News Release – Please report and pass on – Thank You
BBC2 ‘Climate Wars’ is FRAUD WITH LIPSTICK SAYS SCIENTIST – BBC
ATTACKED FOR LACK OF INTEGRITY AND CHALLENGED TO DEBATE
Initial response to BBC2 ‘Climate Wars’ 14th Sept 2008
from Piers Corbyn, astrophysicist of WeatherAction long range forecasters.
+44(0)7958713320 / +44(0)2079399946 , piers@weatheraction.com

1. This ‘Climate wars’ production is a shameful and desperate effort
from the BBC’s ‘green religion
department’ to shore up the failing theory of CO2 driven Global
Warming and Climate Change.
The piece, and the Global Warmers camp in general, while pretending to
be objective skilfully avoid applying sound science and provide no
answers to the mounting  evidence which refutes the crumbling Global
Warmers theory. It puts lipstick on scientific fraud but it remains
fraud.
=> They selectively report part of ‘weak’ sceptics contributions which
are muddled and AVOID proper interviews with scientists who can
soundly refute every wriggle of the Global Warmers mantra.
=> They  misrepresents the observed facts and choose ’straw-man’
methods to attack inadequate non-CO2 part-theory as if somehow trying
to argue that if an animal is not a cat then it must be a dog.
=> They resort to the green zealots blogging method of personal
innuendo rather than discussing  the issues – ‘Smear or belittle the
messenger if you don’t like the message’

2. The Hockey stick temperature graph (claiming ‘exceptional’ world
temperatures now compared with the last few thousand years) is a fraud
and ‘improvements’ on it promoted by the IPCC and members of the
Climate Crisis industry are also fraud  - with lipstick.
For the facts see Climate Audit and Christopher Monkton:
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/monckton/monckton_what_hockey_stick.pdf
For the record I concur fully with Christopher Monckton’s piece here
referenced including his conclusions.

3. Whatever may have seemed plausible 10 years ago Global Warming is
over and there is no evidence that CO2 ever was, is or will be a
driver of world temperatures or Climate Change – indeed the evidence
is the relationship is more the other way around:-
a) Temperatures drive CO2 levels in a number of circumstances (eg when
the world exits ice-ages). CO2 has no observed net driving effect on
temperatures. This fact is established from thousands of years of data
which the ‘Global Warmers’ refuse to properly consider.
b) World temperatures have been generally declining for about 10 years
while CO2 is rising rapidly.
c) Furthermore the period from the end of the last ice age 10,000
years ago  to about 1,000 years ago was warmer than present (indeed
Greenland is so named because it was warmer in Viking times), had LESS
ice in the Arctic and there was notably  LESS CO2 than now.
The UN Climate Committee – the IPCC – is deliberately ignoring or
covering-up these facts which show in official data.
However rather than investigating the accountability of the UN and our
elected representatives the BBC seems to want independent scientists
and the public to be accountable to the UN and governments. See links
below for information and the letter to Ban-Ki moon UN Secretary
General and Tim Yeo MP from 13 world scientists and environmentalists

4. Attempts to prove CO2 effect ‘right’ by challenging an incomplete
version of one solar theory are doubly dishonest because:
a) One theory being inadequate does not prove CO2 has any effect. The
CO2 theory already lies in tatters – refuted by data evidence. No
amount of enraged shooting at others can revive it.
b) The attacks on what the Global Warmers deem as ’solar theory’ are
the product of disgraceful dishonesty which marks the integrity of the
scientific establishment at its lowest level since the Papal
Inquisition.
The main periodical solar activity effect – the largest observed
periodicity present in world temperature data – is the 22 yr cycle
(driven by sun-earth magnetic connectivity). Hence for aboiut half the
time the 11 year cycle of solar activity – of particles, sunspots and
radiation – will move with temperature and half the time move against
it. This is well known to solar and climate scientists. All the
pseudo-scientists have done is essentially choose time spans where the
two move in opposite directions and ignore demonstrated correlations
on longer time spans. Those who do this are either unbelievably
ignorant of their own subject or deliberately deceptive.  BBC web
‘information’ on the matter refuses to publish the truth despite
requests and in this programme avoids interviewing scientists in
Britain or overseas who research in and understand and apply sun-earth
magnetic and particle effects in provably skilled weather and climate
forecasting***. CO2 based climate and seasonal weather forecasts on
the other hand show no skill, have been abysmally incorrect for a
decade and have got worse in the last few years.

5. I challenge – and there are other scientists who can also
challenge –  the ‘Climate Wars’ programme producer to public televised
debate with himself or any scientist they want to put forward.
If they had answers to the many refutations of their theory then the
UN Secretary General or its Climate Committee (the IPCC) or the UK
Parliament Environment Audit committee (chair Tim Yeo MP*) would
respond to letters but they have all failed to answer simple requests
for evidence to support their theory and policies under which they
expect the world to be taxed and go further into food price crisis and
recession. The letter of 14th July from 13 scientists and
environmentalists across the world to Ban-Ki moon  Secretary general
of the UN – http://www.lowefo.com/pdf/Letter_UN_Sec_Gen_Ban_Ki-moon.pdf
- has still not been even acknowledged.

Integrity in science, politics and the BBC would be a good idea.

Piers Corbyn
Astrophysicist WeatherAction long range forecasters

James Hutton :-“The past history of our globe must be explained by what can be seen to be happening now. No powers are to be employed that are not natural to the globe, no action to be admitted except those of which we know the principle.”

Expect the wailing and gnashing of teeth to really gather momentum round about now. The cold is starting to bite. The warmers will see their CO2 disappear into the sinks more swiftly from now on. It’s lifetime in the atmosphere being between 5 to 16 years and 50 to 80 years, according to sink utilized and if it is warm which is stopping about now. In fact one of the best things about CO2 is its lifetime in atmosphere. We will reap the benefits of boosted levels for 50 to 80 years after “fossil” fuels run out.

Luckily we have about 150 years of those “fossil” fuels (more for coal)that are easily recoverable. Enough time for human ingenuity, resilience and tenacity to produce several VIABLE alternatives. If we haven’t weaned ourselves off the teat by then we deserve what we get.

The CO2 level will still only be around 850ppmv when we have burned all the good stuff – compare that with the concentrations in your front room when friends come round to dinner – 2000+ppmv. A crowded office with regulation ventilation – 1000+ppmv. A commercial greenhouse – 1500+ppmv. A nuclear-powered attack submarine – 4,000+ppmv – yes that is 0.04% of the total gasses and is considered a safe level that does not impinge upon intellect or harm bodily function. Quick. Where are the spacesuits?

The “forcing” due to CO2 being over 22ppmv, or 50ppmv according to some, drops off logarithmically above those levels – all the blather about “doubling” is exactly that. Blather. If CO2 could somehow quadruple from current levels we would see no added temperature effect above that which has already occurred.

The other, main, misrepresentation of CO2 is that it is a “well mixed” component of the atmosphere. I remember an engineer telling me, when CO2 was first made out to be the bad guy, “it is by far the heaviest gas and hugs the ground which is lucky for the vegetation and plankton of this world” which fits with its specific gravity of 1.5+.

Another crafted lie about the most basic component of life itself; Increases in CO2 put pressure on the oceans and their “acidity” levels. Not. The oceans are alkaline and likely to stay that way even if the CO2 content rises from the current 50 times atmospheric to 300 times which has been seen before and failed to kill sea borne life.

Photosynthesis has a cumulative cooling effect and the planet’s biomass increase due to CO2 rising above “dangerous” levels in the last 100 years has lead to (latest figures) a 7% increase in measurable foliage worldwide. Subsequent increases in agricultural yield are a given.

The laughable twisting of the life giving gas into some sort of polluting killer is where the whole charade falls down.

We have much bigger fish to fry but they are difficult for the elite to monetize through taxation etc, – hence CO2, the perfect target.

As one carbon based life-form to another (please excuse my CO2 exhalation as I speak) “Live long and prosper.”

Northern Ireland Environment Minister, Sammy Wilson :- “Reasoned debate must replace the scaremongering of the green climate alarmists…….hysterical psuedo-religion”. Recently Mr Wilson said he refused to “blindly accept” the need to make significant changes to the economy to stop climate change. He said, “The tactic used by the “green gang” is to label anyone who dares disagree with their view of climate change as some kind of nutcase who denies scientific fact,”. “Reasoned debate must replace the scaremongering of the green climate alarmists.” And lo, the prophecy is fulfilled; John Woods of Friends of the Earth said Mr Wilson was “like a cigarette salesman denying that smoking causes cancer”. Right now Northern Ireland, via Mr Wilson could become the centre of world media attention. If they could only expose this stuff they could end up with substancially greater rewards than just blindly following faux science and paying handsomely for the privilege. The savings would be huge. To lives and economies. Worthwhile? You decide. By demanding a debate you could show the world how a charlatan can accrue 100 million dollars in just 8 years using fear, uncertainty and doubt whilst not practising what he preacheth. Al Gore can only continue to cash in on carbon while the situation is anything but “settled science” because the lack of debate is over a complete unknown and there is no “knock-out punch” on either side at this moment. This wouldn’t matter if his, and his friends’ influence with government had not pushed people to the brink of starvation, nations to the edge of bankruptcy and science to the margins of comedy.The tiny, tiny amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere feed the world. It is a fundamental part of the carbon cycle for which we carbon based life-forms are surely grateful. The incidental fact that it is produced whenever we, as animal inhabitants of this world attempt to create comfort is dwarfed by the focus of commerce, through the prism of politics, to manipulate economies (and maybe create one single economy in the process), stunt growth and subjugate humanity. All the loudest voices depend upon climate change, in the form of global warming for a living or to make their fortunes or to control assets. The dumbest just keep their mouths shut and accept the cheques. The smart ones are investing heavily in renewables that, co-incidentally, are as far away from being efficient enough to pay for themselves – ever – as the same length of time we can continue our use of coal and oil at the current rate before we get a little tight with it. During this period we will double CO2 “they” say. This will raise the mythical temperature of the mean by 2.0C “they” say. This figure would still be 1/2 the amount we put into a greenhouse to promote growth and 1/4 of the amount that exists in your average living room with 4 people exhaling. “They” say. In 100 years if we have not weaned ourselves from the teat of organic fuel we deserve to move back into the caves. Problem being. There has not been a debate. A nice long one with security guards and judges.