Climate Change

"It is strange what weather we have had all this winter; no cold at all; but the ways are dusty and the flyes fly up and down and the rose bushes are full of leaves; such a time of the year as never was known in this world before here" [Samuel Pepys' Diary, 12 January 1661, source].

"[It] is a fast day ordered by the Parliament to pray for more seasonable weather; it having hitherto been summer weather, that it is, both as to warmth and every other things, just as if it were the middle of May or June..." [Samuel Pepys' Diary, 15 January 1662, source].

"Is it not strange weather? Winter absorbed the Spring, and now Autumn is come before we have had summer..." [Dr. Samuel Johnson, 11 September 1784].

"It would seem that humans need a common motivation, namely a common adversary, to organize and act together in the vacuum; such a motivation must be found to bring the divided nations together to face an outside enemy, either a real one or else one invented for the purpose. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. ... All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy, then, is humanity itself" [Club of Rome, Consultants to the UN, Alexander King & Bertrand Schneider, The First Global Revolution (Pantheon Books, 1991), p.115].

"[L]ong before Global Warming became a well known issue, Al Gore and his Club of Rome colleagues stated that they would use the threat of global warming to unite humanity and 'set the scene for mankind's encounter with planet'. In the same way that shamans and sooth-sayers in medieval times used their advance knowledge of when eclipses would occur to control and terrify their followers, [so Gore et al] would use a natural phenomenon as their 'enemy' to achieve their objectives. But then they state that although Global Warming would be presented as the initial enemy, the real enemy of humanity would be portrayed as man himself. I am already noticing how frequently the terms climate change and overpopulation are being uttered in the same breath" [source].

"[My interview with former Vice-President of America Al Gore on Monday] turned out to be an encounter with quasi-religious undertones. ... Gore's Oscar-winning documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, has made him a hero of the eco-warriors and a champion of the Green lobby. Grim Gordon and Call-me-Dave practically fell over each other to get to meet him in London this week. Easy, boys. All that glisters is not necessarily Gore's vote-winning gold. ... Gore's assertion that [global warming] is primarily a man-made disaster remains mired in scientific controversy, despite his declaiming a few months ago that 'the debate is over! There's no longer any debate in the scientific community about this.'  Er... actually, there is. But when I put the central opposing theory over global warming - that the sun is responsible - Al Gore became distinctly frosty. The atmosphere in our studio became even chillier when I cued a clip from our recent interview with Professor Philip Stott, Emeritus Professor of Biogeography at the University of London. Stott believes man's greenhouse gas production is dwarfed by that of volcanoes and the oceans, and he is not alone. He also describes the creed stating that mankind is responsible for globally rising temperatures as 'the 21st century's new religion', obsessed as it is with atonement, sacrifice and guilt. Gore was clearly unhappy about Stott's comments and after our interview he told me coolly that it had been a 'disservice' to the viewers to include them. I begged to differ: surely, I pointed out, it is healthy to have one's views challenged and be given an opportunity to endorse one's case. The former VP shot me a look which I recognised but took a while to interpret. Then I remembered his statement - 'the debate is over...'  Of course! There can only be one true faith! Gore thinks I am a heretic. If it didn't risk adding to global warming, people like him might toy with the idea of having people like me burned at the stake" [Richard Madeley, Daily Express, 17 March 2007].

"Former US vice-president Al Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize yesterday - even though his award winning climate change film [An Inconvenient Truth] has been criticised ... by a High Court judge who said it was one-sided and contained nine scientific errors. Other critics claim Mr Gore's campaign to tackle climate change would create poverty and conflict that could lead to global instability, not peace. ... Mr Gore's film has been sent to every secondary school in Britain. ... But Stewart Dimmock, a Kent school governor, went to court to have the film banned, arguing that it contained scientific mistakes and 'sentimental mush'. The judge ruled new guidelines should be sent to teachers, saying some of Mr Gore's views were not supported or promoted by the Government, and that there was 'a view to the contrary'. Marlo Lewis, author of A Sceptic's Guide to an Inconvenient Truth, said: 'What Al Gore and the global warming crusade want to do is put an energy-starved planet on a diet. This is a recipe for poverty, and poverty does not lead to peace. It leads to conflict'" [Daily Mail, 13 October, 2007].

"It doesn't matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true" [Paul Watson, co-founder of Greenpeace, source].

"Today's debate about global warming is essentially a debate about freedom. The environmentalists would like to mastermind each and every possible (and impossible) aspect of our lives" [Vaclav Klaus, Blue Planet in Green Shackles, quoted at: source].

"Former U.S. vice-president Al Gore caused controversy yesterday by comparing global-warming sceptics to racists. He recalled how society succeeded in marginalising racists in the civil rights era, and said climate change sceptics must be defeated in the same manner. Mr Gore claimed those questioning the veracity of climate change science included in his film - An Inconvenient Truth - will be seen in the same negative light. 'There came a time when racist comments would come up in conversation and in years past they were just natural,' he said. 'Then there came a time when people would say "Why do you talk that way?" and slowly the conversation was won. We have to win the conversation on climate'" [Daily Mail, 30 August 2011].

"What really had me take notice was this: 'Ageing conservative white males are many times more likely than any other segment of the population to be [warming] denialists.'  This seems to me, to use the vernacular of the left, ageist, racist and sexist. It is also conservatist which is a form of discrimination never discussed. It is discrimination against persons of a conservatist disposition. It is never discussed because it is a form of discrimination fully supported by the left" [Dr. Steven Kates, The Climate of Opinion, source].

"Here are three not-so trivial questions you probably won't find in your next pub quiz. First, how much warmer has the world become since a) 1880 and b) the beginning of 1997? And what has this got to do with your ever-increasing energy bill? You may find the answers to the first two surprising. Since 1880, when reliable temperature records began to be kept across most of the globe, the world has warmed by about 0.75 degrees Celsius. From the start of 1997 until August 2012, however, figures released last week show the answer is zero: ... Not that there has been any coverage in the media, which usually reports climate issues assiduously, since the figures were quietly release [sic] online with no accompanying press release - unlike six months ago when they showed a slight warming trend. The answer to the third question is perhaps the most familiar. Your bills are going up, at least in part, because of the array of 'green' subsidies being provided to the renewable energy industry, chiefly wind. ... it is being imposed for only one reason: the widespread conviction, which is shared by politicians of all stripes and drilled into children at primary schools, that, without drastic action to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions, global warming is certain soon to accelerate, with truly catastrophic consequences by the end of the century ... Hence the significance of those first two answers. Global industrialisation over the past 130 years has made relatively little difference. And with the country committed by Act of Parliament to reducing CO2 by 80 per cent by 2050, a project that will cost hundreds of billions, the news that the world has got no warmer for the past 16 years comes as something of a shock. It poses a fundamental challenge to the assumptions underlying every aspect of energy and climate change policy" [source].

"As Trotsky correctly (for once) observed, a bureaucracy inevitably tends to develop and articulate its own vested interests. To the planners, freedom itself is a problem. Just as nature abhors a vacuum, every unregulated activity taunts them. If there is no problem to justify an extension of their activities, a problem must be found. And if no problem can be found, then there must be the threat of a problem - they call it the precautionary principle. This is what the 'Climate Crisis' is. It matters not one jot if it's getting cooler or warmer. There must be a problem, the problem must be industrial capitalism (i.e. freedom), and the solution must be more State control" [source].

"There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth" [Global Warming Petition Project, signed by 31,487 scientists (9,029 PhDs), source].

"Proclaiming that 'climate change is real' is a nonsensical statement and ignores the Earth's continual natural warming and cooling cycles. Vikings settled in Greenland and raised crops and cattle 1000 years ago, while Britons grew grapes in England. Four hundred years later, Greenland froze and the Vikings starved. Europe was gripped in a Little Ice Age. The Thames froze all the way up to London. Another surge in temperatures saw widespread global droughts in the mid-1600s. Temperatures plunged again around 1700s. The globe warmed in 1800-1940, cooled for the next 35 years, then warmed again. The 1940-1975 cooling period occurred despite the fact that industrial production and release of CO2 vastly accelerated during this time. This led to political and media scaremongering about Global Cooling, and the threat of a new ice age" [source].

"We need a more authoritarian world. We've become a sort of cheeky, egalitarian world where everyone can have their say. It's all very well, but there are certain circumstances - a war is a typical example - where you can't do that. You've got to have a few people with authority who [sic] you trust who are running it. And they should be very accountable too, of course [Bayith Note: Accountable to whom? JL doesn't say]. But it can't happen in a modern democracy. This is one of the problems. What's the alternative to democracy? There isn't one. But even the best democracies agree that when a major war approaches, democracy must be put on hold for the time being. I have a feeling that climate change may be an issue as severe as a war. It may be necessary to put democracy on hold for a while" [James Lovelock, 29 March 2010, quoted at: source].

"An article from the World Council of Churches, forwarded to us by the Anglican Communion News Service, is headed 'Churches use Lent season to raise awareness on climate change'. It is pure propaganda, using all the jargon of the global warming lobby and quite uncritically preaching it. In the course of roughly 770 words, God is mentioned twice: 'God's creation' and 'creation of God', but Christ not at all. Interfaith activity is heavily promoted. Are we not justified in suspecting that these churches have wearied of Christ and the Christian religion and [are] turning to the gods of nature? We are reminded of 1 Corinthians 10:20. 'But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should fellowship with devils.' It may not have come to that, but it is getting awfully near it" [Opinion, British Church Newspaper, 18 April 2014].

"I am not aware of any empirical data showing CO2 increasing with global temperature rising afterward as a result. Or falling with global temperature following suit. I am waiting for the eco-fascists to provide such evidence if they can find it. But I have waiting a very long time now. Alternatively perhaps they can provide evidence of any of their dire predictions bearing fruit. I've never seen that either. So what it ultimately boils down to is blind faith, a sick form of religion, one that has for years, no, decades now, been forced on us by politicians" [source].

"Here are a few interesting observations on claims made in this article in Newsweek, 28 April 1975, on global cooling:

• Food output will drop within ten years: Strange! because global warming scientists make the same claims today. Who was/is right?

• There is a massive accumulation of evidence for global cooling: Strange! because global warming scientists make the same claims today. Who was/is right?

• Global cooling is blamed for causing the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever: Strange! because global warming scientists make the same claims today. Who was/is right?

• Scientists claim that occurrences of weather extremes represents advanced signs of global cooling. Strange! because global warming scientists make the same claims today. Who was/is right?

• The National Academy of Sciences said that global cooling 'would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale'. Strange! because global warming scientists make the same claims today. Who was/is right?

• Scientists in 1975 claimed that the world was one-sixth of the way to the next ice age: Strange! because now, in 2011 we are nowhere near this predicted ice age.

• Scientists were able to produce a world map indicating who was going to be affected by global cooling: Strange! because similar maps are produced today by global warming advocates, predicting a gloomy future for the physical world. Who was/is right?

• Global cooling will lead to droughts, floods, extended dry spells, delayed monsoons and local temperature increases: Strange! because global warming scientists make the same claims today. Who was/is right?

• Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change or even to allay its effects.' Aren't we all glad that politicians did nothing to warm up the earth in the late 1970s! I think politicians should do nothing in 2011 as well.

• We should trust in God to keep the climate of the world in equilibrium even if this leads to minor variations from century to century and decade to decade" [comment at: source].

Lysenkoism

"Soviet-era pseudo-science with disturbing parallels to the modern 'global warming' industry."

"Trofim Lysenko was an obscure agronomist of then-fashionable peasant stock who rose to great prominence in the Soviet hierarchy by telling Lenin and Stalin what they wanted to hear. Lysenko claimed to have developed a brilliant technique called 'vernalisation' which would triple or quadruple crop yield. In truth it was neither original nor effective, and its wholesale adoption by the Soviet system - in preference to more scientifically credible methods - may well have contributed to the deaths of millions through famine, not only in the Soviet Union but also in Mao's China, which embraced Lysenko's theories.

"As Lysenko's star rose, so those brave scientists who dared to speak out against his intellectually and morally bankrupt pseudo-science were punished by imprisonment, exile or execution.

"Richard Lindzen, the distinguished atmospheric physicist and global warming sceptic, is among many to have accused the current climate alarmist scientific establishment of being guilty of Lysenkoism. Sure, the alarmists don't actually have their scientific opponents killed anymore but they do - as we saw in the Climategate emails - set out to smear them, ridicule them, marginalise them and have them starved of funding.

"Lysenkoism caused serious long-term harm to biology in the Soviet Union. Climatism looks set to do much the same to contemporary climate science"

[James Delingpole, The Little Green Book of Eco-Fascism, pp.167-168].

Watermelons

"Climate change is 'one of the greatest threats to [Britain] since the last world war', Caroline Lucas once told The Guardian.  Really?  And the evidence for this claim would be what exactly?

• Is climate change destroying the British countryside and killing our wildlife?  No.  That would be all those wind farms and solar arrays which Ms Lucas's party champions;
• Is climate change causing thousands to die every year in fuel poverty?  No.  That would be a side effect of all the subsidies paid to renewable energy which Ms Lucas's party favours over cheaper, more reliable fossil fuel;
• Is climate change hurting our economy?  No.  That would be all the environmental taxes and regulations which make our businesses less competitive, jobs scarcer and our standards of living poorer - just like Ms Lucas's party wants to happen because it believes that economic growth is 'unsustainable';
• Is climate change making Britain less stable, less secure?  No.  That would be Ms Lucas's ongoing war on shale gas - the miracle energy source which will make us less reliant on expensive imported fuel from Russia and the Middle East.

"Still, credit where credit is due: at least Caroline Lucas is honest about her politics. 'You're a watermelon - green on the outside, red on the inside', I said to her on the BBC's Daily Politics show. 'Yes - and proud of it', said the Member for Brighton Pavilion"

[James Delingpole, The Little Green Book of Eco-Fascism, pp.165-166].

Three Views of the Earth
© Berit Kjos (1992)

© Elizabeth McDonald     http://www.bayith.org     bayith@blueyonder.co.uk