Is Climate Change really man-made?

[outsider]

Can any scoffers PLEASE explain the picture in this link?
http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/44g.png

No, I didn't think so.

[James O'Neill]

What is your point exactly? The map merely shows below average temperatures for most of the continental US and above average for the south east and Alaska for a limited time period. It neither proves nor disproves anything about global climate change.

[outsider]

[outsider]

Arctic ice melt 'already affecting weather patterns where you live right now':
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/dec/19/arctic-ice-melt-al ready-affecting-weather-patterns-where-you-live-right-now

'Soaring Arctic temperatures ‘strongly linked’ to recent extreme weather events, say scientists at cutting edge of climate change research.

The dramatic melting of Arctic ice is already driving extreme weather that affects hundreds of millions of people across North America, Europe and Asia, leading climate scientists have told the Guardian.

Severe “snowmageddon” winters are now strongly linked to soaring polar temperatures, say researchers, with deadly summer heatwaves and torrential floods also probably linked. The scientists now fear the Arctic meltdown has kickstarted abrupt changes in the planet’s swirling atmosphere, bringing extreme weather in heavily populated areas to the boil.

The northern ice cap has been shrinking since the 1970s, with global warming driving the loss of about three-quarters of its volume so far. But the recent heat in the Arctic has shocked scientists, with temperatures 33C above average in parts of the Russian Arctic and 20C higher in some other places.

In November, ice levels hit a record low, and we are now in “uncharted territory”, said Prof Jennifer Francis, an Arctic climate expert at Rutgers University in the US, who first became interested in the region when she sailed through it on a round-the-world trip in the 1980s.

“These rapid changes in the Arctic are affecting weather patterns where you live right now,” she said. “In the past you have had natural variations like El Niño, but they have never happened before in combination with this very warm Arctic, so it is a whole new ball game.

“It is inconceivable that this ridiculously warm Arctic would not have an impact on weather patterns in the middle latitudes further south, where so many people live.

“It’s safe to say [the hot Arctic] is going to have a big impact, but it’s hard to say exactly how big right now. But we are going to have a lot of very interesting weather – we’re not going to get around that one.”.....'


Nothing happening here, folks; get back to the footie and 'Britains Got Talent'. Pass the bottle, Paddy!

[James O'Neill]

Thank you, Outsider. I. Would take some persuading to be convinced that climate manipulation (that I accept happens) is sufficient to explain the scale of the phenomenon being observed. That we are undergoing massive changes is also in my view incontestable. Isn't the big question: what is the appropriate policy response?

[outsider]

[outsider]

'Geoengineering Watch Global Alert News, January 7, 2017':
http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/geoengineering-watch-global-alert-n ews-january-7-2017/?inf_contact_key=a663fcfdf6fb44118832645b77a47810ac 55ea18267d5ed0a73fcba038f32091


'....Government deception, media deception, climate science mass omission, and an unfortunately large percentage of populations that are generally more interested in fueling their own ideology than finding facts. Record high US stock market numbers are accompanied by massive layoffs, what's wrong with this picture? It has recently again been over 50 degrees colder in the lower 48 states than at the North Pole, how can that be? Global shipping is crashing, ship building contractors are laying off, but the US military can still afford 126 Billion dollar submarines. More recent earthquakes in Japan may have further accelerated the massive Fukushima radiation releases, is this why the US EPA is trying to secretly raise the "safe limits" of radiation in our water supplies to levels that are 10,000 times higher than the already far too high limits? Power structure propaganda stories about Russian hacking remain as dubious as ever and were officially retracted by some sources, but the damage is done and most US citizens have already been deceived. In the meantime, global forests continue to die and the biosphere as a whole continues to crash, what's next? The latest issue of Global Alert News is below.....'

[TonyGosling]

Not everyone agrees on when the Mini Ice Age began
Most say beginning of the 14th Century
1300 for when warm summers stopped being dependable in Northern Europe

Sorry, its wikipedia


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

[outsider]

'Exxon deliberately misled public on climate science, say researchers':
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/aug/24/exxon-deliberately-mi sled-public-on-climate-science-say-researchers?

'ExxonMobil has knowingly misled the public for decades about the danger climate change poses to a warming world and the oil giant’s long-term viability, according to a peer-reviewed study.

An analysis of nearly 200 documents spanning decades found that four-fifths of scientific studies and internal memos acknowledged global warming was real and caused by humans.

At the same time a similar proportion of hundreds of paid editorials in major US newspapers over the same period cast deep doubt on these widely accepted facts.

The study also cites ExxonMobil calculations that capping global warming at under 2C – the goal enshrined in the landmark Paris climate accord – would impose sharp limits on the amount of fossil fuels that could be burned, and thus potentially affect the firm’s growth.

Both findings are relevant to ongoing investigations by state and federal attorneys general, along with the Securities and Exchange Commission, on whether the company deceived investors on how it accounts for climate change risk.

The new study was published on Wednesday in the journal Environmental Research Letters.

Earlier reporting by InsideClimate News unearthed the internal documents and came to much the same conclusion.

In response, the company – the largest oil producer in the United States, with revenue of $218bn last year – denied having led a four-decade disinformation campaign........'

[insidejob]

https://www.spectator.com.au/2017/08/big-data-finds-the-medieval-warm- period-no-denial-here/
Big data finds the Medieval Warm Period – no denial here
Jennifer Marohasy

According to author Leo Tolstoy, born at the very end of the Little Ice Age, in quite a cold country:

[outsider]

I see; we can pump and spray noxious pollutants into the atmosphere (to give perspective, the atmosphere in scaled-down terms is like a paint layer on a basketball), yet moderates the UVA,B & C and other frequencies (in other words what allows for any kind of life on earth).
We (puny humanity) couldn't POSSIBLY screw that up, could we???
Ask the bees, whales, butterflies, ladybirds, birds, all the rapidly extinct and going extinct species.
Ask the indigenous people, if you can find any; they know the answer to working with nature, and what occurs when you don't.
Think of the Sahara, Egypt, Pacific Islands; denuded of trees for 'grandiose schemes' (Pyramids, statues) and now largely wastelands.

[item8]

We're doomed - we're all doomed!!

Give Al gore all your money and he might just save us.

[outsider]

'How NASA is CAUSING the Carnage In Texas':
http://thecontrail.com/video/video/show?id=4744723%3AVideo%3A832070&xg s=1&xg_source=msg_share_video

More info to follow!

[TonyGosling]

More on the iffy-looking reports of Professor Lewandowsky - copied over from the Princess Diana thread


Prof Lewandowsky published a paper called NASA faked the Moon Landing therefore (climate Science is a hoax.

This got a lot of media attention, the Guardian’s take on it.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2012/jul/27/climate-scept ics-conspiracy-theorists

Monbiot of course loved it.



Whether or not climate sceptic blog readers are more/less likely to believe in conspiracy theories than the general public, is not my point. It is whether this paper, with this data, actually show it…


The title was very provocative, despite only 3 people ‘believing; the title (an anon internet survey) Even if you ignore the all criticism of the paper entirely, and take it at face value– 99.7% of people that read those climate blogs did NOT believe in the moon conspiracy.. and had very low numbers for Diana, Aids and other conspiracies. In fact lower % believing conspiracies than the general public.



There were years worth of blog battles about this, including Lewandowsky own blog, but let’s put that to one side.



Some social scientist did have a look at it, and used it as an example (amongst others) of what is wrong with social psychology.



Prof Lee Jussim (Rutgers, social Psychology)..
(peer reviewed paper)

http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~jussim/Jussim%20et%20al,%202016,%20High%20 Moral%20Purposes,%20Sydney.pdf



"The implication that climate skeptics believe in the faking of the moon landing is another phantom fact. Out of over 1,145 respondents, there was a grand total of 10 who believed the moon landing was faked. Among the 134 participants that 'rejected climate science" only THREE people 2% endorsed the moon landing hoax. The link asserted in the title of the paper did not exists in the sample."



"...The notion that skeptics believed something so silly as faking of the moon landing is yet another myth essentially concocted by the researchers" – Jussim



Another paper

http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~jussim/Interps%20and%20Methods,%20JESP.pdf

(extracts)

98% of climate skeptics did not believe the Moon Landing was a hoax. Latent variable modeling masked the invalidity of the titular implication that climate skeptics tend to believe in silly conspiracy theories. The invalidity of this conclusion cannot be found in the structural equation model results; it can, however, be found in the simple distribution of responses. In the sample of 1145, only ten participants endorsed the moon-landing hoax. Of the 134 who believed climate science was a hoax, only three endorsed the moon-landing hoax (on a four-point scale of Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Agree, and Strongly Agree, we are treating both “agree” and “strongly agree” responses as agreement). Thus, almost no one, including those who rejected climate science, believed the moon landing was a hoax. The abstract reported that “Endorsement of free markets also predicted the rejection of other established scientific findings, such as the facts that HIV causes AIDS and that smoking causes lung cancer.” However, only 16 participants in their sample of 1145 rejected the fact that HIV causes AIDS, and only 11 participants rejected the fact that smoking causes lung cancer. There were 176 free market endorsers in their sample. Nine of them rejected the HIV–AIDS link, and seven of them rejected the smoking–lung cancer link. Thus, 95% and 96% of free market endorsers agreed with those scientific facts. The structural equation modeling performed was a sophisticated set of analyses (Lewandowsky et al., 2013). Interpretations of such analyses as evidence that climate skeptics believe in silly conspiracy theories conflate the sign of the correlational results with participants' actual placement on the items. “



There is no evidence here that people who believe global warming is a hoax were also more likely to believe the moon landing was faked. Also, these data are so skewed, and have so few response options, that it is not clear that the type of structural equation models used in the original report are appropriate.



but too few people actually believed in hoaxes to warrant reaching any conclusions about them. Similar patterns occurred for the other conspiracy beliefs



Prof Lee Jussim

https://www.psychologytoday.com/experts/lee-jussim-phd



Quillete article about this here:

http://quillette.com/2015/12/04/rebellious-scientist-surprising-truth- about-stereotypes/



"...Jussim pointed out that the level of obfuscation the authors went to, in order to disguise their actual data, was intense. Statistical techniques appeared to have been chosen that would hide the study’s true results. And it appeared that no peer reviewers, or journal editors, took the time, or went to the effort of scrutinizing the study in a way that was sufficient to identify the bold misrepresentations.



While the authors’ political motivations for publishing the paper were obvious, it was the lax attitude on behalf of peer reviewers – Jussim suggested – that was at the heart of of the problems within social psychology." – Quillete



Social psychologist Dr Jose Duarte's wrote a less tactful criticism of the Nasa faked the moon landing paper, prior to the above papers (he is a co-author on Lee’s papers above) It is well worth a read to get how shocked how bad he thought the paper was.

http://www.joseduarte.com/blog/more-fraud



Duarte:

“Therefore, the title is false. That's a big problem. (We shouldn't decompose those 10 people, and I do so only out of illustrative necessity – the title would be nuts even if the majority of the 10 believed climate science was a hoax.) The title is not only false, it declares the opposite relationship suggested by the authors' trivial data for it. If the authors meant to say something about moon hoaxism based those 10 people, a more accurate title, given their data, would be: "NASA Faked the Moon Landing–Therefore (Climate) Science is Reliable."

The title being wildly false is bad enough, but it's made worse by the fact that it slanders millions of people as believing that the moon landing was a hoax. They don't believe any such thing, according to the authors' own data. Slandering one's participants is a serious ethical breach.

That should be enough to retract – it was just made up. No scientist should ever get away with that, with just making stuff up under the banner of science. But there's more...”



In 2012, the paper had lot's of media coverage, not surprising sceptics made lots of critical comments, which prompted Prof Lewandowsky to amend his ethics approval and research the responses of his critics, for a paper called Recursive Fury, this had lots of complaints, mainly ethical and was retracted. A new paper was then published called Recurrent Fury.  (but those two papers stories are even longer)

[outsider]

'Weather derivative': https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_derivative

Could be a nice little earner if you are on the inside and know what the Chemtrailers and HAARP have on the menu for us.

[outsider]

'Geoengineered Winter Weather, The Chemical Ice Nucleation Factor':
http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/geoengineered-winter-weather-the-ch emical-ice-nucleation-factor/

Do any 'skeptics' have an explanation for the spherical ice balls?

[outsider]

'CLEARING UP CLIMATE CONFUSION':
http://www.momscleanairforce.org/climate-confusion-factsheet/?autologi n=true&utm_source=moms-clean-air-force

Simple explanations from ordinary folk.

[item8]

Usual "explanations" for simple minded folk.

[outsider]

Give me 'simple minded' folk any day over the 'Experts'.
These people are mostly mothers; they know the dangers their kids are in, and are doing something about it, not sitting back and 'having an opinion' about it.

Ever wondered how difficult it is to get a device to accurately measure UVC?
Well, it could be that according to the 'Experts', PTB and their stooges the MSM etc., no UVC should get through the upper atmosphere.
But it has been shown to do so in California, and I'm sure it does in many more places, especially Australia and similar latitudes.

[outsider]

'Humans Didn’t Exist the Last Time there was this Much CO2 in the Air':
https://countercurrents.org/2018/05/09/humans-didnt-exist-the-last-tim e-there-was-this-much-co2-in-the-air/

'...In little more than a century of frenzied fossil-fuel burning, we humans have altered our planet’s atmosphere at a rate dozens of times faster than natural climate change. Carbon dioxide is now more than 100 ppm higher than any direct measurements from Antarctic ice cores over the past 800,000 years, and probably significantly higher than anything the planet has experienced for at least 15 million years. That includes eras when Earth was largely ice-free.

Not only are carbon dioxide levels rising each year, they are accelerating. Carbon dioxide is climbing at twice the pace it was 50 years ago. Even the increases are increasing.

That’s happening for several reasons, most important of which is that we’re still burning a larger amount of fossil fuels each year. Last year, humanity emitted the highest level of greenhouse gas emissions in history — even after factoring in the expansion of renewable energy. At the same time, the world’s most important carbon sinks — our forests — are dying, and therefore losing their ability to pull carbon dioxide out of the air and store it safely in the soil. The combination of these effects means we are losing ground, and fast....'

But Trump has a plan - stop monitoring Co2 levels; almost as good as Obama stopping radiation monitoring after the Fukushima meltdown, or 'W' Bush threatening to fine Americans $100 if they didn't leave their fridge and freezer doors open to counter global warming (OK, so I made the last one up):
'As CO2 Levels Soar Past ‘Troubling’ 410 ppm Threshold, Trump Kills NASA Carbon Monitoring Program':
https://countercurrents.org/2018/05/12/as-co2-levels-soar-past-troubli ng-410-ppm-threshold-trump-kills-nasa-carbon-monitoring-program/

'...As climate scientists continue to warn about the global consequences of rising levels of CO2 and other greenhouse gases—such as more intense and frequent extreme weather events—the Trump administration has pursued a multi-pronged anti-science agenda that includes rolling back regulations that aim to limit emissions and blocking future research....'

[outsider]

'Did Israel steal Iran’s clouds? Tehran looks for source of ‘suspicious’ climate change': https://www.rt.com/news/431583-israel-iran-no-clouds/

I would say, highly likely it was the US with Chemtrails and HAARP.
Syria also had a bad drought before the 2011 mercenary-backed armed insurrection began.

[TonyGosling]

We are entering a Grand Solar Minimum (GSM). The sun's radiance will be lessened as it was during
the Maunder and Dalton Minimums. But how do we explain weird weather like record heat and droughts?

The magnetosphere of the sun and the earth is reduced. This allows the Jet Stream to wander about giving
us all strange weather patterns, such as, pushing warm air from the Caribbean in your direction. However,
there is another more serious problem. The reduced magnetosphere allows more cosmic rays to strike the
earth. This has been correlated with increased volcanic activity and earthquakes. In 1816 we had a "Year
without a summer" because a volcano in Indonesia sent so much ash into the air that it blocked sunlight

in the northern hemisphere in 1816. If that happened today, we would lose two billion or more people due
to decreased food production. I would recommend buying seeds to sprout indoors in apartments. If you
have land, I would recommend greenhouses. Also for droughts you need to read up on Mycorrhizal fungi.
They take water and nutrients from some distance away to your plant's roots in exchange for sugars the
plant produces in photosynthesis. Dr Elaine Ingham once said that a leaf in a 100 foot tall tree (30.5 meters)
can send a signal down to the tree's roots for calcium. An exchange is made, sugar for calcium. And the

calcium is sent up to the leaf. The 200 foot round trip takes 90 seconds. The point is that using a plough to
farm disturbs the soil and kills the fungi. You cannot afford to kill fungi in a drought. No Till farming is growing

in popularity around the world.



I wrote previously about the US entering WW I with the stated goal of prolonging the war in order to bankrupt
Britain, France and Russia. This was according to Lamont Thompson, a business partner of J P Morgan.
He made the statement at a public meeting of businessmen in Philadelphia in 1915 according to the
book America's 60 Families written by Ferdinand Lundberg.


I would like to share my views on the Mideast. I wrote this article:


Iran Waits With Mach 14 Missiles While The US Collapses


https://vidrebel.wordpress.com/2018/07/30/iran-waits-with-mach-14-miss iles-while-the-us-collapses/


Some in Britain have mistakenly assumed I am a racist because I oppose Israel. My opposition to
Israel is based on my opposition to war not on racial animosity.

[outsider]

'How Feedback Loops Are Driving Runaway Climate Change':
https://truthout.org/articles/how-feedback-loops-are-driving-runaway-c limate-change/

'...Dr. Peter Wadhams is a world-renowned expert who has been studying Arctic sea ice for decades.

His prognosis for the Arctic sea ice is grim: He says it is in its “death spiral.”

“Multi-year ice is now much less than 10 percent of the area of the ice cover; it was 60 percent or more before 2000,” Dr. Wadhams told Truthout. “[Sea ice] extent in summer is down to 50 percent of its value in the 1980s.”

Dr. Wadhams, who is also the President of the International Association for the Physical Sciences of the Ocean (IAPSO), noted that this primary feedback loop is much further along than most of us realize.

“I see the summer sea ice disappearing by the early 2020s,” Wadhams said. He noted that the change of albedo (a measure of reflection of solar radiation) due to the loss of sea ice and snowline retreat across the Arctic “is sufficient to add 50 percent to the warming effect of CO2 emissions alone.”

Alarmingly, on August 21, Arctic scientists told The Guardian that the oldest and strongest sea ice in the Arctic had broken up for the first time in recorded history. One of them described the event as “scary,” in part because it occurred off the north coast of Greenland, which is normally frozen year-round. The region has long been believed to be “the last ice area”: It was thought, at least until now, to be the final place that would hold out against the melting impacts from an increasingly warmer planet....'

'..Dr. Leifer warned that as these processes continue and the Arctic continues to heat up faster than the tropics, the pole-equator temperature difference that controls our weather and causes three major weather circulation “cells” — tropical, mid-latitude, and arctic — will merge into a single weather cell. A similar merging of weather cells occurred during the time of the dinosaurs....'

[Whitehall_Bin_Men]

Is Climate Change Really Man Made? Bristol University Dr Jo House versus sceptic Piers Corbyn

Link

Is Climate Change Really Man Made? Bristol University Dr Jo House versus sceptic Piers Corbyn https://youtu.be/vgX4YY3cXhA

Is Climate Change Really Man Made? Bristol Uni Climate Science Dr takes on sceptic Piers Corbyn
Series: Bristol Broadband Co-operative
Subtitle: Two strong advocates on different sides of the Man-Made Climate Change debate
Program Type: Weekly Program
Featured Speakers/Commentators:
Contributor: Bristol Broadband Co-operative [Contact Contributor]
Broadcast Restrictions: No excerpting/modifying without permission.
License: Attribution No Derivatives (by-nd)
Broadcast Advisory: No Advisories - program content screened and verified.
Summary:
Credits: Piers and Jo have a rigorous discussion about the strength of evidence for man made-climate change. They range around almost all related subjects such as polar ice cap cooling, the effect of sunspots, pre-industrial changes of weather, lobbying by the fossil fuel industry, historic changes in levels of CO2, as well as the knock-on effects of US president Donald Trump pulling out of the November 2016 Paris Climate accords.
Rarely do two so strong advocates on the different sides of the Man-Made Climate Change debate cover so much ground in so much detail, helping the listener, we hope, to make up their own mind based on a broad spread of opinions on one of the most vital policy issues affecting our world today.

Piers Corbyn's Weather Action predictions: http://www.weatheraction.com
The Global Warming Debate http://www.weatheraction.com/pages/pv.asp?p=wact48

Dr Jo House - Reader in Environmental Science and Policy, Bristol University
http://www.bristol.ac.uk/geography/people/jo-i-house/about.html
Impacts and mitigation of climate change in the UK - the Committee on Climate Change: https://www.theccc.org.uk
Images telling the human story of climate change: https://www.climatevisuals.org
Campaigns/what people can do: https://www.theclimatecoalition.org/
A variety of climate change information including briefings - Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit: https://www.eciu.net
The science and arguments of global warming skepticism: https://www.skepticalscience.com
Straightforward and reliable take on science and policy: https://www.carbonbrief.org/
Communicating climate change: https://www.climateoutreach.org
US National Climate Assessment : https://nca2014.globalchange.gov

[Whitehall_Bin_Men]

[Whitehall_Bin_Men]

Finnish study finds ‘practically no’ evidence for man-made climate change
https://www.rt.com/news/464051-finnish-study-no-evidence-warming/

Published time: 12 Jul, 2019 20:44
Finnish study finds ‘practically no’ evidence for man-made climate change
Reuters / Charles Platiau

A new study conducted by a Finnish research team has found little evidence to support the idea of man-made climate change. The results of the study were soon corroborated by researchers in Japan.

In a paper published late last month, entitled ‘No experimental evidence for the significant anthropogenic climate change’, a team of scientists at Turku University in Finland determined that current climate models fail to take into account the effects of cloud coverage on global temperatures, causing them to overestimate the impact of human-generated greenhouse gasses.

Models used by official bodies such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) “cannot compute correctly the natural component included in the observed global temperature,” the study said, adding that “a strong negative feedback of the clouds is missing” in the models.

Adjusting for the cloud coverage factor and accounting for greenhouse gas emissions, the researchers found that mankind is simply not having much of an effect on the Earth’s temperature.

If we pay attention to the fact that only a small part of the increased CO2 concentration is anthropogenic, we have to recognize that the anthropogenic climate change does not exist in practice.

The study’s authors make a hard distinction between the type of model favored by climate scientists at the IPCC and genuine evidence, stating “We do not consider computational results as experimental evidence,” noting that the models often yield contradictory conclusions.

Given the evidence presented in the study, the Finnish team rounded out the paper by concluding “we have practically no anthropogenic climate change,” adding that “the low clouds control mainly the global temperature.”

The results sharply cut against claims put forward by many environmentalists, including US lawmakers such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who argue not only that climate change is an immediate threat to the planet, but that it is largely a man-made phenomenon. Ocasio-Cortez, better known as ‘AOC’, has proposed a ‘Green New Deal’ to address the supposedly dire threat.

Japanese researchers at the University of Kobe arrived at similar results as the Turku team, finding in a paper published in early July that cloud coverage may create an “umbrella effect” that could alter temperatures in ways not captured by current modeling.

[TonyGosling]

Is Climate Change a Prince Charles production

Prince Charles 'lobbied for climate policy change without disclosing offshore financial interest'
Prince's actions amount to ‘serious conflict of interest’, says former chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/prince-charles-paradis e-papers-latest-conflict-interest-offshore-finances-money-investment-a 8042736.html
Harry Cockburn
Tuesday 7 November 2017 18:15
94 comments

Click to follow
The Independent
Board members of a company the Prince of Wales invested in were reportedly sworn to secrecy over his involvement
Board members of a company the Prince of Wales invested in were reportedly sworn to secrecy over his involvement ( AP )
Prince Charles campaigned to alter climate change agreements without disclosing his estate’s financial interest in such a rule change, leaks from the Paradise Papers indicate.

In 2007, the Prince of Wales reportedly bought shares worth $113,500 (£83,600), in a Bermuda-based company run by one of his best friends, Hugh van Cutsem. That friend was also a director of Sustainable Forestry Management, the board of which invested invested in land to protect it from deforestation.

The purchase of the shares was regarded as highly sensitive, The Guardian reports, and members of Sustainable Forestry Management’s board were reportedly sworn to secrecy about the Prince’s involvement.

Read more

Lewis Hamilton's tax dodging revealed in Paradise Papers

Apple used Jersey for new tax haven, Paradise Papers reveal

Corbyn suggests Queen should apologise over offshore investments
The Prince of Wales has long been a vocal speaker on the issue of climate change. According to the BBC, he mounted a high profile campaign for changes to two major environmental agreements just weeks after Sustainable Forestry Management sent his office lobbying documents.

Four weeks after purchasing the shares, Prince Charles called for the Kyoto Protocol and the EU’s emissions trading system to recognise carbon credits from rainforests, saying it was “wrong”.

In October 2007, he launched the Prince’s Rainforest Project, which aimed to highlight the impact of tropical deforestation. And in January 2008 he released a video in which he called for new ways of supporting rainforests.

The BBC’s Panorama programme said it was unable to find any evidence of speeches made by the Prince about changing Kyoto, or EU ETS policy about rainforests, prior to purchasing the shares.

Sir Alistair Graham, former chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, said the Prince’s actions amounted to a “serious” conflict of interest.

Read more

Don’t let the focus on the Queen distract you from the bigger story
According to the BBC, he said: “There's a conflict of interest between his own investments of the Duchy of Cornwall, and what he’s trying to achieve publicly.

“And I think it’s unfortunate that somebody of his importance, of his influence, becomes involved in such a serious conflict.”

Labour MP Margaret Hodge said the revelations made clear the need for “proper transparency”.

She told The Guardian: “It seems clear to me that Prince Charles could not have known or understood the nature of the investment in his friend’s company,” she said.

“What is clear is that there should be proper transparency of all investments made by the Duchy of Cornwall, that the Prince of Wales should not be involved in investment decisions and that the Treasury should monitor the investments to ensure that the reputation and integrity of our royal family is protected.”




Prince Charles SHOCK: Carbon emissions DOUBLE in year - so much for Charles' green lecture
THE ROYAL FAMILY has released their financial reports for the year 2018 to 2019 and the carbon emissions from royal travel has doubled in a year, despite Prince Charles’ campaigning on climate change.
By GEORGINA LAUD
PUBLISHED: 09:03, Tue, Jun 25, 2019 | UPDATED: 09:15, Tue, Jun 25, 2019

https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1144938/prince-charles-shock-carb on-emissions-royal-family-climate-change-royal-finances-news


C02 emissions for the Royal Family have increased from 1,687 in 2018 to 3,344 in 2019 - despite a 24 percent decrease in energy usage at the palace. This is an increase of a staggering 98.22 percent. The emissions in question are from business travel and were calculated using the relevant carbon conversion factors from DEFRA.

RELATED ARTICLES

The real reason taxpayer paid £2.4m to fund Meghan and Harry's home

The devastating letter Queen Elizabeth wrote after Diana's death
Officials said it was a matter of regret but stressed increased foreign travel on behalf of the Government was responsible for the rise.

One official told the Daily Mail: “This is clearly linked to five major overseas visits rather than one the previous year.”

On the official document detailing the royal finances, a statement on environmental sustainability from Sir Michael Stevens, Keeper of the Privy Purse reads: “The Household will continue to work on improving energy efficiency, waste management, water use and other environmental impacts across the Estate.

“The Household will investigate opportunities with both existing and new suppliers to further improve our combined environmental performance; including for example reducing single-use food containers at catering outlets, to achieve improvements in both material use and waste generation.”

Read More: The Meghan Markle effect: Royal Family receives huge cash boost

Prince Charles SHOCK
Prince Charles SHOCK: The Prince of Wales is passionate about the environment and sustainability (Image: GETTY)
A spokesman for the Prince of Wales pointed out his emissions had risen by only two percent overall, despite his increased travel.

Prince Charles made 17 journeys costing £15,000 or more according to the royal finance report, travelling either by charter, royal train or helicopter.

Just this month Prince Charles warned it may be “too late” to save the planet from an impending environmental crisis.

The Prince of Wales added the increasing loss of biological diversity “terrifies” him and any changes are happening “too slowly”.

RELATED ARTICLES

Meghan Markle forces taxpayers to fork out £2.4m for home

Meghan Markle questioned over ring redesign by fans
Prince Charles SHOCK

Prince Charles SHOCK: Despite the increase, Charles' own usage has only gone up by 2 percent (Image: GETTY)
Speaking to The Daily Telegraph, the 70-year-old said: “We seem to have forgotten that everything in nature is interconnected, including ourselves.

“Unfortunately, the destruction is continuing at a rapid pace – chemicals of every description, artificial fertilisers and antibiotics are still being used in all kinds of ways, all of them entering the rivers and going out to sea where they’re causing untold damage to the marine environment, often without people knowing it.”

Whilst Charles acknowledged some of this can be resolved, he said it is “really difficult” to persuade people to adopt alternative ways of living to reduce their impact on the planet.

This came just days after the Prince met with US President Donald Trump, and according to the president Charles spoke at length on the topic.

Prince Charles SHOCK

Prince Charles SHOCK: Charles spoke with Mr Trump at length on climate change (Image: GETTY)
Speaking to Piers Morgan on Good Morning Britain, Mr Trump said he “totally listened to Charles and that “He wants to make sure future generations have climate that is good climate as opposed to a disaster, and I agree.”

He said of the meeting at Clarence House: “We had a 15-minute chat and it lasted an hour and a half and he did most of the talking.”

But when asked if he believed in climate change himself, Mr Trump replied dismissively: “I believe that there is a change in weather and I think it changes both ways.

“Don’t forget it used to be called global warming, that wasn’t working, then it’s climate change, now it’s extreme weather.”

[TonyGosling]

ZERO CARBON, 5G DENIAL AND GREEN-FASCISM
October 22, 2019
https://www.wakingtimes.com/2019/10/22/zero-carbon-5g-denial-and-green -fascism

Zero Carbon, 5G Denial and Green-Fascism

Julian Rose, Contributor - Waking Times

Why is it that the two words ‘Zero Carbon’ send a cool shiver down my spine? Is it the ‘zero’ or is it the ‘carbon’? Or is it particularly the combination of the two?

I wasn’t sure, until I looked-up ‘zero carbon’ within a scientific context addressing greenhouse gasses, and the answer that came back was this “If there were no greenhouse gasses the average temperature on Earth would be about -18 degrees celsius”. Now I know why the cool shiver passed down my spine.

The high-profile use of this zero carbon goal, particularly via Green New Deal proponents upping the pressure on governments to follow-through their commitments to the Paris climate change treaty, carries with it the overtones of a global crusade. And the missionary zeal behind global crusades is often drummed-up by people and institutions guided by dogma rather than by conscious and humanitarian instincts for a better world.




An exploration of the roots of the ambition to achieve ‘zero carbon’ reveals a direct link to ‘climate action’/’climate emergency’ measures promoted via Extinction Rebellion, advocates of a Green New Deal and the ‘sustainable development’ edicts of the United Nation’s Agenda 21 – now renamed Agenda 2030.

All of these ‘stop global warming’ institutions/movements are heavily backed by money derived from sources that have no record of following a transparently ‘green’ commitment within their own ethos or business practices.

Now this immediately raises the question: if the backers are not ethically in line with the supposed aims of those they are funding – could those that they are funding be influenced to adapt to the values of their backers? Might they be drawn into something quite contrary to the original ideal they set out to achieve?

Well, quite obviously the answer is yes, they could. And a quick review of the fate of such organisations as Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth shows that this is exactly what happened.

High ambitions of the sort embraced by Greenpeace, for example, led to it becoming embroiled in ‘the art of compromise’ for the sake of rapid growth and influence.

Very soon genuine green credentials become tainted by the influence of the corporate and/or political backers, whose funds come with the proviso to adhere to certain criteria and conditions in order for further funding to be guaranteed. It’s a trap a large number of ambitious NGO’s have fallen into and never recovered from.

The truth is that leading parties in green NGO organisations focused on a prize which conformed to the standard definition of neo-liberal globalisation ‘success’, rather than holding true to the founding principles of the organisations they were steering.

The green movement that jumped onto the band-wagon called ‘stop global warming’ has, however, got an even bigger problem to deal with, one which is far more devious than the familiar ‘art of compromise’ that has undone so many once well-intentioned movements.

This is the fact that ‘the problem’ it is addressing is an invention – not a reality. An invention pushed into prominence by the United Nation’s body called the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. A body with direct links to the most powerful grouping of corporate institutions on the planet with the addition of a coterie of multi millionaires determined to set the planet’s top-down ‘green’ agenda for the indefinite future.

An agenda that has little or nothing to do with the environment – and everything to do with the survival of the neo-liberal ‘big’ global economy, as admitted by Dr. Otmar Edenhofer, head of Working Group 3 of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

The actual causes of climactic change – and yes, it is happening – are to be found in a composite of man-made and natural events, ranging from HAARP’s gross interference via heating-up the ionosphere, atmospheric aerosol geoengineering (chemtrails), the residues of perpetual war, natural solar activity, the Pole shift, a weakening magnetosphere, intense electro smog and ozone depletion.

CO2 making only a tiny contribution.




Zero Carbon and the Extinction Event
The Centre for Alternative Technology (CAT) is an NGO based in West Wales. It started-out in the early 1970’s as a truly innovative ‘make something out of nothing’ alternative energy and ecological life style community. A small group of entrepreneurs settled an old slate quarry at Machynlleth on the edge of Snowdonia, and built around themselves a community devoted to self-sufficiency, especially in renewable energy, where home-made wind turbines and water wheels, mostly constructed from scrap metal, powered their makeshift homes and artisan enterprises. CAT was an inspiration for many early ecological enthusiasts, many of whom (including myself) had read EF Schumacher’s iconic book ‘Small Is Beautiful’ and wanted to put into practice the human scale wisdom expressed in its pages.

The CAT community increased throughout the 1980’s and 1990’s and more eco-friendly innovations were put in place that enabled the public to get their hands onto green solutions to everyday needs. Soon people came from all over the world to learn about renewable energy and the art of human scale ecologically sustainable living.

It wasn’t until around 2000 that most of the original pioneers retired from active involvement in CAT’s development and a new breed of entrepreneur took their place. With a focus ever more geared to education, large sums of money were raised to build a state of the art rammed earth eco-friendly education centre in which officially recognised state supported training courses were put in place that enabled budding practitioners to learn the skills necessary for a general ‘greening ‘ of the wider environment.

As the global warming/climate change concept rose up the political agenda, so CAT became more and more absorbed by the edicts of the CO2 obsessed IPCC. Seeing itself as a beacon of pragmatic light in a sea of theoretical dogma, CAT’s new leadership sought to take the helm, declaring that the various suggested time frames for reduction in warming to be achieved by ‘decarbonising’ the atmosphere, were all too long and too unambitious. There was an emergency, they declared, and (initially within the context of the UK) only a ‘zero carbon by 2030’ end game could save the day.

This message was presented to the public, to government officials and to industry, with scientific documentation to back it up. Suddenly CAT was the centre of a hugely controversial arena, pitching its Zero Carbon message in amongst the list of demands forming the basis of various international climate treaties of which the Paris accord is the most recent.

But how many stopped to ask the question: what exactly is ‘Zero Carbon’?

Do CAT and the other institutions holding high this flag want us to take it literally? Is it simply a strategic way of getting the climate change agenda speeded up? What actually is going on here?

Upon closer examination the entire package is riddled with holes. A kind of madness is built into the entire process, right from the original thesis that one variable – ‘CO2’ – a clear and odorless gas that constitutes just 0.0391% of the composition of the atmosphere, could, on its own, be responsible for dangerously warming the entire planet. This, even when this proportion may be rising due to the burning of fossil fuels.

Then the notion that we should all buckle down to bring this single element ‘carbon dioxide’ down to an even smaller percentage of global atmospheric gasses, by using carbon taxes and ‘cap and trade’ regulations to force less industrialised countries of the world to slow their fossil fuel dependent economies and hobble their infrastructural development. Isn’t this simply the old colonial rule dressed in new clothes? And these two issues are, of course, just the tip of the iceberg. The real story behind the push to promote ‘stop global warming’/’climate change’ involves the fostering of a scam whose scale and deviousness has surely set a new precedent in the art of deception.

Those, like me, who deeply believe in a progressive transformation of polluting fossil fuels into decentralised human scale renewable energy solutions, are being dramatically conned; even if CAT and other environmental NGO publications suggest otherwise.

Zero Carbon is the official call we are all being told to get behind, and it is the one taken up, directly or indirectly, by Extinction Rebellion, the Greta Thunberg school of youth indoctrination, the proponents of Green New Deal and the telecoms pushing forward a blanket 5G network.

Smelling big money, politicians are happy to go along with it too. Especially since Mark Carney, director of the Bank of England, announced that any businesses that do not conform to the zero carbon ‘green’ criteria will be blocked from access to new loans, while those that do can expect high financial rewards. Yes, all the big multinational/transnational corporations are being invited to the table and are running to get the best seats. It’s a heist.

A heist, led by ‘the green movement’ itself. What an irony! The supposedly anti neo-liberal globalist movement that was supposed to point the way to a decentralised, localised and human scale form of people power, taking sound ecological practices as the foundation for a world that would finally shift ‘the god of money’ off its throne to be replaced by the cultivation of respect for the laws of nature and a human scale economy operating ‘as if people mattered’.

When one takes a serious look at the scale of our current deviation from the path of truth, it swims before one’s eyes like a virtual reality dream (nightmare). The zero carbon world we are being exalted to adapt to, when viewed through this virtual google 3D head set, reveals scenes of a fenced-off brave new world of ‘rewilded’ landscapes on the one hand – and sterile 5G driven ‘smart cities’ on the other. All of it overseen by Amazon/Google ‘Cloud’ powered smart grids monitoring and controlling an ever more dystopian robotic world, increasingly resembling a totalitarian prison camp.

Ray Kurzwell would surely feel quite at home with the ushering-in of such artificial intelligence led systems finally achieving their place as the ‘new brain’; having successfully usurped the human one.

Zero Carbon suggests to me that the cyborg 5G smart city is the Agenda 2030 ‘sustainable development’ carbon free omega point towards which we are all being ushered at brake-neck speed. With Caroline Lucas, Greta Thunberg, Gail Bradbrook, Yanis Verufakis and others leading ‘the rebellion’ while holding high the flag of a Green-Fascist New World Order.

Eco-fascism has arrived on our doorstep and its appeal has become almost irresistible to those who combine a hyped-up fear of ‘the end of the world’ with belief in the rhetoric of bought-out climatologists, ambitious fake green con men (and women) and the political figurehead puppets of the deep state.


Zero carbon has taken the lead as ‘the solution’ to an anthropogenic global warming invention whose alarmist climate rhetoric was cunningly dreamed-up by the Club of Rome some thirty-five years ago, as the perfect means of controlling the people as well as the essential political agenda of planetary life, both economic and social. By cleverly giving carbon the lead role in an extinction narrative – in which it is caste as the chief villain – the perpetrators of the myth (United Nations plc) have grabbed the headlines – insisting that this harmless, essential component of nature (CO2) is the all-time baddie that must now be reduced to zero in order to save the planet. The Putin of the biosphere.

The sheer audacity of this lie is breathtaking. Think about it.. reduce nature’s natural capital, carbon dioxide, to zero and what do you have? An extinction event. The very ‘event’ that Extinction Rebellion is, on behalf of the United Nation’s Agenda 2030, blocking the streets of London, New York, Berlin et al. to demand action against. Thereby supporting a bunch of crooks, well versed in the art of deception, to enforce their master plan for absolute control combined with a significant reduction in the world population. “Carbon must be eliminated – therefore get rid of non carbon neutral humans.”

The unknowing would never associate fascism with environmentalism, would they. They would never guess that a fake green agenda could be the Trojan horse for the final take-over. Yet the fascist take-over that failed under Hitler and Mussolini, has crept steadily and stealthily forward under the dictatorship of the giant banking fiefdoms of the past half century – and it is precisely these institutions that are now falling in line to back a Green New Deal.

Green is the colour chosen for the final great deception and that which trees and plants convert into oxygen has been cast as the ‘demiurge’ which heroic styled NGO’s are riding out to do battle with. A battle to the death, no less.

We will not all be fooled all the time, even if a majority maintain an eyes wide shut disposition to the roll-out of such a toxic agenda. The wake-up is gathering momentum at an ever accelerating rate. An instinctual resistance to the 5G microwave crowd control weapon, coupled with a plethora of reports on its egregious health affects, is acting as a powerful vector to unite people across the globe, causing all of us to recognise that this is not just about one exceptionally cruel form of eco-genocide, but the pinnacling of an underlying fear – by humanity’s oppressors – of that which stands behind love, beauty, compassion and joy. Fear that takes the form of an aggressive suppression of these primary life instincts.

As the eminent social psychiatrist Dr Erich Fromm stated, it is The Fear of Freedom that we are witnessing in the diabolic attempts to shut-down the energetic evolution of the universal life force itself.

The tables are turning. The greater the downward pressure to conform to a dead-end, slavish and robotic existence, the greater the innate inner power of opposition rises up in resistance – in those who let it. A resistance sparked by outrage – and a defiant determination to act in defence of Life.

Onward, onward, dear friends, in the midst of the darkness more and more light is shining through!


About the Author
Julian Rose is an international activist, writer, organic farming pioneer and actor. In 1987 and 1998, he led a campaign that saved unpasteurised milk from being banned in the UK; and, with Jadwiga Lopata, a ‘Say No to GMO’ campaign in Poland which led to a national ban of GM seeds and plants in that country in 2006. Julian is currently campaigning to ‘Stop 5G’ WiFi. He is the author of two acclaimed titles: Changing Course for Life and In Defence of Life. His latest book Overcoming the Robotic Mind is now available from Amazon and Dixi Books. Julian is a long time exponent of yoga/meditation. See his web site for more information www.julianrose.info

[item8]

Climate Change Lies Exposed Jones & Co June 18, 2019

Link

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xKWtVMGW18

Alan Jones and Peta Credlin expose the lies being promoted by the by the IPCC. Former IPCC Chair for the Sea Level committee Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner opens up too Alan Jones and completely spills the beans on how the world is being lied to by the UN and the climate change activists. Solar activity is currently the key contributor to any climate variation. Copyright © Jones & Co, SkyNews, 2GB

[Whitehall_Bin_Men]

How Margaret Thatcher came to sound the climate alarm
https://theecologist.org/2018/aug/21/how-margaret-thatcher-came-sound- climate-alarm

Brendan Montague | 21st August 2018

Margaret Thatcher was the first world leader to put climate change at the top of the agenda. Lord Lawson, her chancellor then, is now a mouthpiece for climate denial. So how does he explain her political support for the scientific consensus? BRENDAN MONTAGUE investigates
Margaret Thatcher's contribution to the climate debate while British prime minister would cause her free market fellows considerable difficulty in the coming decades. They would spark speculation that the PM, in her prime, was 'taken in by environmentalists'.

Lord Lawson, then her chancellor, preferred to believe that Thatcher was engaged in a Machiavellian deception of the British public in order to justify her use of newly discovered North Sea gas to shut down most of the country's mining industry, with the loss of 100,000 jobs. But can this be true?

Sir Crispin Tickell went to the same school as Lawson, and both men then went on to Oxford, with Tickell eventually becoming a career diplomat. He is widely acknowledged as the man who persuaded Thatcher to adopt the climate cause, and was responsible for drafting much of her speech to the Royal Society.

The pioneering and brilliant Sir Crispin first heard of climate change during the Stockholm conference of scientists in 1972, and took a sabbatical from the civil service to study the subject at Harvard University.

He also happened to be among the advisors taken on an official visit to France with the Prime Minister shortly afterwards.

Washing dishes

During the short flight, one of Thatcher's aides indicated that she had a few spare minutes and would welcome any interesting suggestions for her contribution to the United Nations summit, to be held in London the following year.

Sir Crispin raised his hand and was taken to the front of the plane to brief the PM on his suggestion. Some weeks later, Sir Crispin found himself washing dishes with Thatcher after a meeting at the House of Commons.

“I took her through the whole story of climate change, how it worked, the importance of greenhouse gases, and what the temperature of the planet would be without them.” Thatcher said: “Alright, let's have a look into this.”

Sir Crispin told me: “She very much felt herself to be a scientist among non-scientists, and of course she certainly felt that, as a woman in a man-made world, she had to make her point.”

“People have attributed [her speech] to all kinds of manoeuvring to score advantage. But I think it was a much more genuine intellectual interest.”

Sir Crispin, who was 82 years old and as bright as a button when we met, remembered countering Lawson's scepticism even back then. The two men had known of each other since they both attended Westminster School as young boys.

“I remember an occasion with him and Jimmy Goldsmith; the three of us had a fight on the subject, but he was already dug in. The thing about Nigel is that he gets dug in on something and that means he can't get out again.”

Ignored majestically

He added: “He gradually got out of touch, out of tune, out of sync with Thatcher on quite a lot of issues...in the days when he was battling it out with Margaret Thatcher, he was ignored by her majestically.”

Thatcher met with the independent scientist, James Lovelock, in May 1984. Two years earlier, Lovelock had published his seminal book, Gaia: A New Look at Life on Earth, which introduced his controversial Gaia hypothesis, suggesting the earth was a single living organism.

He warned that climate change would ultimately mean that “most of the surface of the globe will change into desert. The survivors will gather around the Arctic. But there won't be enough room for everybody, so there will be wars raging populations, warlords.”

Lovelock later became patron of the Supporters of Nuclear Energy (SONE). The industry group was set up by Sir Bernard Ingham, Thatcher's friend and press secretary before becoming a lobbyist for British Nuclear Fuels (BNFL).

Lovelock's meeting would later resurface as evidence that she simply used climate change to promote her nuclear agenda.

Another significant influence on Thatcher's attitude towards the relationship between science and industry was Lord Rothschild, the one-time member of the MI5 anti-sabotage unit and then research director of Royal Dutch Shell Group.

Edward Health had hired him in February 1971 as part of the Central Policy Review Staff which was a think tank at the heart of government.

A financial motive

Prime Minister Heath had called the young Thatcher, then education minister, to his office at 10 Downing Street the following April to discuss the governmental funding of science.

Thatcher began the meeting defending the scientific community. “It was felt that the system was now working better than it had ever worked before”, an official noted her saying.

Her “main concern” was “to ensure that no change was made against the wishes of the scientists without having been consulted”. By the end of the meeting, the education secretary had reversed her position.

She agreed that funding would no longer support projects of general interest, but would be granted only when there was a demonstrable benefit to the industry.

This was a fundamental change in policy, agreed in private and without the consultation of scientists.

Jon Agar, publishing with the Royal Society, would state that: “Thatcher had changed her mind. She now embraced the relevance of the market in shaping key areas of government science, and had already moved into 'tactical' considerations of how to sell the conclusion. The lady had turned.” [PDF]

He added: “Science [was for Thatcher] even more of a test case for her developing views on economic liberalism. If markets could work for science policy, they could work anywhere.”

The man from Shell and MI5 had persuaded Thatcher that science, as with everything else, must have a financial motive.

But there is an even more curious and controversial version of events about Thatcher's road to Damascus…

This Article

Brendan Montague is editor of The Ecologist, founder of Request Initiative and co-author of Impact of Market Forces on Addictive Substances and Behaviours: The web of influence of addictive industries (Oxford University Press). He tweets at @EcoMontague. This article first appeared at Desmog.uk.


Tags
Fakenomics Margaret Thatcher climate debate North sea gas United Nations summit Sir Crispin Tickell