred between 1979 and 1998, and that was followed by some slight global cooling over the subsequent decade: dangerous global warming, therefore,
is not occurring. Conterminously, levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide levels increased by 5%: emissions of carbon dioxide, therefore, are not driving catastrophic warming.
4. Proponents of CAGW accept that there has been little or no recent global warming.
As we have already explained in our previous post, “
Awarmists Admit No Recent Warming”, we can draw only two conclusions from the latest silly paper conceding that there has been no warming but that the lack of warming was caused by China’s additional burning of coal: either there has been no warming forced by anthropogenic carbon dioxide for a decade, meaning (by their own terms) that coal-burning power stations are not responsible for global warming—wherefore they should not be scrapped by our Government—, or there was no warming for a decade because of emissions from power stations, meaning that coal-burning power stations prevent global warming—wherefore they should not be scrapped by our Government. Either way, we have no need of a tax on carbon dioxide.
5. Proponents of CAGW predicate their conjecture on flawed computer models.
No computer model has yet been developed which could, from data of the first half of the twentieth century, predict worldwide temperatures and frequency of storms for the second half of the twentieth century. Until climatologist can demonstrate that they can forecast the climate of the last half century we need not trust anything they predict about the next half century. Predictions of proponents of CAGW have been consistently wrong, and they need to prove that their forecasts are credible before we believe them.
6. Proponents of CAGW propagandise with deceits and tricks and lies.
If truth were on their side, why lie? In Australia, the activist,
defamatory organisation GetUp! is now resorting to
threats of boycotts. See “
Chris Landsea and the Moral Midgets”, by Donna Laframboise at No Frakking Consensus. See how the Australian Climate Commission, in its error-ridden document, The Critical Decade: Climate science, risks and responses, features a conclusion which contains
four lies in four sentences. See how
egregious errors in Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth”, are still
taught in schools. The
revisionist, notoriously corrupt
IPCC is clearly
conflicted. “
Climate-gate”. The Australian Government continually claims, duplicitously, that Australia is the highest
per capita emitter of carbon dioxide, and continuously refers to carbon dioxide as
pollution.
Despite awarmists’ hyperbolic claims, the seas are not rising and will not soon rise alarmingly, the antarctic glaciers are not melting, the
Maldives are not sinking, there was a Mediæval Warming Period, and a small amount of extra warmth would be good for most life on earth and not harmful. On the other hand, the stupid policies and crazy
schemes which awarmists advocate are already ruining lives and economies around the world.
7. Proponents of CAGW don’t practice what they preach.
It’s always “do as I
say, not as I
do” with those hypocrites (such as
the Greens), who demand luxuries for themselves but counsel temperance and renunciation for the swinish multitudes, and who insist, for example, that emissions of carbon dioxide from aeroplanes and automobiles are dangerously warming the earth. If flying around the world in aeroplanes were really so bad for the planet, surely those who tell us not to fly would stop doing it themselves. If being driven to work by a chauffeur instead of walking or cycling to work were really so bad for the planet, surely those who tell us not to be transported in cars would stop doing it themselves.
 |
| Sen. Sarah Hanson-Young demonstrating that she does not believe the Greens’ lies. |
8. Proponents of CAGW ignore water vapour (and anything else harmful to their conjecture).
Water vapour is the dominant greenhouse gas, but the proponents of CAGW do nothing and advocate nothing to alter the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere. Water vapour—whereof at least 99.99% occurs naturally—is responsible for only 95% of the earth’s greenhouse effect whereas anthropogenic carbon dioxide is responsible for as much as 0.117% of the greenhouse effect!
9. Proponents of CAGW claim an erroneous but irrelevant consensus.
Our credulous but mendacious Prime Minister often claims to respect science, yet she constantly proclaims that she accepts the “consensus” on CAGW. No real scientific theory has ever needed an appeal to its popularity to demonstrate its validity. See “Anthropogenic Global Warming: a crippled conjecture”, from Jeff Glassman’s “Conjecture, Hypothesis, Theory, Law: the Basis of Rational Argument”:
AGW is a centuries-old conjecture elevated to an established belief by a little clique of quacks who proclaim themselves the Consensus on Climate, guardians of the vault of exclusive knowledge. [...] As a matter of science, as opposed to a matter of belief, the AGW conjecture is gathering more contradictory evidence than supporting. The layman can test it and understand its failings by applying just the few principles [...].
AGW fails the test because it is proclaimed by a consensus. Science places no value on such a vote. A unanimous opinion, much less a consensus, is insufficient. Science advances one scientist at a time, and we honor their names. It advances one model at a time. When the article gets around to saying “most scientists believe…,” it’s time to go back to the comics section. Science relies instead on models that make factual predictions that are or might be validated.
[The oft-cited study by Anderegg et al. which fallaciously argues a consensus among researchers supporting the IPCC’s politicised position on CAGW] employed suspect methodology that treated publication metrics as a surrogate for expertise. Credentialed scientists, having devoted much of their careers to a certain area, with multiple relevant peer-reviewed publications, should be deemed core experts, notwithstanding that others are more or less prolific in print or that their views stand in the minority. In the climate change (CC) controversy, a priori, one expects that the much larger and more “politically correct” side would excel in certain publication metrics. They continue to cite each other’s work in an upward spiral of self-affirmation. The authors’ treatment of these deficiencies in Materials and Methods was unconvincing in the skewed and politically charged environment of the CC hubbub and where one group is in the vast majority. The data hoarding and publication blockade imbroglio was not addressed at all. [...]
Scientific merit does not derive from the number, productivity, or prominence of those holding a certain view—truth by majority rule or oligarchical fiat. The history of science is replete with views (e.g., a geocentric universe or the immutability of species) that were widely held, held by the most prominent of men, and wrong.
10. CAGW explains everything.
A certain sign that any belief is completely kooky is when it assigns responsibility to one substance or group—quartz, grey aliens, the Illuminati, cider vinegar, the Stone-cutters, table salt, Xenu—to explain (or cure) everything. Any attempt to explain everything with one encompassing cause moves away from the zone of scientific verifiability into the domain of religion. CAGW, according to its heterodox believers, has a prelapsarian, ideal world—the world before modern industrialisation—which is doomed by an evil agent—carbon dioxide—unless the true believers fight opposing forces to defeat the evil one. For many awarmists, the increasing amount of anthropogenic carbon dioxide in the atmosphere completely and indisputedly explains a dearth of rains, more hurricanes, the flooded plains and dry demesnes, mildewy grains, quite fruitless pains, all noisome drains, reactive chains, old weather-vanes, expensive gains of poor champagnes, love-smitten swains with sore chilblains infesting lanes in dreary trains, young princely Danes of sad refrains and ghostly banes, asthmatic cranes and, in short, anything else whereof the mob which feigns to believe complains.
We invite readers to add to our list.
Hogwash
Well, I try to heed the experts who say that I am dumb,
I have monitored the HOGWASH and listened to the SCUM.*
Our progress is the enemy, it seems from what they cry;
if climates change, inventive man will just give up and die.
So how could men survive the worst the weather threw at them
in ages past? Did they just quit and moan a requiem?
The ice-age men and bedouin and cunning Eskimo,
have demonstrated humans can survive both drought and snow.
If all the oceans rise and flood the land whereon we dwell
we’d build more ocean liners and make mountain homes as well.
We’d surely have some time to plan— a little breathing space —
before supposing climate change must doom the human race.
Environmentalists today who claim they want to be
at one with nature are, in truth, against humanity.
The answer is quite simple for each carbon-hating dunce;
to end their exhalations and to suicide at once.
* acronyms for Hysteria over Global Warming and Suchlike Hooey, and Stupidly Criminal Unscientific Misanthropes.
