At a moment when private industry and governments around the world are spending trillions of dollars in the name of saving our planet from man-made global warming, there is mounting evidence that academic institutions, think tanks and public institutions around the world have started to alter their findings again to reach a “global warming consensus” -- regardless that there have also been in history a Flat-Earth Consensus, a Sun-Goes-Around-The-Earth Consensus, and an Anti-Evolution Consensus - none of which made them less false.
Proponents of man-made global warming recently suffered yet another blow when the leading climate change scientist, Phil Jones, granted an interview to the BBC.
Jones had to acknowledge that the Earth may have been warmer in Medieval times than now, and that, during the past fifteen years, there has been no “statistically significant” warming; on the contrary, there are signs, also not statistically significant, that after 2002, the climate may have cooled. Jones, at the heart of the so-called "Climate-gate" controversy last year, just before the Copenhagen climate summit, was forced to step down as director of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit in Britain after leaked e-mails indicated that scientists there were manipulating data to strengthen the argument for man-made global warming. The data had been used to support efforts by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to urge governments to cut carbon dioxide emissions and to produce a “hockey stick graph” showing temperatures relatively stable for centuries before rising sharply in recent decades.
Despite this interview, that suggested a conspiracy by some of the world's leading global warming alarmists -- many with direct ties to the IPCC -- to manipulate temperature data, major TV networks in the US, with the exception of Fox, totally ignored the subject -- indicating the degree of politicization that affects the climate change issue.
So now the new evidence is showing that there is no “hockey stick graph,” and that other warmer periods have taken place in the past, when carbon dioxide emissions from manufacturing did exist. The warmer periods are said to have occurred between 1860 and 1880, and then again from 1910 to 1940. Professor Jones admitted that the Medieval Warm Period (800 A.D. to 1300 A.D.) might well have been as warm as the Current Warm Period (1975-present), or warmer, and that if it was, “then obviously the late-20th century warmth would not be unprecedented.”
Alarmists’ predictions are also being retracted. The 2007 IPCC report, which won the Man-Maders a Nobel Peace Prize, said the probability of Himalayan glaciers “disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high” as a result of man-made global warming. But the IPCC was recently forced to retract its disappearing-glacier claim, which had been made on the basis of a non-scientific magazine article. The IPCC additionally had to retract its claim that up to 40 percent of the Amazonian forests were at risk from global warming and would likely be replaced by “tropical savannahs” if temperatures continued to rise.
Climate change alarmists, however, are continuing to pose as saviours of the planet. Says U.S. President Barack Obama: “Generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell the children this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs for the jobless. This is the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.” The Messiah himself could not make better promises.
And what about Al Gore? A few years ago, while striving to become the leader of climate catastrophists, he made a presentation showing how the rise of the oceans would affect the coastal areas of the U.S. such as Florida, Manhattan and the San Francisco Bay. Then, with computer animation, he showed how the rising waters would flood all these places.
But according to Lord Moncton, a climate change debunker, the same year Al Gore was making these dire predictions, he bought a $4 million dollar condominium in San Francisco just a few feet away from the shoreline, apparently unshaken by his own predictions.
Over the last 20 years we have been told that we are destroying the climate through the use of fossil fuels; that our “carbon footprints” will cause the melting of polar ice caps, the extinction of polar bears, extensive flooding, diseases -- that, if we do not mend our habits, the Apocalypse is just around the corner.
A closer look at the past history of our planet, though, shows that the Earth has undergone cyclical periods of warming and cooling and this is linked to astronomical factors such as modifications in the eccentricity of the orbit, solar flares and even the rotation of our galaxy.
We have records that date back more than 300 million years: there have been inter-glacial periods, that is the warm spell, when life on the planet flourishes, and ice-ages, when many forms of life perish. We have consistent records of ice- ages followed by inter-glacial periods; we can see that temperatures and CO2 content in the atmosphere have both increased and fallen over thousands of millions of years - all without burning any fossil fuel.
John Coleman, the senior meteorologist who had the courage to expose the repeated manipulations of data by some relevant climate institutions, wrote: “Some misguided scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long-term scientific data back in the late 1990's to create an illusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same environmental extremism type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the "research" to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims. Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going. Soon they claimed to be a consensus. Environmental extremists, notable politicians among them, then teamed up with movie, media and other liberal, environmentalist-journalists to create this wild "scientific" scenario of the civilization threatening environmental consequences from Global Warming unless we adhere to their radical agenda.”
And - you guessed it! -- their radical agenda calls for more government power and less room for individuals. It looks as if Marxist economics, in which even middle-class wealth is redistributed to people in lower income brackets and which we thought had been thrown out of the window for good by the end of the 1980s, is trying to climb back in through the front door.