All hail the new religion of the left. The old messiah has returned to replace poor Barrack and to save the ignorant hordes from themselves! Not only are we robbing ourselves and each other of basic dignities with our conservative ways, but we are robbing future generations of their lives by bringing on an Armageddon with our selfish and, you guessed it, capitalist lifestyles. Our frivolous materialism comes at an unimaginable price to the very survival of the planet.
Worried? Don’t be. It’s all a lie.
Like all good schoolboys, I once worshipped the religion of climate change and bought into the dogma of how a massive carbon footprint was the fault of globalisation and could only be prevented by buying “fair trade” or worse, supporting overtly neo-Marxist environmental organisations. Fortunately, as the perpetual cynic that I am, I thought to look into this myself. The truth is considerably more complex than the dogma that the pseudo-scientific fraudsters have continuously espoused.
Language is so important to discourse and the language used by the green movement shows the totalitarian approach that they bring to their cause. Men like myself become “deniers”. This word choice is interesting because not only does it equate me with those who deny the holocaust but it also implies that I, like some depraved drug addict, am in denial of an obvious truth. Merely to question the infallibility of man-made, carbon-driven climate change is to become a dangerous lunatic who needs an Orwellian kind of “re-education”. So much for free speech!
So what of the debate? Well the envirofascists have their side shoved down the throats of impressionable children from the age of about three. A cousin of mine once came home crying because of the ticking off he got for the non-biodegradable wrapping of his chocolate bar. Even adults apparently cannot be allowed to hear a reasonable side for fear that they become enviro-apostates. The shameful crucifixion of Carleton’s own Professor Tim Patterson for daring to expose his poor, impressionable, ADULT students to alternative climate change theories shows just how far this rot has spread. I, for one, stand behind Professor Patterson and wish him the best of luck and huge amounts of respect for the guts it took to put the sanctity of scientific integrity before his own career. The argument is, thankfully, becoming increasingly more prominent as green-peace defectors, non-climate change scientists and men like Piers Corbyn add their voices to the sceptical movement.
Using incredibly accessible information, we can first analyze the basic assumption made by the climate alarmists. The theory we have been given is that our carbon emissions create a sort of greenhouse effect that leads to global warming. This theory rests on the assumption that carbon levels directly cause an increase in temperature. However, during the Permian era, carbon levels were three times pre-industrial levels and temperature was only two degrees warmer, which was hardly apocalyptic. Or consider the Siberian era—where dying forests caused carbon levels to be 16 times today’s levels. This only caused a three degree increase in global temperatures when compared with modern day observations. These wild fluctuations in carbon levels are not matched by temperature changes. It further proves that carbon levels have only a very minimal impact on global temperature.
Interestingly, Lord Christopher Monckton in his “climate audit” contends that these changes in carbon occurred after the temperature changes as a result of increased sea evaporation putting more water vapour, a greenhouse gas, into the atmosphere. The tentative link upon which the entire IPCC climate model is based is further eroded by the evidence gathered from weather balloons. Theoretically, increased heat absorption by carbon in the atmosphere should lead to atypical heat levels in the carbon heavy layers of the atmosphere. Weather balloon data in fact records unusually low temperatures in these areas and puts another huge dent into the theory of global warming.
While none of these factors can be said to actively disprove global warming, it is alarming that they have been suppressed and that we have been told from cradle to grave that the science of global warming is sound. Why is this debate not happening? It’s a simple case of a gravy train carrying sub-par scientists at the expense of the taxpayer. A lot can be made by “climate scientists” as long as we are all terrified of frying our planet. Over 80% of climate science research is government funded and if the weakness of their theory were to be exposed, their livelihoods would be threatened. It is for this reason that a solid consensus amongst “scientists” about the infallibility of global warming exists.
Thankfully, there are still men of principle. Piers Corbyn, for example, has the integrity to speak out against this Orwellian abuse of a heavily politicized branch of science. Corbyn offers an interesting alternative. He predicts global temperature will go down in the future and that our current “hot spell” is the result of our hitting the peak of a common interglacial period. Why should we believe him? Well, his long range forecasts have been 84% successful, considerably more than the MET office. His projections, based on solar temperature and lunar magnetic modulation, are increasingly more trusted by farmers than anyone else’s. He predicts increasingly cold winters and a return to an ice age which is long overdue.
Knowing this, I now feel that it is only logical to back the man with the sounder science, the better record and less reason to lie. I choose to keep calm and refuse to join in the mass hysteria of the envirofascist movement. Why not see for yourself at http://www.weatheraction.com/pages/pv.asp?p=wact37.
The views expressed in this opinion piece are the author's own and do not necessarily represent those of The Prince Arthur Herald.
Want to respond to this article? Send a letter to the Editor (firstname.lastname@example.org).