Is the 'manmade' climate crisis a scam..?

How a Facebook spat exposes the weakness of the NetZero cult.

Unless you’re an Eskimo or Russian, winter is a difficult period for most people. Even the sun is low, scraping the horizon from east to west with little resolve. In the UK winter is spent trussed up like a turkey in twenty layers of clothing while stuck on trains heated to slow cook temperatures. It’s easy to see why bears choose to sleep through it; or at least avoid trains. Winter confirms why it’s a colder planet, not a warmer one, that poses a greater risk to mankind. Roughly twice as many people die of cold each year than heat (CDC National Centre for Health Statistics). This is rather awkward for the Net Zero hysterics singing the climate crisis hymn while sticking fingers in their ears at their increasingly erroneous modelling. The answer to the question ‘climate crisis or climate scam?’ depends generally upon whether the respondent has been a delegate at the WEF or COP, or not. 

Yes, COP, the Conference of the Parties (COP), the supreme decision-making body of the UNFCCC. Conference of the Parties sounds alarmingly like the Confederacy of dunces, which is probably why they’ve buried it beneath a word and letters scrapheap. Adding to that, it’s important to clarify that UNFCCC is the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.

These unmemorable, incomprehensible abbreviations seem almost deliberate. The end of 2023 marked COP28, the 28^th well-publicised, yet murky, international back-patting jolly at which private jets belonging to people you’ve mostly never heard of, dictate how we should live. Their wishes are generally characterised by demanding that we don’t travel by air due to CO2 emissions. While they all jostled for room on the crowded airstrip in Dubai, I posted this on Facebook: 

I see it's COP28 when all the alarmist globalist politicians fly in on private jets to meet behind closed doors with unelected billionaires and other self-appointed rulers over us, to discuss how we can pay more money to solve a man-made climate crisis that doesn't exist.

COP28 had an early success by having the biggest carbon footprint in the history of the annual climate summit. This year’s soiree of private jets flying very high-level people to press earpieces importantly into their ears for a week coincided with the usual tie-in of mainstream media propaganda; this time the shrill ‘climate emergency season’ on Channel 4 that makes Eurovision seem an oasis of tranquillity and reason. It’s unclear if the expertise of a Grand Designs host, a cook and a shop window dresser, (AKA Kevin Mc (i) Cloud, Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall and Mary Portas) will convince people to give up their way of life in favour of unreliable renewable energy sources and hot water bottles, but they have successfully echoed the old nursery rhyme Rub-a-dub-dub,
Three men in a tub,
And who do you think they be?
The butcher, the baker, the candlestick maker,
And all of them out to sea. 

These deep-thinking TV presenters, high on their abilities to read pre-written scripts to camera, spoke with the shallow authority of primary school teachers on the cost benefits of wind power, without for a moment asking their puppeteers what happens when it isn’t windy. It doesn’t matter how cheap magic beans are if they can’t grow a beanstalk. You can build over fertile farmland and desecrate beautiful horizons with endless wind farms, but you can’t create actual wind. 

Obviously, it’s not the debut for mainstream media serving as a megaphone for the climate crisis cult. Professor Norman Fenton, the risk and mathematics expert, also had his own run-in with the BBC on a documentary called Climate Change by Numbers. The producer of the programme even made clear before filming that the BBC no longer allowed any sceptical commentary on climate change as it deemed the ‘science was settled’.

Settled science would mean a planet balanced upon the backs of turtles, Phenology departments in hospitals, and that an Alzheimer’s drug looking promising in mice will positively impact humans, when most drugs that work in mice fail in mankind. Scientific research is a self-correcting process, the ignorance of which on the part of the BBC, C4 and these supranational bodies dictating to us, exposes the fake, pseudoscience being used by well-funded elites to promote their collectivist Net Zero agenda.

And it’s the contradiction in their agenda that provokes concern. The planet is warming - as it often does of its own accord, in this case as we emerge from the mini medieval ice age - which the alarmists claim will cause high levels of fatalities, yet successfully reaching Net Zero, in which no dependable energy is available will mean people dying from the cold, or at least dying of boredom waiting for electrified train lines to start working. The most glaring fact that undermines the calamity Janes is global annual deaths from natural disasters have been in decline since the 1920s.

So, my Facebook post pulled out a friend who works at (bear with me), the Cambridge Institute for Sustainability Leadership (CISL) · Governance for a Sustainable Future. Yes, trying playing job-title charades with that. She clearly disagreed that man-made climate crisis doesn't exist and sent me a number of article links. I thanked her for the resources that mostly appeared to have been written by someone who had swallowed a thesaurus; it was word salad Tourette’s. One line that was readable stated that ‘progress towards delivering the goals set out in the landmark 2015 Paris Accord is not as fast as the planet and its eight billion people urgently need.’ It’s unclear why 8 billion people need to be directed back to the Stone Age by self-appointed elders working for unpronounceable acronym organisations with mysteriously huge funding, but I’m sure the website explained it if you could survive a page without developing a headache.  

If Co2 emissions were driving global warming I asked her two questions - 1) How much Co2 is emitted by mankind? And how much by natural phenomena such as solar cycles and oceanic degassing? 2) What is wrong with CO2?

After a two-day delay, she sent me several articles from the UN, and by a Sir David King who apparently spoke at their pre-COP event. He's apparently had an extraordinary career, as is mostly guaranteed if you’re snout-deep in the establishment, and she assured me is ‘an amazing negotiator and motivator’, most significantly one assumes in securing his salary. A quick google found that Sir David was chief scientific adviser to both Blair and Brown, was the UK’s climate envoy, 2013-2017, and is also a member of the WEF. He’s fully signed up supporter of Agenda 2030, and believes that we are going to have to live with covid booster jabs. Asking his opinion on the existence of manmade climate change is like asking a traffic warden if there should be more double-yellow lines. Instead of directly answering my Facebook questions, she avoided answering them, instead directing me to the UN site to back up her argument. It was like quoting notes from a defence Attorney as impartial.  

In reply to my comment that there are plenty of scientists who disagree with manmade climate change, she said that she’d like to see the research, as ‘the only ones I've found appear to be funded by the oil and gas companies, so I'm not entirely convinced of their impartiality’. This is someone with no idea of the existence of the World Climate Declaration supporting there is no climate emergency, and signed by eminent scientists and Nobel prize winners, none of whom are connected to the oil industry. The Net Zero cult see themselves as ‘clean’ as the technology they support yet are perhaps not as ineffective. Their message has already seeped through the fabric of our society like raising damp, with even holiday rentals claiming to have assisted in ‘saving the planet’ by not needlessly washing your towel.

She then stated that CO2 is responsible the rise in temperature. Upon asking her thoughts on the Royal Society recently finding that CO2 rising ahead of planetary temperature cannot be scientifically supported since it is clearly shown that temperature precedes CO2 by six or more months i.e. Co2 does not drive rising temperatures, but follows it, she had no answer. She was probably nursing a headache from wondering why her beloved Sir David King had neglected to mention this rather good news that should be leading every newspaper article, if the doom merchant news was not interested in only lowering people’s positivity and sense of agency. 

She is likely to be unaware of Climate Now funded by billionaire green philanthropists - the purpose of which his to infiltrate media sources with support of Net Zero and Agenda 2030. It feeds over 500 media outlets with ready-to-publish climate disaster material. For anyone having survived reading the Guardian without dousing themselves in non-oil based flammable liquid, will attest, it even declares that ‘you can’t do better than the Guardian,’ for ramping up climate hysteria. We now even have Marco Silva, a BBC ‘misinformation reporter’ taking a six-month sabbatical to be spoon-fed the collectivist Net Zero project by (OCJN), a green activist operation funded by green billionaire foundations. Helpfully, David King even looks like a Guardian reader.

The mainstream media are entirely captured by this simplistic, self-serving and unquestioning point of view. The Times, in a speculative feature of what to look forward to in 2024, includes the predicable maligning of Trump, alongside other cultural landmarks such as an upcoming TV show on Christian Dior. It also has their Environment Editor Adam Vaughan declaring ‘Earth looks like it could be 1.5c warmer than before the industrial era.’ (The italics are the work of an optimist, rather than Adam, who is as obsessed with turbulent wildfire seasons as the arsonists who start many of them). For Adam the earth evidently hasn’t existed for 3 billion years before the pre-industrial period. The briefest internet search would find the Holocene period for example as 2.5–3.5 °C above modern levels. It’s almost as if Adam wants to be doom mongering so he can sound important. As geologist, Professor Ian Plimer, states, the question of whether the planet is warming or not depends on when you start measuring.

A closer look at Adam’s profile reveals he worked at the Guardian for eight years, has interviewed world leaders and David Attenborough, presumably with the level of critique associated with screaming Elvis fans. His attendance at major UN climate summits suggests you can expect the sort of impartiality of a writer reviewing their own book. These are the people who regurgitate the manmade climate change argument, bedevilling us, on behalf of those who wish upon us the undoing of the very tenets of modern civilisation that has made life comfortable and reliable. Other than the committed nuclear energy, depending upon renewables is like sharing the bed with an on-call prostitute; you can never be sure if she’ll be there. 

All these people are presented as beacons of impartiality, while spouting ‘settled science’ like a parrot in a BBC Dr Who climate crisis episode development meeting. Most worryingly is that senior climate ‘experts’ are demanding an overhaul of UN powers so that scientists should be able to call for fossil fuel cuts and phaseouts. That’s their scientists, who aren’t even politicians that no one voted for, but people with fiercely held beliefs who don’t have to face the consequences of their policies from freezing voters. They’re demanding we switch from cheaply and efficiently heating our homes currently with natural gas, to ineffectively electrifying the heating of buildings, causing a huge surge in electricity demand.

With such relentless propaganda from grant-dependent academics and agenda-driven corporate media journalists to generate the widely accepted narrative that The science is ‘settled’ it’s little wonder that my Facebook friend fails to even entertain any doubt. She’s so marinated in Agenda 2030 backing literature that Nobel prize winner Dr. John Clauser, or atmospheric physicist Richard Lindzen supporting the World Climate Declaration are somehow captured by oil companies. I’m sure she’d claim I was equally partisan, but there’s as much, if not more money now to be made in so-called renewables than there is in oil, which suggests the ‘Green’ industry can be accused equally of similar financial motivation. Many climate change scientists receive government funding, so complying with governmental policy position that manmade climate change is an existential threat ensures they are more likely to receive more grant monies. It’s time these ‘experts’ are more thoroughly examined as to their motivations behind their pursuit of unravelling western civilisation.

My book on writing - Idle Thoughts of an Idle Writer - is available at Amazon

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Idle-Thoughts-Writer-Reflections-creative/dp/B09157XCCG/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1697876270&sr=8-2