Global Warming – the Covert Agenda / Dr. John WEaterfield, Glastonbury 21-12-202
Anthropogenic climate change and its antithesis. – Discourse 146, Part 1
Since the late years of the twentieth century, the view has been promoted (and
generally accepted) that the planet is heating up and that this is caused by greenhouse gases, consisting for the most
part of carbon dioxide emissions resulting from human (largely industrial) activity. This view was given considerable
publicity as a result of Al Gore’s film ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ (2006).
Global warming is considered to be a serious problem, as it supposedly gives rise to drought, fire and floods, extreme
weather and catastrophic storms, mass species extinction, crop failure and famine, melting polar icecaps and rapidly
rising sea levels which will inundate many of the world’s major cities and
sweep whole nations off the face of the earth.
Climate ‘experts’ have been predicting for decades that we have only a few years
left to make drastic changes in our behavior (in particular, to cut carbon dioxide emissions) before all of the above
dire consequences become a reality. It makes no difference to these prophets of doom when the deadline they have
declared passes without incident; they merely postpone it by another decade or so, like the Jehovah’s Witnesses with
their predictions of the end of the world. One climate conference after another has been hailed as humanity’s ‘last
chance’.
Typical of climate alarmism is the following passage, from the distinguished environmentalist Jonathon Porritt:
‘Everybody agrees that it’s already “too late” for some things. It’s too late, for instance, to avoid massive
climate-induced disruption over the rest of the century, in pretty much every corner of the world, through worsening floods, droughts,
wildfires, heatwaves, hurricanes and typhoons, melting ice and rising sea levels.’ The end is nigh, we may very well
conclude. The fact that this cataclysmic scenario has not yet occurred need not bother us unduly. If the end is not yet,
it will surely be soon.
The scientific evidence for there being any connection between CO2 emissions and
the earth’s temperature is actually quite tenuous, resting on a supposed parallelism (more CO2 in the atmosphere, higher
temperatures) coupled with the unproven assumption of a causal connection between the two.
Michael Mann’s ‘hockey stick’ graph, first published in 1999, showed a steady
horizontal line representing a fairly constant state of atmospheric CO2 and global temperature, which suddenly shoots up
into the vertical on the advent of industrialization. This caught the popular imagination. However, the data used
focuses only on the comparatively recent past, making it look as if the present global warming trend is a unique
phenomenon.
If we go further back, there was a Medieval Warm Period (roughly 1100 to 1400
AD), when Viking colonists cultivated grapes in Greenland and the Alpine glaciers were receding. Obviously back then
there was no industrial activity causing an excess of carbon in the atmosphere. And then there was the Little Ice Age of
the 17th century, when the Thames froze over regularly. Clearly there are fluctuations in climate; but to say
such changes are caused by carbon dioxide emissions is implausible.
In fact there is a strong argument that if a causative factor is involved, it is
the other way around: rising global temperatures result in higher levels of CO2, as it is released into the atmosphere
from the warming oceans.
If we go still further back, the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has
actually been declining slowly and steadily for 150 million years. 150 million years ago it was something like 2000
parts per million (ppm), falling to just 180 ppm during the latest Ice Age, 20,000 years ago. Since then the warming
oceans have given off more CO2, to reach what is known as the ‘pre-industrial’ level of 280 ppm (around 1850). The
burning of fossil fuels has since caused it to increase to 415 ppm. This is still nowhere near the amount that was
present in prehistoric times, and should be no cause for alarm. Carbon dioxide is demonized by today’s media, being seen
almost as a toxin, but of course it is the gas of life, it is what makes plants grow. Market gardeners fill their
greenhouses with CO2 to encourage growth. Restoring CO2 to higher levels could only be beneficial to the vegetation.
Leaked e-mails from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, dating from 1996 to 2009, indicated that even the advocates
of global warming were uncertain of their case. In confidential exchanges amongst themselves, scientists expressed consternation that the
facts had ceased to support their argument. From about 2000 on, the earth seemed to have stopped heating up. They decided to christen
this phenomenon ‘the pause’, assuming it would be temporary. They also decided to abandon the term ‘global warming’ and talk about ‘climate change’ instead. This embarrassing story went down in history as ‘Climategate’.
In any case carbon dioxide makes up a very minute proportion of the earth’s atmosphere. 99% of the atmosphere consists
of nitrogen and oxygen. CO2 amounts to only 0.04%. Its role as a greenhouse gas is moreover dwarfed by water vapor, which
accounts for 90% of greenhouse gases. As the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) admits, ‘Water vapor is
the most abundant and important greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. … However, human activities have only a small direct
influence on the amount of atmospheric water vapor.’
The energy without which nothing on this planet could survive comes from the
sun; and to anyone with a little common sense, it must appear highly likely that any changes in climate are the result
of variation in solar activity. Indeed we do find that climate changes in historic times can be correlated with solar
cycles, e.g. the Little Ice Age of the 17th century coincides with the ‘Maunder Minimum’, a period of
diminished sunspot activity.
The Central Institute for Meteorology and Geodynamics [Zentralanstalt für
Meteorologie und Geodynamik, ZAMG] in Vienna used to publish data on its website showing that the ‘solar constant’ has
increased in recent decades. These readings were taken by satellite, independently of atmospheric influences, and so can
be taken as an objective measurement of solar intensity. Interestingly, the data has now been pulled from the site and
is no longer available.
If the earth is getting hotter, it may be as well to prepare for the resulting changes. But cutting carbon dioxide emissions is senseless,
if carbon dioxide emissions have no influence whatever on the climate.
Some eminent climatologists (among them Peter Taylor, who lives in Glastonbury)
actually think, based on the solar cycle, that we are faced with a period of global
cooling. This too might result in changes that we would need to adapt to. Clearly there is a large margin of
uncertainty here.
As for extreme weather, floods and wildfires – if we go back in history, there
is good evidence that earth has always suffered from such phenomena, and recent times are in no way out of the ordinary.
People do have a tendency to believe that the times in which they are living are unprecedentedly bad. The extreme
weather and wildfires, however, which feature in the media these days could indeed be manmade. The technology for
controlling the weather has been around since at least the Vietnam war, and is considerably more sophisticated by this
time. And you don’t need much technology to start a fire – just a corrupt police force and a box of matches. There are
powerful groups that would like to cause a maximum of disruption – both in order to destabilize society, and to give the
impression that global warming / climate change is taking place.
Why did everyone believe in the myth of Anthropogenic Global Warming? Why was it taken up and trumpeted with all the fervor of a religious dogma?
For one thing, people like to be terrified. There is a kind of perverse thrill
in being told that we are all doomed. There is also clearly a good deal of guilt – not all of it unjustified – about
human activity having polluted and defaced a beautiful planet.
(You can be an environmentalist and deplore, say, the accumulation of
non-biodegradable plastic or the destruction of the landscape by mining operations, while still disagreeing with the
thesis that the planet is being destroyed by carbon dioxide emissions.)
And for another, there are groups – the so-called elite of the planet – who have
an interest in keeping people terrified and making them live in a state of fear. Because if they believe there is a
state of emergency, they will accept restrictions on their personal liberty and impositions on their lifestyle which
they might otherwise rebel against.
Anthropogenic Global Warming was adopted by the UN (through the IPCC and other
prominent international panels and bodies), and the vast resources of the world’s richest people have been devoted to
the promotion of the narrative. Both the media and the universities were paid to repeat the story. Academics who had any
doubts about global warming were likely to keep quiet about it, because it might cost them their job. We often hear
people saying that ‘97% of the world’s climate scientists’ believe in global warming, but this is just a lie, based on a
shallow statistical survey of the abstracts of papers published by a selection
of climatologists where the evidence was heavily slanted to give the desired result.
The naturalist David Bellamy was a successful BBC broadcaster on a level with
David Attenborough, but when he expressed his skepticism of the global warming narrative, he was dropped and his career
came to an end. Dr Susan Crockford was sacked by the University of Victoria in British Columbia for advancing the thesis
that polar bears are well and thriving, and are not threatened with starvation as a result of global warming. These are
just two examples of people being ‘cancelled’ for daring to question the official line.
The recent COP26 conference in Glasgow, like previous climate summits, was
notable for its posturing, virtue-signaling and hypocrisy. 25,000 delegates flew in to Glasgow, clearly unconcerned
about the carbon footprint they were leaving. This is comparable with the way in which political leaders put on their
masks when posing for the camera, while taking them off the moment the cameras are looking elsewhere – a tacit admission
that they do not believe in the principles they supposedly stand for. The number of electric cars attending the
conference was not matched by the number of chargers – so a diesel generator had to be pressed into service. (This is a
story that the fact-checkers are already denying.) Electric cars, incidentally, are in no way preferable to traditional
cars in environmental terms. The electricity that powers them has to come from somewhere – and as things are, it comes
from fossil fuels. The batteries require rare minerals like cobalt and lithium, which are currently mined in Africa
under inhumane conditions. Moreover the batteries have to be replaced every five years or so. If all vehicles were
electric, we would have a massive problem disposing of used non-recyclable batteries.
There is no doubt that we do need to find an alternative to fossil fuels,
because fossil fuels are running out. But the hysteria with which climate change is promoted is not conducive to our
finding workable energy solutions for the future. The ‘net zero carbon’ target which has been agreed by most western
governments as something to be achieved by 2050 (without their populations having been consulted or giving informed
consent) is likely to result in crippling energy shortages and drastic impairment of our way of life. The infrastructure
for the zero carbon economy, we are assured by Mark Carney (former Governor of the Bank of England, now UN Special Envoy
for Climate Action and Finance) is already in place. This is very likely to involve a Central Bank Digital Currency,
digital ID and a digitally controlled carbon budget for every member of the population. This would make it possible to
control or terminate a person’s activities if their shopping habits, say, were deemed to be ‘unsustainable’, or to put
any company out of business that did not conform to a certain unrealistic standard of ecological virtue.
It is interesting that demonstrations by the supposed grassroots movement
Extinction Rebellion are treated leniently by the police, presumably acting on instructions from above, with protesters
being given a free hand to hold up traffic and cause disruption on motorways without interference. This is by contrast
with the heavy-handedness with which the police have treated anti-lockdown demonstrators on occasion in the past year.
There are good grounds for suspecting that XR is a ‘sponsored opposition’, whose task is to put pressure on politicians
to do what they want to do anyway.
As with the Covid crisis, the climate pseudo-emergency has been created in order
to justify measures which will bring western economies to their knees and reduce the mass of the population to poverty,
while leaving the billionaires comfortably sitting at the top. When people like Prince Charles or Bill Gates urge
austerity on the world and tell us that the western world’s lifestyle is no longer sustainable, it is the masses who are
being urged to tighten their belts. Those who are running the sustainable planet envisaged by the UN’s Agenda 2030 will
still be flying around the world in their private jets.
Glastonbury, December 2021
Further reading
Ian Hall, Unsettled Science
Marc Morano, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change
Christopher Booker, Global Warming: A Study in Groupthink
David Craig, There is No Climate Crisis
Patrick Moore, Fake Invisible Catastrophes and Threats of Doom
Peter Taylor, Chill