by Scott Creighton
(I guess the next thing we can expect to hear from certain global warming enthusiasts is “Long term global cooling is exactly what we would expect to see from global warming.”)
The following quotes are taken from an interview with Phil Jones and recently published by the BBC.
Question: Do you agree that from January 2002 to the present there has been statistically significant global cooling?
Jones: No. This period is even shorter than 1995-2009. The trend this time is negative (-0.12C per decade), but this trend is not statistically significant
Phil Jones admits there is a global cooling trend since Jan. 2002 to the tune of -0.12C per decade.
Question: Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?
Jones: … So, in answer to the question, the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other.
Here are the trends and significances for each period:
Period Length Trend
(Degrees C per decade)
Significance 1860-1880 21 0.163 Yes 1910-1940 31 0.15 Yes 1975-1998 24 0.166 Yes 1975-2009 35 0.161 Yes
If it is true that our increased industrial activity is causing all this “global warming” (the man-made global warming that Phil Jones himself admits has actually been in a cooling trend over the past 8 years), how is it that the earth was warming at a faster rate from 1860-1880 (0.163 degrees C per decade compared to 0.161 degrees C per decade) than it was from 1975 to 2007?
And if you believe that there is a lag between CO2 increases and the temperature change, how is it possible that the current warming trend (according to the guy who is most responsible for the theory of man-made global warming) is not “significant” since 1995 and there has even been a global cooling trend since 2002, after all the global industrial development since 1975? How does that relate to the highly “significant” and more rapid rise in global temperatures from 1860 to 1880?
Was there a massive amount of coal-fired electric power plants in operation prior to 1860? No. Were their tens of millions of automobiles driving around with huge carbon footprints prior to 1860? No. Were there any oil and liquid natural gas refineries pumping unlimited amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere before 1860? No.
In fact, if man-made global warming was the cause of global warming trends, then how do these trends hold up to world population numbers? Well, the world population was about 1.2 billion people in 1860, according to this chart. Today we have about 6.9 billion people. So, in 1860, when there was significantly less people than there are today ( there are 5.9 times the people now than there was in 1860) and significantly less industry and automobiles and power plants, the global temperature increased at a higher rate for a longer period of time than it is now. How does that support the idea of man-made global warming?
And now, according to Phil Jones, we are actually in an eight year period of global cooling.
With “evidence” like this I can understand why Bill Nye the “science” guy (a man who’s very paycheck is dependent on the maintaining of the global warming myth) needs to resort to Carl Rove type tactics like attacking people’s “patriotism” when they start questioning this kind of junk science. His cushy lifestyle hangs in the balance.
Now don’t get me wrong, I have often said that capping industrial emissions and pollutants is a great idea. Also a good idea would be to make companies pay for these pollutants as that hitting them in the profit margins would foster not only a cleaner environment but also it would promote industries that would help this process and thus continue to create much needed jobs.
It would also seem like a pretty obvious idea would be to make industries pay those pollution fees directly to their state and local communities, as that would provide desperately needed tax money which could be used to pay for much needed public services like police, fire departments, and education. That would ease their dependency on the federal tax dollar and IMMEDIATELY begin to reduce our national deficit. It would also decrease property taxes thus slowing foreclosure rates. Less polution, more jobs, and reduced national deficit (A “win, win, win” kind of plan as opposed to the international derivatives scheme which kills small industry and sucks money out of communities and hands it over to the World Bank and the IMF).
But these pollution limits must be fair and they must be universally applied to every industry. The first suggestions of our cap and trade scam actually handed it’s carbon offsets to corporations backed by certain politicians for free allowing them to continue to pollute as they wished while crippling others. In a sense it would do for industry what the bank bailouts did for the big 5 banks; allow the biggest and greediest to consume the small to mid-sized industries because it would be too expensive for them to continue doing business.
But blindly following the Climate Change mythology as it is being sold to the world is extremely harmful to our collective future. This scam is being orchistrated to be used to create another derivatives based scheme of global proportions. The only ones who will benefit from it will be massive multinational corporations like Bechtel and GE and the World Bank and the IMF who will be set up to collect massive carbon credits taxes and then use the global governance they set up to inflict their structural reforms on every nation on earth. Of course the Wall Street banks will also be able to generate massive profits trading carbon offsets in another massive derivatives scheme.
Other things to think about:
1. IPCC admits “flaw” in sea levels study – “A background note by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said a 2007 report wrongly stated that 55 percent of the country was below sea level since the figure included areas above sea level, prone to flooding along rivers.”
2. Former IPCC author says the data they relied on was “flawed” – “The temperature records cannot be relied on as indicators of global change,” said John Christy, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, a former lead author on the IPCC.”
3. IPCC admits melting glacier statement was “Flawed” – “The assertion, now discredited, was included in the most recent IPCC report assessing climate change science, published in 2007. Those reports are widely credited with convincing the world that human activity was causing global warming.”
Since all of these things have started to come out after the Glaciergate emails and the release of the Copenhagen Summit agreement that showed they wanted to hand money over to the World Bank and create a system of “global governance”… you might think that they would step back and re-evaluate the situation. But you would be wrong. Instead, it looks like they are going to try and force their plans down our throats any way they can.
Obama administration will pass climate change laws by fascist decree – “With much of his legislative agenda stalled in Congress, President Obama and his team are preparing an array of actions using his executive power to advance energy, environmental, fiscal and other domestic policy priorities…. ”
- ““We are reviewing a list of presidential executive orders and directives to get the job done across a front of issues,” said Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff.”
- “Mr. Obama has already decided to create a bipartisan budget commission under his own authority after Congress refused to do so.”
- “And the Environmental Protection Agency is moving forward with possible regulations on heat-trapping gases blamed for climate change, while a bill to cap such emissions languishes in the Senate.”
As the earth gets steadily cooler, the Obama administration and their financial and industrial backers get more and more desperate to take advantage of this momentum before it fades away. This is literally a plan for global domination they (the bankers, not Obama) have been working on since 1995 and there is no way they will allow it to collapse when they are so close to achieving their goals. A new panel, a new study would never work especially since we are in a period of global cooling so they are forced to pass this into law now or never.