Neo-Climate Capitalism

An environmental research essay that identifies the hidden facts five years ago.  Now the smoke has cleared you're left pondering whether any of this prose is relevant.

'By the late tenth to twelfth centuries the world evidently had been enjoying a renewal of warmth, which at times during those centuries may have approached the level of the warmest millennia of post-glacial times.' Prof: H. H Lamb, (Climate, History and the Modern World) 1982.

Acronyms explained:

‘AGW’ – Anthropogenic Global Warming

‘CRU’ - Climate Research Unit

‘GHG’ - Green House Gas

‘IPCC’ - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

‘MWP’ - Medieval Warming Period

‘WWF’ – World Wide Fund for nature

Climate Change is a nomenclature for all that is affiliated to the climate and more, weirdly enough... our existence. You'd thought climate and existence shouldn't be marinated together in such a kung ho disorientation, I say this in the knowledge that the homo-sapien has survived for 5 million years in which time seismic Climate Change (s) have taken place. The Industrial Age wasn't the reason and it'll surprise Warmists that nature's ecologist data is in sync with weather patterns of today. Nature doesn't spring up differing climate patterns at a whim, so why call it 'Change?'

Politicians should be at the COP21/CMP11 but Oceanologists; purely to discuss with clarity the next stage. I'm more concerned with political whims than I am with actual 'Climate Change' - this is not a carefree comment at all, because I trust our planet's eco-system more than human intervention. This planet has the system and correct components for life and forever will do - hence, why political discourse of dictatorial policy infringes on all our liberties is treated with disdain by yours truly. To believe it is man-made; begs the question where did we get our resources and energy from initially? Fuel isn't alien to our planet in the first place, so being informed to reduce carbon can only be deemed a 'New World Order.' Believing in the man-made propaganda is condemning future generations of the freedoms our forefathers had; not only is it grossly unfair, it is immoral and abhorrent. No authority has the right to devise these forms of 'system thinkings' and impose them onto a populous, especially as it is derived from ambiguous data that has more holes in it than 'Steptoe's' string vest.

I'm not usually stunned by opinion regardless of how delusional the foundation of it is, but even the hardened polemist may wince at the vehement aimed at global warming skeptics / deniers. Debate is a wonderful thing if it is about interpretations surrounding water tight credible data; I crave for hard evidence - herewith, while seeking it the waters become murky and the rhetoric shifts onwards to comparisons you'll never dream of... A war veteran's letter illustrates this point with bells on. "Propaganda by global-warming skeptics and deniers remind me of 1944, when as an Army officer I saw living skeletons in striped pajamas. Horror stories about Nazi concentration camps suddenly rang true. I wondered how intelligent people could commit such atrocities. History records the effectiveness of Joseph Goebbells's propaganda. I hope Al Gore and others can prevail over today's anti-science propaganda."  The years may've drained away at logical and comparative thinking here; albeit, it is exactly the tact political minds endeavour and adopt in to impose this propaganda, when credible data and reasoning is asked / demanded of, to make vital decisions. The bellicose tend to adopt an invalid stance / comparative to elevate their disillusions.

Avid Warmists are no different. For a start one of the worse things you can do is go to a government led / financed website to get answers. Why? Because it is like asking parliamentarians to vote for their own pay rises; the result would be disproportionate, whether or not a pay rise was deserved is beside the point. Remember, Warmists have an agenda, skeptics or how Warmists like to label them as... 'Deniers' do not. The term: 'deniers' means to disbelieve so-called 'harsh realities', in other words the blatant obvious. Odd because 'AGW' isn't a harsh reality at all, if you go below the surface, which is advisable if you seek the truth? Worth noting that the BBC is stubbornly an unreliable source in regards to 'AGW' purely on the simple factor the corporation is funded by the governance.

I must admit, I sniggered at the 'we mean business' heading on the December 12th 2015 itinerary - the severity of the heading didn't match the dialogue and in fact I found the stance overall of this 'New World Order' provocatively capitalistic; peculiar really because the so-called global agenda in fact is anti-business to the layman. Let me explain, you may have heard of phrases such as... 'turn off your lights, be more efficient / green, choose energy efficient gadgets, don't use the tumble-dryer if it's sunny.' all this sounds anti-capitalism on the surface, until you read the small print, no ifs or buts... the 'New World Order' claims 'you'll have to pay more for green-efficiency,' whatever that entails - the cost is... 16.5 trillion dollars, it is an estimate that's miraculously metamorphoses from the COP21/CMP11. This is post-capitalism of the tyranny kind from the 'New World Order' - and yet it is an impossibility to know if it would curb 'GHGs' and carbon-emissions. The more I delve into the stratagems of the Warmists, the closer I get in stumbling over the truth.

You could announce with assurance that humanity will destroy itself without any help. Why isn't 190 plus nations signing agreements about securing our futures from ourselves? It sounds absurd, granted, alas it says more about the 'New World Order' than it will ever admit to. My view is, this new dawning of post-capitalism is getting incredibly H G Wells orientated - reference: (Time Machine). Whereby 'good' and 'evil' is somehow entwined and the 'in-betweens' are living in such a structured mindset, reality is incompatible - this is exactly what scientists / Warmists want. The concept of 'MWP' doesn't apply or comply, and the majority doesn’t even acknowledge its proof that global warming isn't 'AGW' orientated. All part of humanity, I suppose, our inadequacies to accept credible data / proof is to a polemist incredibly damaging especially when it infringes on all our liberties. Warmists are incapable of relaying global warming details duly of the self-claimed denomination the detailing is far too complex for our ears and brains to absorb in its entirety - simplifying facts takes too much brainpower, apparently.

Why then give Warmists a free reign to manoeuvre in media circles to spread their intrusive propaganda, if their so-called evidence of 'AGW' is airtight? Yes, it is nonsensical; you don't need to be a contrarian, politician or a scientist to decipher this out. I don't usually write to stipulate unhinged data / opinions without prior knowledge of getting to that particular opinion, why I disagree profoundly with how we're approaching global warming and how the media has tackled it. Not getting an end result in regards to timeframe / eco-orientated business infrastructure, technologies and finance during the COP21/CMP11 is a huge failure - albeit, expected. Obviously the urgent apocalyptic meetings therefore aren't so urgent. Are you still buying into this fiasco? I'll be surprised if you still believe in 'AGW' after reading about misplaced emails from scientists arrived in an in-tray waiting to be discovered; they were published - blatantly pushing the mantra for 'AGW.' Politics presiding and ruling over data, it's so prevalent, we're desensitized to it, a good time to reform human rights, I would say.  

One of the emails claimed from the EACRU to have private doubts about whether the world is really heating up. "The fact that we can't account for the lack of warming so far is a travesty. The CERES data published in August supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming; but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate."     Did you understand that? Yes, thought so... scientists in East Anglia don't always use scientific jargon. Naturally, if scientists don't like the evidence conducted by their models, they're prone to manipulation to get the results they desire -next, an email to 'suppress the evidence.' "Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?"  Furthermore, the quest without heed to openly mislead the public in regards to 'AGW' carries gravitas. "I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K rather than the usual 1K addresses a good earlier point that Peck made - that would be nice to try to 'contain' the putative 'MWP', claiming that we don't have a hemispheric mean reconstruction that far back."  

Condemning data also unveils proof that certain scientists were ousted out of the 'peer review' process, The 'peer review' is a mark of authority; namely, credible scientific scholars submitting their lifes' works. Any scientist who claimed that global warming was not 'AGW' was automatically written off as absurd; inadvertently ruining scientific careers in the meantime, why the 'credible' scientist consensus by 2015 are now obviously Warmists. Again, best not to come to a decision on global warming purely based on the scientific consensus - even way back in 1999 Keith Briffa had thermo-data concerns which altogether counter the alarmist argument, so he relayed a pathway to bring in a 'temperature substitute.' "I know there is pressure to present a nice tidy story as regards 'apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data' but in reality the situation is not quite so simple. We don't have a lot of proxies that come right up to date and those that do (at least a significant amount of tree proxies). There are some unexpected changes in response that do not match the recent warming. I do not think it wise that this issue be ignored in the chapter." Briffa (a paleoclimatologist) openly signals huge deviations in tree (ring) data that conflicts the mantra of the Warmist - hence, their ideology, 'is not about the science or evidence.'

For those who convey amiably that having a lo-carbon existence does no harm, then read on... it's extortionately expensive for consumers, and also lucrative and propaganda muscle for corporations. At this point I'm going to refer to the costs surrounding the Climate Change Science Program and the Climate Change Technology Program which is the West's work in progress answer to 'Climate Change.' Marred in ambiguities, Britain has since Margaret Thatcher (1989) has spent over 100 ($) billion on green projects by which none of them have a clear cut end product - five times more than the 'Manhattan Project.' And yes it continues... Warmists are still ploughing on about 'AGW' for two generations. You could claim that they doth complain too much, usually when arguments drag on endlessly you find a trail of deceit in a bid to secure one viewpoint, (if you throw enough excrement at the fan some of it may stick); the global warming debacle is no different. Despite any number scientific rebuttals to all the scaremongering, plankton / coral benefits from increasing CO2 and warm temperatures, meaning that the alarmists have zero knowledge of ocean acidifications.

Rising sea levels just erodes landmass quicker, better sea defences solve this. Why are there no government departments / budgets for credible sea defences in the UK?  In 1992,  Adam Markham who is from the WWF (Australia) sent a compelling comment to Mike Hulme a climate scientist from the University of East Anglia in response to Hulme's evidence. "They are worried that this may present a slightly more conservative approach to the risks than they're hearing in (Australia). In particular, they would like to see the section of variability and extreme events beefed up... if possible?"  Again, the evidence is seen as a conflict of interest, Worse still the public is fed directly from the press releases from green activism. Hardly balanced is it! BBC Environmental Correspondent Alex Kirby in 2004 actually relays his boisterous mood on the subject on how he spiked the sceptics. 'Being the BBC it is expected that we allow them to say something. I hope through that the weight of our coverage makes it clear that we think they're (sceptics) are talking through their hats.'

Much of this systematic pandemonium derived from a ‘Royal Society’ speech in late 1988, whereby a very famous scientist spoke to a room full of fishermen - her name was Margaret Thatcher. “It is possible that with all these enormous changes i.e. population, agriculture and fossil fuels concentrated to such a short time-span, we have unwittingly begun a massive experiment with the system of the planet itself.”  Naturally these words were music to the ears of the alarmists and neo-capitalists alike; twenty seven years on… the same apocalyptic messages are daily coming in accompanied with images of an impoverished child, a polar bear on a floating iceberg. And I ask myself, ‘good grief, if I was there I’ll rescue that child, and that polar bear, they can have my hotel suite and my private plane.’ And yet daily, millions believe it; have become messengers / new recruits of the New World Order for preaching ‘AGW.’