Stuff does not want you to read this: Part two

The obligatory picture of harmless water vapour to illustrate a Climate Change story Business Insider

John Rofe is a chartered accountant and business consultant with 14 years of experience of research into conflicting arguments. Before that, he had some experience as a commercial fraud investigator. More recently he has studied both sides of the??climate change??debate.

Part One:

Part two: An Open letter to our Minister of Climate Change James?Shaw.

I suppose pictures of polar bears on small pieces of pack ice are just part of the IPCC?s and your disinformation programme. The same disinformation shows factory chimneys with water vapour billowing out which is represented as being CO2, whilst the content of the emissions, whether clean or polluted, remains unknown. This is a level of deceit your government should be railing against and not condoning or promoting. The cherry-picking of data for inclusion in graphs must surely be a source of deceit of which you are already aware? Your ministry?s advisers contribute to it, don?t they? 

Coral reefs in the warmer Papua New Guinea waters are thriving despite allegations that the warming waters of the cooler Great Barrier Reef are killing the same species of corals off.  In fact, the death and rejuvenation of Great Barrier Reef corals have always been part of the natural cycle.[…] 

We are all carbon-based life forms.  We humans breathe in air (we are told) with 410ppm of CO2 and we use much of the oxygen that we inhale for our cardiovascular systems, eventually breathing out ‘stale air’ (due to 20% of the inhaled oxygen component having been carbonated) that contains only about 16% oxygen but about 41,000 ppm of CO2

Plants cannot survive and prosper with a level of atmospheric CO2 lower than about 170ppm. Ideally, our farmers would optimise their plant growth at more than 2,000ppm of CO2. That is why many Dutch greenhouse farmers pump high concentrations of CO2 into their glass houses.    Scientists have proven that the planet is greening due to increased atmospheric CO2. They can actually prove conclusively that higher concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere are beneficial to all Earth?s life forms. Yet no one is able to show any evidence that it causes harm. 

Even if all countries actively worked to reduce carbon emissions, which most have no intention of doing, they cannot actually change total CO2 emissions sufficiently to make any difference to atmospheric temperatures.  There are too many other large natural sources of atmospheric CO2.   Diversifying away from fossil fuels is not the same objective as reducing CO2 emissions. I argue we should do more to diversify our energy sources, but forget trying to manipulate CO2 levels. Stop the geo-engineering rip-off. 

[…] the taxation of carbon is just an excuse for levying yet another tax while the whole ‘faux emergency’ status of CO2 is simply being used as a device to frighten national governments into handing over funds and control to a supranational governmental agency ? the UN IPCC. […]

Between 1928 and 1940 the global average atmospheric temperature rose and this, together with extreme droughts, gave rise to far more forest fires than we have seen within the last decade. It was so hot then that, due to the dust-bowl conditions, many mid-west farmers in the USA were forced off the land. Then people were dropping like flies from heat stroke…not so today. The heat of 1937 was far greater than that of 2018, yet no one tells us that. Instead, the heat waves of 2018 were hyped while the far more significant cold weather records that were set this year never even made it into the newspapers. Now you would have thought that anomalous snow in the Sahara desert, Saudi Arabia, the Serengeti and South Africa should at least make it into our news media and temper the extravagant claims of heating. But no, this news was suppressed; just like the abbreviated reference to the severe cold in New Delhi in December. 

Between 1940 and 1970 the global average atmospheric temperature fell, yet atmospheric CO2 still increased. This disproved the linkage between the temperatures and the theory that we humans change the climate. It also suggests that the task of reducing atmospheric warming by reducing atmospheric CO2 levels is utterly impossible and, even if it could have any effect, that effect would likely be so small as to not be measurable. That was clearly the reason for mass sanitising of temperature charts in 2004. But it won?t wash because the world is going into a solar cycle called a Grand Solar Minimum. This is due to reduced solar activity as part of the normal 400 year cycle, and nothing we have done or could do will affect that prospect of severe climatic cooling. It will either occur or not. 

The modern warm period (1980-2004) coincided with three more active solar cycles (numbers 20-23). This short period of warming is what stimulated my interest in causation. It wasn?t CO2, it was the sun. 

Since 2004, the sun has started a series of eleven year quiet cycles that first resulted in a “temperature pause” but now holds the prospect that we could soon experience extreme cold, due to what is called a ?Grand Solar Minimum?.  You want to argue with that?  Then explain why the influx of cosmic rays is now at a 100 year high causing increased lower cloud formation…and also why the earth?s thermosphere is thinning and rapidly cooling.  Plus the effects of increased volcanism and earthquakes. We should be analysing and preparing for the coming cold event, because the last two Northern Hemisphere growing seasons have been shorter than usual and the possibility of a repeat of the Maunder Minimum and associated Little Ice Age looms far larger as a potential threat than atmospheric warming possibly could in our near term future. Just one or two more reductions in the growing seasons, and food scarcity will dominate our news cycle. The coldest weather under the solar scientists’ scenarios is expected by 2030. 

There seems no point in discussing the inevitability of returning to the next leg of the 100,000 year Milankovich Cycle at this stage. 

In 1989 the UN?s IPCC (corrupted ab initio by political interference) issued its first extravagant and unsubstantiated emergency global warning (printed gleefully in our own newspapers) that we had to reduce our CO2 emissions within ten years – or else! For you to still accept the IPCC reports as authoritative (and without any question), despite the abundant evidence of fraud and conspiracy, defies belief. […]

We have, since COP21 in Paris, actually increased our emissions, and the countries being monitored are continuing to increase emissions while attacking pollution. Yet every year or two we get warnings based on false scare tactics which masquerade as scientific studies, carried out by people who receive money for supporting this UN IPCC fraud ? always published just in time for the next convention, which is inevitably held at great expense in exotic places. Then the latest garbage gets debunked by sceptics but their truth is suppressed and excluded from media commentary.  To date there have been 24 such international ?Conferences of Parties?  with attendees ranging from 15-30,000 beneficiaries jetting in to get more government handouts for achieving what? None of their predictions have ever come true! Just more scare tactics. 

Even the litigation prosecuting big oil have failed. There was never any evidence of them committing misdeeds, only the coordinated ?beat-up? so the IPCC could claim that anyone who rejected their Anthropogenic Global Warming theory was in the pay of Big Oil. The programme of getting rid of all opposition to the IPCC programme is disgraceful; it has been vindictive and a blot on scientific credibility. If the global warming argument could be supported using science, why resort to fraud and character assassination…thereby ending the careers of many brilliant scientists? 

Our media seem at a loss to explain why the subversive actions of the IPCC and other UN organisations have led President Trump into open revolt against the United Nations.  Instead, the media focus on his tweets to denigrate any achievements he has made.  Try viewing […] this.

[…] We are indebted to those scientists who have kept up the battle against the global machine. A few OECD countries are now being tapped to provide the UN IPCC with multi-billion dollar annual contributions, so the UN IPCC can fulfil their primary mandate to take money from the rich countries and give it to the poor. Obama?s agreement to go down that route won him an early Nobel Peace Prize (this is what he got in return for his gullibility; what are you hoping for?). Now Trump has rightly pulled the pin on the US contribution. Yet, somehow ,we Kiwis are still on the hook. Carbon is an essential element and yet we in New Zealand are being treated like idiots, as our government sets out to raise taxes on it, for which we will all ultimately pay through increased cost of living. 

Do we have to join the ?yellow vests? of France on the streets of Wellington before we get some common sense from our leaders?

John Rofe