Environmentalism: gravy trains, lies, hidden agendas and alarms such as 5G and gsms.

Scroll down to read the most recent articles; links to previous articles follow.

The Sun “Has Gone Into Lockdown”

The Sun Has Gone Into Lockdown  By Michael Snyder, 19 May 2020

The Sun “Has Gone Into Lockdown”, And This Strange Behavior Could Worsen Global Food Shortages

At a time when the world is already being hit with major crisis after major crisis, our sun is behaving in ways that we have never seen before.  For as long as records have been kept, the sun has never been quieter than it has been in 2019 and 2020, and as you will see below we are being warned that we have now entered “a very deep solar minimum”.  Unfortunately, other very deep solar minimums throughout history have corresponded with brutally cold temperatures and horrific global famines, and of course this new solar minimum comes at a time when the United Nations is already warning that we are on the verge of “biblical” famines around the world.  So we better hope that the sun wakes up soon, because the alternative is almost too horrifying to talk about.

Without the sun, life on Earth could not exist, and so the fact that it is behaving so weirdly right now should be big news.

Sadly, most mainstream news outlets are largely ignoring this story, but at least a few are covering it.  The following comes from Forbes

While we on Earth suffer from coronavirus, our star—the Sun—is having a lockdown all of its ownSpaceweather.com reports that already there have been 100 days in 2020 when our Sun has displayed zero sunspots.

That makes 2020 the second consecutive year of a record-setting low number of sunspots— which you can see (a complete absence of) here.

And here is what the New York Post is saying…

Our sun has gone into lockdown, which could cause freezing weather, earthquakes and famine, scientists say.

The sun is currently in a period of “solar minimum,” meaning activity on its surface has fallen dramatically.

Experts believe we are about to enter the deepest period of sunshine “recession” ever recorded as sunspots have virtually disappeared.

Yes, covering COVID-19 is important, but the fact that scientists are warning that we are potentially facing “freezing weather, earthquakes and famine” should be deeply alarming for all of us.

And since the mainstream media has been largely silent on this crisis, most Americans don’t even know that it exists.

Last year, there were no sunspots at all 77 percent of the time, and so far this year there have been no sunspots at all 76 percent of the time

“This is a sign that solar minimum is underway,” reads SpaceWeather.com. “So far this year, the Sun has been blank 76% of the time, a rate surpassed only once before in the Space Age. Last year, 2019, the Sun was blank 77% of the time. Two consecutive years of record-setting spotlessness adds up to a very deep solar minimum, indeed.”

So why is this such a big deal?

Well, every once in a while a very deep solar minimum that lasts for several decades comes along, and when our planet has experienced such periods in the past the consequences have been quite dramatic.

For example, the New York Post is claiming that NASA scientists fear that we could potentially be facing “a repeat of the Dalton Minimum”…

NASA scientists fear it could be a repeat of the Dalton Minimum, which happened between 1790 and 1830 — leading to periods of brutal cold, crop loss, famine and powerful volcanic eruptions.

Temperatures plummeted by up to 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) over 20 years, devastating the world’s food production.

Even worse would be a repeat of the Maunder Minimum which stretched from 1645 to 1715.  It came as the globe was already in the midst of “the Little Ice Age”, and it caused harvest failures and famines all over the globe

The Maunder Minimum is the most famous cold period of the Little Ice Age. Temperatures plummeted in Europe (Figs. 14.3–14.7), the growing season became shorter by more than a month, the number of snowy days increased from a few to 20–30, the ground froze to several feet, alpine glaciers advanced all over the world, glaciers in the Swiss Alps encroached on farms and buried villages, tree-lines in the Alps dropped, sea ports were blocked by sea ice that surrounded Iceland and Holland for about 20 miles, wine grape harvests diminished, and cereal grain harvests failed, leading to mass famines (Fagan, 2007). The Thames River and canals and rivers of the Netherlands froze over during the winter (Fig. 14.3). The population of Iceland decreased by about half. In parts of China, warm-weather crops that had been grown for centuries were abandoned. In North America, early European settlers experienced exceptionally severe winters.

Of course this would be an exceptionally bad time for such a cataclysmic climate shift, because African Swine Fever has already wiped out approximately one-fourth of all the pigs in the world, colossal armies of locusts the size of major cities are systematically wiping out crops across much of Africa, the Middle East and Asia, and fear of COVID-19 is greatly disrupting global food supply chains.

In fact, it is being reported that widespread shutdowns of meat processing facilities in the United States may force farmers to euthanize “as many as 10 million hogs by September”

U.S. pork farmers may be forced to euthanize as many as 10 million hogs by September as a result of production-plant shutdowns brought on by the coronavirus pandemic, according to the National Pork Producers Council.

At least 14,000 reported positive COVID-19 cases have been connected to meatpacking facilities in at least 181 plants in 31 states as of May 13, and at least 54 meatpacking facility workers have died of the virus at 30 plants in 18 states, according to an investigation by the Midwest Center for Investigative reporting.

Even if the sun suddenly started acting perfectly normal once again, we would still be facing what the UN is calling “the worst humanitarian crisis since World War Two”.

Global food supplies are getting tighter with each passing day, and many are warning that some areas of the globe will soon be dealing with severe food shortages.

What we really need are a few years of really good growing weather, but the behaviour of the sun may not make that possible.

So let’s keep a very close eye on the giant ball of fire that we are revolving around, because if it remains very quiet that could mean big trouble for all of us.

====================

Switzerland’s environmental agency announces national moratorium on 5G

Switzerland’s environmental agency announces national moratorium on 5G  By Michael Alexander, Natural News, 20 February 2020

Telecommunications companies will not be rolling out 5G towers in several Swiss cantons or regions after the Swiss Federal Office for the Environment or Das Bundesamt für Umwelt (Bafu) placed an indefinite moratorium on the network’s use over potential health concerns.

In its moratorium, Bafu said it cannot yet provide universal criteria without further testing of the impact of 5G radiation on human health.

According to the agency, the moratorium will stay in place as they examine and monitor extensively the effects of 5G exposure through adaptive antennas in “real-world operational conditions,” adding that “this work will take some time”.

International newspaper The Financial Times first broke the story.

However, according to a statement sent by a representative to Mobile World Live, Bafu said that these letters did not contain any recommendation to stop the permitting of 5G base stations, but rather, only sets out how the country’s cantons can proceed with the permitting of 5G and adaptive antennas until enforcement aid on the structures is available.

In the same statement, the Bafu representative noted that several cantons and municipalities had already imposed moratoria on 5G, but added that these do “not affect Switzerland in general”.

Among the cantons that voluntarily imposed moratoria on 5G towers because of uncertainty over health risks are Geneva, Vaud, Jura and Neuchâtel.

The apprehension regarding the new 5G communication technology — which proponents say will eventually be used to support everything from driverless cars to even virtual reality — stems from the fact that individuals will be exposed to more concentrated radiation beams.

Swisscom, the country’s largest mobile operator, maintains that while it understands “the fears often expressed about new technologies,” there is no evidence that 5G radiation affects human health.

Despite Swisscom’s statement, however, the Swiss Medical Association still advised caution on 5G, noting that there are still unanswered questions regarding the technology’s potential to cause damage.

Medical journal The Lancet has published a report questioning the validity of current safety standards, which are based on the guidelines of the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection and Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers first established in the 1990s. As noted in the Lancet report, these standards assume that only the acute thermal effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation are hazardous.

In her report, however, author Priyanka Bandara points to research suggesting the damage goes beyond these thermal effects, noting that radiation might alter human brain metabolism, electrical activity in the brain and immune responses. Bandara, in the Lancet report, also added that chronic exposure has been associated with increased oxidative stress and DNA damage and cancer risk.

Additionally, Bandara said, there appears to be evidence for an association between neurodevelopmental or behavioral disorders in children and exposure to wireless devices. Prenatal exposure might cause structural and functional changes in the brain associated with ADHD-like behavior.

Similarly, a group of scientists and researchers has also aired concern over the impending global rollout of 5G, noting that electromagnetic fields or EMF have well-documented negative effects on the not just on the human body, but also the environment. (Related: 5G Danger: Hundreds of respected scientists sound the alarm about health effects as 5G networks go up nationwide)

“Numerous recent scientific publications have shown that EMF affects living organisms at levels well below most international and national guidelines. Effects include increased cancer risk, cellular stress, increase in harmful free radicals, genetic damages, structural and functional changes of the reproductive system, learning and memory deficits, neurological disorders, and negative impacts on general well-being in humans. Damage goes well beyond the human race, as there is growing evidence of harmful effects to both plant and animal life,” the group, led by Elizabeth Kelley of Electromagnetic Safety Alliance Inc., said.

Aside from the recently imposed moratorium, there are currently five proposals for legally binding referendums on 5G use that are in motion in Switzerland. Two of these have already been formalized and now only need to collect 100,000 signatures in order to get onto the official ballot.

The first of the two proposals aims to make telecommunications companies legally liable for any subsequent claims of damage caused by radiation, while the second one proposes strict and stringent limits on radiation emissions, as well as gives local residents the power to veto new antenna and mast constructions in their respective areas.

Sources include:

WakingTimes.com

MobileWorldLive.com

LiveScience.com

TheLancet.com

ScientificAmerican.com

====================

I Survived Communism. Now, It’s Back, Veiled as ‘Environmentalism’

I Survived Communism. Now, It’s Back, Veiled as ‘Environmentalism’  By Zuzana Janosova-Den Boer, 11 February 2020

“It was scientifically proven that communism is the only social-economic system providing the masses with justice and equality—100 percent of scientists agree on this. The topic is not up for debate!”

So proclaimed my professor during one of his lectures on the subject of “scientific communism” while the former country of Czechoslovakia was still under communist control. I was reminded of his blustery pronouncement the first time I encountered the spurious claim that “a consensus of 97 percent of scientists agree global warming is man-made.” Most people don’t question scientific statements because they think they are facts. They do not understand that scientific statements must always be challenged, because science is not about “consensus;” ideology is.

In March 2007, the WorldNetDaily.com published an article titled “Environmentalism is new communism.” In it, the former Czech president Vaclav Klaus stated: “It becomes evident that, while discussing climate, we are not witnessing a clash of views about the environment, but a clash of views about human freedom.” Klaus goes on to describe environmentalism as “the biggest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity.”

Klaus has also written a book, Blue Planet in Green Shackles, in which he writes, “Communism and environmentalism have the same roots; they both suppress freedom.” Klaus warns that any brand of environmentalism calling for centralized planning of the economy under the slogan of “protecting nature” is nothing less than a reincarnation of communism, or new communism.

Klaus understands communist propaganda very well, and he should. Most of us who lived—and suffered—under communism can instantly recognize any signs of the communist ideology, no matter how slight or subtle. Since during the first 27 years of my life I received my own vaccination against communist propaganda, I, too, am immune to this disease. Whenever some government tries to “save” me against my will, I’m immediately wary and ready to fight back. So, try to imagine how I feel, now as a Canadian, when I see the same tactics and hear the same phrases I saw and heard for years under communism, only this time in English! If you think I’m paranoid, or that communism in North America is far-fetched, then good luck to you—I hope you enjoy what’s coming your way.

Deception

As Nikita Khrushchev said in 1960, “You [North] Americans are so gullible. No, you won’t accept Communism outright; but we’ll keep feeding you small doses of Socialism until you will finally wake up and find that you already have Communism. We won’t have to fight you; we’ll so weaken your economy, until you fall like overripe fruit into our hands.”

Communism can be characterized by a single word: deception. Communists never disclose their real intentions. They are fraudsters who employ different identities, names, and slogans, all for one goal: totalitarianism.

Since 1970, one of the primary tactics of the Communist Party USA has been to use environmental causes to advance its agenda. For example, in 1972, Gus Hall, then-chairman of the Communist Party USA, wrote in his book Ecology: “Human society cannot basically stop the destruction of the environment under capitalism. Socialism is the only structure that makes it possible … This is true in the struggle to save the environment … We must be the organizers, the leaders of these movements. What is new, is that knowledge of [a] point-of-no-return gives this struggle an unusual urgency.”

This idea was incorporated into the Green Party program in 1989 (the same year Soviet communism collapsed), in which the alleged threats of “global warming” and “climate change” were used to scare the public into believing humanity must “save the planet” by relying on an ever more powerful government: “This urgency,” the program read, “along with other Green issues and themes it interrelates, makes confronting the greenhouse [effect] a powerful organizing tool. … Survival is highly motivating, and may help us to build a mass movement that will lead to large-scale political and societal change in a very short time. … First of all, we [must] inform the public that the crisis is more immediate and severe than [they] are being told, [that] its implications are too great to wait for the universal scientific confirmation that only eco-catastrophe would establish.”

With this in mind, do you still think the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is promoting science rather than socialism? Read the following admission from the co-chair of the UN IPCC Group III, provided during an interview in 2010 with the Swiss newspaper Neue Zürcher Zeitung:: “We must free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. We must state clearly that we use climate policy to redistribute de facto the world’s wealth.”

Do I have your attention now? Good. Then let me describe to you how communist propaganda and societal takeovers work. There are three main stages:

  1. Polarization (KGB term: “demoralization”)
  2. Destabilization
  3. Revolution

Stage 1. PolarizationDivide and Conquer

To win power, communists first polarize their target society. The notion of injustice is introduced. One group of people—usually impoverished workers—are made to feel victimized by a second group, to the point that they demand societal changes. And who are those people who supposedly victimize the workers? Here’s a clue: “Communists don’t care about poor people; they just hate rich ones.” (George Orwell)

The one thing a communist can never tolerate is a wealthy person. For communists, virtually all business owners are “rich,” especially successful ones. They are loathed and demonized as heartless, spiteful monsters who exploit their employees and don’t care about their welfare. The rich are public enemy number one. They don’t care about people or the environment; they care only about profit and wealth. Dare to disagree? Then you are a “denier” and “imperialist traitor,” and after completion of stage three, you will be physically liquidated.

During the first stage, communists focus on altruistic people – people with big hearts, full of good intentions, who believe in doing good, for goodness’ sake. Why? Because idealistic people are usually naïve and easy to manipulate, especially through their emotions. Recognizing how essential these people are to the success of his revolution, Lenin referred to them as “useful idiots.”

Stage 2. Destabilization

During the second stage, communists target the basic values of society for replacement. This almost always starts with education: Vladimir Lenin once said, “Give me your child for eight years, and [he or she] will be a communist forever.”

Communists always eventually use teachers and the education system to impose their ideology and promote socialistic values. My own indoctrination started in elementary school. In grade four, we all had to become “Young Pioneers.” From that day forward, we were taught about the “imminent danger” posed by capitalistic countries. The curriculum in school gradually but firmly established admiration for communism and loyalty to the Communist Party. We were constantly reminded of how we live in the “best political system in the world,” “the country with the best social justice and equality.”

Our teachers participated in this process, either voluntarily or involuntarily. I remember teachers who actively reinforced communist indoctrination in schools. They exploited their students’ emotional immaturity, lack of experience, and knowledge—our vulnerabilities—to impose their communist ideas, beliefs, and values. They took advantage of their position of authority, of the natural trust that children place in teachers, to brainwash a young and susceptible generation.

Scare-mongering was a favorite tactic: “Embrace communism! Fear capitalism! Otherwise, your country will be overtaken by imperialists and you will be exploited! Whoever is not with us, is against us!”

If you think this can’t happen in Canada or the United States, then I have news for you: It has been happening for some time, in both countries, and environmentalism has been one of left-wing teachers’ favorite indoctrination tools.

As the following examples will show, new communism is based on all the old communist ideological principles and beliefs, but uses environmentalism as one of its primary agents of change, allowing it to subtly alter the core values of Western institutions and destabilize (and demoralize) society.

The following excerpt comes from Captain Eco, written by Jonathon Porrit-Ellis Nadler and published in 1991. In it, you’ll see that children are being indoctrinated in our schools to believe it’s their responsibility to “save the planet” using government: “Your planet is in serious trouble—from pollution, toxic waste and the loss of forest, farmland and fresh water … Your parents and grandparents have made a mess of looking after the earth. They may deny it, but they are little more than thieves. And they are stealing your future from under your noses.”

Some more examples:

  • In May 2012, a grade three classtook to the streets of Toronto with signs to protest the construction of the Northern Gateway pipeline. The protest was organized by their teacher and a local community volunteer. This is a Marxist tactic. Just like these kids, who marched in protest to “save the planet,” I was also forced by teachers to march with banners and signs to save our country from “imperialists.”
  • In 2011, in Laval, Quebec, a six-year-old boy was disqualified from a contest because a Ziploc bag, which has been deemed to be bad for the planet, was found in his lunch box instead of a reusable container. This kind of punishment and ostracization was common practice during my experience under communism.
  • In April 2018, an Edmonton father went to an elementary school to watch his daughter in a school play. What he saw shocked him. In the play, the children sabotaged a factory in the name of climate change, then went on to save Alberta from its “evil oil industry” and “greedy oil barons.” This is also textbook communist methodology: demonize the private sector (oil industry) by representing them as “greedy.”

The children currently attending our elementary schools will vote in 10-12 years. How many of these children are being (or have already been) brainwashed into believing that to “save the planet,” they must vote for a government that will stop “destroying the planet” by eliminating private ownership and taking control of the means of production?

And then, of course, there is the vast communist indoctrination occurring every single day on college campuses in Canada and the United States. I would provide support for such a statement, but it’s so widely accepted, even among many on the Left, that higher education is firmly under the control of those who desire socialistic and communist policies that such proof is completely unnecessary.

Stage 3. Revolution

After gaining the support of a majority in society, communists often call for a democratic election. If they win, they seize power and abolish democratic elections altogether. At this point, members of opposition parties, along with all other opponents deemed to be a potential threat, are silenced or, in the more extreme revolutions, “physically liquidated.” (In case you aren’t familiar with this quaint communist phrase, it means executed.)

Private businesses and property are then immediately seized and confiscated by the national government. Key supporters who now finally realize how they have been manipulated and exploited (i.e. useful idiots who are no longer useful) are either jailed or executed, to prevent the formation of any dissident movements. All other useful idiots, having fulfilled their purpose of bringing communists to power, are now either enslaved into the new ideology or disposed of in a variety of prescribed ways. A new privileged elite of communist party leaders is then formed. Leaders of every key institution or organization in industry, medicine, police, education, etc., are then replaced or overseen by an official member of the Communist Party. Competence, ability, or fitness for the job is no longer the most important requirement; the prerequisite that matters the most is loyalty to the ruling party.

===================

Top NZ Scientist Describes “Global Warming” As Pseudoscience

Top NZ Scientist Describes “Global Warming” As Pseudoscience  From HumansAreFree.com, 8 February 2020

“The widespread obsession with Global-Warming-Climate-Change, in opposition to all factual evidence, is quite incredible.” — Dr David Kear

Dr David Kear is a former Director General of New Zealand’s Department of Scientific and Industrial Research (DSIR) – as such he would have been considered one of New Zealand’s top scientists. He has been publishing on sea levels since the 1950s.

In 2013 Dr Kear prepared a booklet in which he set out his views on the globalist climate project. In the booklet, Dr Kear describes:

  • his experience with the UN’s International Panel on Climate Change
  • the corrupted science behind the Global Warming narrative
  • the corrupted science behind the claims of rising sea-levels
  • the demonisation by “Global Warmers” of the “essential and innocent gas, carbon dioxide”
  • how councils are making zoning & other decisions purely to satisfy a false narrative, with total disregard for the facts

Think globally, act locally (UN catchcry

Dr Kear describes how local councils are ignoring scientific fact in order to satisfy an agenda imposed on them from above. No matter if scientists, engineers and local observers all indicate that the sea is not rising, even retreating – once a council has decided on a policy that assumes that the sea IS rising, the council is immovable, and makes decisions on zoning and building codes on that basis.

Such policies will be being applied in coastal and non-coastal areas alike, thereby contributing to fulfillment of Agenda 21 goals of eventually eliminating small towns and villages and moving people to “sustainable” megacities.

Dr Kear’s text is reproduced here in its entirety with minimal changes to format.

GLOBAL WARMING Alias CLIMATE
CHANGE

[The NON-EXISTENT, Incredibly Expensive,
THREAT TO US ALL,
Including To Our GRANDCHILDREN]

By David Kear, 34 West End, Ohope, Whakatane, NZ (Former Director-General, NZ DSIR; United Nations Consultant; & South Pacific Geoscientist)

INTRODUCTION

“Climate Change” has become an important international topic – one might almost say religion. It began life as “Global Warming”.

So very many people, including politicians and “news people”, appear to have been overwhelmed by it, and have led others to believe, and follow the doctrine.

It has sponsored a good deal of international co-operation, which can only have been good.

However, the cost of “Combating Carbon” has been extremely high, and the debt and economic consequences are being passed on to present citizens, and, worse still, to future generations, including all our grandchildren.

This booklet attempts to raise, in citizens’ minds, questions regarding the enormous sums of money and effort being wasted on this topic.

Is it soundly based? Will it “do good” or “do bad” for ordinary citizens?  Do those promoting it deserve our attention?

This booklet suggests that Global-Warming-alias-Climate-Change, as proposed by “Global Warmers” makes no sense. You, as the reader, must judge that for yourself – not to help the writer of this booklet, but to help you and your family.

Do you think after reading all this that the proponents are absolutely reliable?

Should you add your voice to those against it, or at least talk to your councillors and members of parliament and see how they feel?

THE ANCIENT ACCEPTABLE VIEW

Our Earth’s climate is highly variable, and records show clearly that it always has been so. Animals and plants have had no option but to accept what comes, and to adapt life in ways that suit best. Evolution gave some help by introducing “the Survival of the Fittest”

Humans found early that their discussion and understanding were helped by a belief in some extraneous source being the cause of recorded changes of climate – perhaps with divine power. This booklet uses “Mother Nature” in that role to avoid wordy explanations.

Humans discovered that they could ameliorate climatic effects with buildings, clothing and the rest, and even create “microclimates” through windbreaks, forest clearing, artificial lakes, fossil fuel burning, and the rest.

However, no-one originally thought seriously that man could change the basic influences to our climate – our Sun, our Earth’s rotation, the total quantity of our Planet’s water, and the rest. Mother Nature is able to change all such things (and has been doing so for some 3,000,000,000 years), but we are not.

THE NEW BELIEF – THE NEW PROBLEM

Introduction

That ancient and acceptable view was amended in the minds of some people whom I call the “Global Warmers”. I’ve heard nothing convincing about their so-called “Science”; but what they publish convinces me that it’s close to nonsense. The most convincing evidence against it comes mostly from the Global Warmers themselves.

In this booklet, the beliefs of “Global Warming”, and “Climate Change” have initial capital letters. That contrasts with natural warming, or natural changing of climate – indicated by lower case initial letters. The idea of a human cause is much less than 300 years old.

My interest in our changing climate and sea level

During fieldwork for a PhD thesis I found a coastal exposure of soft sandstone at Ohuka Creek, south of Port Waikato. There were Pliocene fossils of marine shellfish below an extensive horizontal bedding plane. Above that plane were more fossils, but of cool-lovinga plants.

A finger could show the exact location of the abrupt change to the cooler climate at the onset of the first of the world-wide Pleistocene glaciations [Ice Ages]. Ice formed widely at the ultimate expense of sea water, so sea level fell. At Ohuka, sea bed had become land.

Such changes are rarely seen in a continuous sequence, so I recorded it in a 1957 scientific paperb. That resulted in my joining an informal world-wide Group researching changing sea levels.

Most interest then was about the rate of sea level rise as the Earth warmed following the “Little Ice Age”. That cool period, from about 1500 to 1700 AD, halted winemaking in England and taro cropping in New Zealand.

Our Group determined the rate of sea level rise in many different World regions, from widely-available readings of tide gauges (less variable than those of thermometers). The average for us all was 125 mm/century (“125” here). Hence it would take 8 centuries for sea level to rise 1m – no serious threat to us.

Global Warming Dawns

Subsequently, I attended many international science conferences representing DSIR, NZ or Pacific Nations. I noted the words “Global Warming” appearing increasingly in paper titles, and sensed a growing number of adherents.

Those latter arranged a first-ever “Conference on Global Warming” in Vienna in 1985. Unlike most such meetings, where a communiqué summarising achievements was released on the final day, the full results of this one were delayed for over 2 years.

When they did appear (front page NZ Herald, two days before Christmas 1987) a World Declaration included “Overseas scientists have estimated that the seas around New Zealand will rise by up to 1.4 m in the next 40 years”. That article concentrated on the massive consequent problems, caused by our carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, but gave no adequate supporting science.

That rate of rise was equivalent to 3,500 mm/century, 28 times faster than our 125. Hence we stupidly ignored it, thinking noone could possibly believe it. But the World did believe, and the Global Warming mirage was born. Had 3,500 been true, sea level should have risen by almost 1 m by today – it hasn’t, not even closely.

This showed unambiguously that those “Overseas Scientists” were not true scientists. They ignored a most important basic rule of true science “Thou shall not publish Science without first checking it. A check against local tide gauges would have shown how wrong 1.4 m in 40 yrs was; they simply hadn’t bothered to check. That was a First Grave Error.

Australian government scientists were concerned about the effects on Pacific Island nations by any sea level rise of around 3,500 mm/century, and launched a project to determine the correct figure at that time. They announced the result at the 1992 meeting of SOPAC – a geoscientific organisation of South Pacific nations. Their figure was 122 mm/century, confirming the order of magnitude of our group’s 125 average value.

Fooling the World

The Global Warmers persisted with their use of pseudo-science and made further predictions. Understandably they too all proved wrong. At conferences I began to hear, regardless of the science involved, when a speaker wished to “rubbish” some scientific idea or research, he/she stated that conclusion firmly, and followed it by “Just like Global Warming”.

Clearly the Global Warmers heard that too. They didn’t change their pseudo-science, but cleverly changed the name to ‘Climate Change”. [One can disprove warming, but the words change of climate can’t be proved wrong].

The United Nations became interested – major sea level rise could cause havoc in low-lying areas or island groups. They established an Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) and invited nations to send delegates. Not surprisingly those chosen were almost entirely Global Warmers, because they clearly knew something about it. But to do them credit the Panel members acted a little more like true scientists than those earlier.

They accepted that “1.4 m in 40 yrs” was wrong and re-evaluated it as “0.49 m by 2100”, [roundly a century ahead]. Thus they dropped 3,500 down to 500 mm/century – to 14% of the original. The cause remained unchanged – our CO2 emissions to the atmosphere. In no other human activity would those involved retain a belief when the most crucial item involved was found to be 86% wrong by themselves. That was a Second Grave Error.

In spite of that, the World was taken in. Politicians were able to promise to save us from the consequences, and the Media had an unending “Field Day”. It wasn’t that people necessarily believed, but they lacked the courage to risk that it might come true, and that they might have to bear the terrible consequences that had been so forcibly promised.

The New Errors

The new value of “0.49 m by 2100” became widely accepted. In New Zealand, District Councils were instructed by Government Departments, like Conservation and Environment, and by Regional Councils, that they must take full account of the risk that “0.49” implied for a sea level rise by 2100. Councils had to consider that in the same way as earthquake and volcanic risk. Yet that “0.49” value doesn’t stand up to the most simple scientific scrutiny.

First, the rate is four times faster than the current sea level rise, as indicated by regional, widely-available tide gauges; second, no reason was given for quadrupling the value, and third, good science interprets “0.49” in this sense as being deliberately different from 0.48 and 0.50. Thus that effectively claims that those who determined that value know, for sure, where sea level will be a century ahead to ±5 mm. That was, and is, patently absurd

These were the Third, Fourth & Fifth Grave Errors.

Further Damning Disclosures

The United Nations appointed me personally to their UNCSTD Committee which assists small countries with their ability regarding Science and Technology Development. Three or so of us would go to a central city to talk and discuss their options with delegates from regional countries. On one occasion we met in Prague, to assist countries on both sides of the “Iron Curtain”.

While there, we were invited to visit the World’s only “Institute for Global Warming”. It was founded and funded incredibly by the USA and Soviet Union jointly, at the height of their “Cold War”, in an attempt to fund something “for the good of Mankind”, rather than “for armaments”. Some of its staff could have attended the 1985 Conference, and helped create the 1987 World Declaration.

I took the opportunity of asking to see copies of the documents that had been brought to  that 1985 Meeting in neutral Austria. Several attendees brought their estimates for sea level rise due to Global Warming. The values, converted to mm/century, ranged from 500 minimum to 3,500 maximum.

There can be no doubt that, to ensure that their 1987 World Declaration made the greatest impact, they published the maximum value – contravening the most sacred rule of acceptable science Thou shall not publish items for monetary, political, or personal gain that are not clear un-biased un-inflated truths.

The fact that “up to” was used, might be allowed in non-scientific areas, but not in Science. If World Media had distorted the message, the Warmers should immediately have denied what was wrongly claimed, and ensured that the proper statement got equal publicity. Using a maximum value for greatest effect was the Sixth (and
Worst) Grave Error.

OLD SCIENTIFIC CONCLUSIONS ON CLIMATE IGNORED

19th Century science posed a important question. Why is our Earth’s average temperature significantly higher than that calculated from the then-recent determinations of our Sun’s distance and its radiation? Knowing my interests in climate, DSIR librarians found me a publication in German that answered that puzzle early.

It had Scandinavian author(s), if I remember correctly. Its answer was that the CO2 in our atmosphere acts like glass in a glasshouse. Both change the optical physical nature of the Sun’s infra-red rays [that carry the warmth to us] such that they may enter, but cannot then leave. So we are warmed by the heat trapped below our CO2; like the glasshouse below its glass.

I surmise that the Global Warmers, along with Al Gore, noted correctly that CO2 keeps us warm, but thought wrongly that more would make us warmer. The analogy with glass is important. Horticultural experiments long ago found that more (thicker) glass does not cause more warming, so more CO2 probably doesn’t either.

The effect is like that of polarising spectacles, where the change takes place as light begins passing through the lenses. Thickness makes no difference. Polarisation is either 100%, or not at all. A coincidence timed the Little Ice Age’s end with the Industrial Revolution’s start. The Warmers blamed the undoubted warming on the latter – ignoring the glasshouse evidence.

THE NEW CLIMATE REGIME


NIWA

The National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research (NIWA) retains New Zealand climate records. It has a history of persuading successive governments that Global Warming and Climate Change are both real. It often encouraged media headlines like “We are Getting Warmer”, when any news item suggested any higher temperature.

Science progresses by new concepts and ideas being aired freely for scientific scrutiny. That has sometimes taken centuries to be completed. Although I don’t agree with some of NIWA’s views, it is proper that they should be aired for discussion, as in this booklet.

One announcement (that surely originated from NIWA) was very important to me and all citizens, and was a credit to NIWA itself. At the close of 2007, it stated that the decade just finishing was the warmest since New Zealand records began. The announcement added that, of those 10 years, 1998 was the warmest ever since records began.

I was grateful to NIWA, and concluded that 2007 was no warmer than 1998, and probably cooler. I could assume therefore that warming at our 125 rate finished in 1998. In the roundest of figures, the Little Ice Age lasted for some 200 years. There would be no conflict with accepting that the following warming should similarly last for some 200 years.

As always in Science one seeks confirmation whenever possible. I have seen many items that lead to that same view of “no warming since 1998”. The best was a written debate in the Imperial Engineer of autumn 2008. [That scientific journal is produced for engineering graduates of Imperial College, London – arguably UK’s top university in engineering.]

The debate was on whether Humans were to blame for current changes of climate. Prof Joanna Haigh blamed Humans, Lord Monckton blamed Mother Nature. The only point on which they both agreed was that there had been no warming since 1998. That confirmed NIWA’s statement perfectly, along with several comparable pronouncements.

My conclusion is that warming since the Little Ice Age’s end is now almost certainly finished. That was supported further by NIWA’s release at the end of 2012,concerning the Eastern Bay of Plenty. Their report was that 2012 had been drier and colder than 2011.

Citizens also notice that warming seems to be over. Skiing seasons are extended, winter fires are needed earlier, and some of us travelling overseas have been asked by those from Queensland, even Hawaii, whether we in New Zealand feel colder generally – as they do. I conclude that the New Zealand climate has not been warming since 1998.

THE AFFECTS ON CITIZENS


Astronomical Cost of Major Measures to Combat a Non-Existent Threat
: Politicians and the Media have listened to the proponents of Global-Warming-Climate-Change, but don’t seem to have made any critical assessment of it all.

Perhaps they were bemused by the Global Warmers constantly naming themselves and associates as “Scientists”. As has been shown, those people disregarded the basic rules of true Science. Their political and media audiences innocently believed the statements – which contained grave errors.

Innocents in politics and the media were badly mis-led. They gladly supported projects to combat the non-existent threat of Global-Warming-Climate-Change.

The projects were unnecessary because there was no threat; extremely costly in money time and effort; full of praise where ridicule was deserved misleading about benefits & options; and above all diversionary away from today’s real problems.

A huge international bureaucratic industry was born – with Cabinet Ministers, government departments, company sections, travel, conferences, treaties, carbon credits, and carbon trading, and very much more. The challenge was often heard that we must curb our carbon emissions or sacrifice our grandchildren’s well-being.

In truth, those children were being saddled with a gigantic debt to pay for everything encompassed by the Warmers’ “carbon footprints”, including the salaries and expenses of the loudest proponents.

Perhaps the saddest part has been that the essential and innocent gas, carbon dioxide, has been demonised and criminalised.

It is essential in creating plant growth using chlorophyll and photo-synthesis. It is thus essential for our very existence. Crops grow better in a CO2-enriched and warmer atmosphere, when heated by an oldfashioned vertical kerosene heater. It gives off “carbon emissions” that are valuable to us all.

Costs and Dangers of Local Measures to combat the Non-Existent Threat: Local authorities were compelled to adopt measures designed to combat the nonexistent threat.

Typically, maps were drawn showing the coastline’s position now, and in the year 2100 with intermediate zone(s), assuming that sea level would rise 0.49 m in the next 100 years. Onerous restrictions have been emplaced within the zones that were thus defined.

Many regions have vast quantities of sand transported by rivers to their coast, released by the erosion of hills and mountains, continuously raised by Mother Nature. Their coastline extends seawards steadily.

Citizens in such regions have long noted (with surveys and photos) that the coastline has a net seawards movement. It contrasts with many Councils’ imposed belief in “0.49” which demands landwards movement (“inundation”).

Councils seem unable to accept their citizens’ constant and loud protests about all this. They seem to feel that higher authorities insist that they must ignore such views. It is not just (a) the absurdity of restrictions about where houses may be erected (only inland of certain lines), etc.; or (b) the increasing costs to those building their first home.

At the other end of the scale there are enforced dangers; a requirement for higher floor levels, leading to more steps, with unnecessary risks to elderly folk falling, when using them.

The fact that sea level is no longer rising is a new extra factor for councils to ignore. In the example of Ohope Beach, a Commission of enquiry, set up by Council, backed the Council’s view of landwards inundation.

That rejected all citizens’ factual evidence of seawards net movement for periods ranging from 50 to 5,000 years. Council also rejected the advice, supporting the Citizens, by one who was highly qualified in engineering and science and had had long and successful experience in coastal work.

Much worse, the Council’s own appointed consultants provided an additional report based on every coastal survey for which a record was available.

It showed a “retreat of the sea” [seaward shoreline movement, or accretion] at the only three Ohope sites, of 0.30-0.94 m/yr over 130 years that was still ongoing in 2008. Clearly neither Council nor Commission had bothered to read that critical report, written by highly regarded consultants, who had been appointed for this project by the Council itself.

The widespread obsession with Global-Warming-Climate-Change, in opposition to all factual evidence, is quite incredible. It leads to unfair treatment of some citizens, and a massive bill for all, for nothing useful.

When will citizens revolt effectively against such callous disregard for their observations and wishes, by those who are essentially their elected employees?

When will the perpetrators examine the basis of their ideology, and realise that it’s based on unfounded unscientific beliefs, not on confirmed, widely-available investigations by real scientists who abide by the moral standards of their profession?

References To Kaawa — Ohuka

  1. a) Couper RA & McQueen DR 1954: Pliocene and Pleistocene plant fossils of NZ and their climatic interpretation. Trans Roy Soc NZ 77(3): 398-­?420
  2. b) Kear D 1957: Statigraphy of the Kaawa-­?Ohuka coastal area, West Auckland. NZ J Sci  Tech B 38 (8): 826-­?42
  3. c) Kear D 1963: Geology of Te Akau, West Auckland & regional implications. PhD thesis, London University. 2 vols, 599 pp (copies at libraries of GNS, and of London, Auckland &
    Waikato Universities).

ISBN 978-­?0-­?473-­?25154-­?3

July 2013

By Dr David Kear, Guest writer

Biographical NoteDr David Kear has a background in geology and engineering, becoming the Director General of the DSIR (New Zealand’s Department of Scientific and Industrial Research) in 1980.  He is a Fellow and Past Vice-President of the Royal Society of New Zealand, and Past President of the New Zealand Geological Society. Dr Kear has over 100 publications on New Zealand and Pacific geology, vulcanology and mineral resources.  He has been publishing on sea-levels since the 1950s.

Nobel Laureate in Physics; “Global Warming is Pseudoscience”:

Thousands of climate scientists and professionals have signed petitions and letters, rejecting the claims that humans are responsible for global warming. 

More than 1,000 scientists challenged man-made global warming claims made by the United
Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and former Vice President
Al Gore:  More Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims (pdf)

Letter to the UN: 500 Climate Scientists & Professionals Sign Letter to UN: ‘There Is No Climate Emergency’

Global Warming Petition Project31,000 American scientists have signed a petition asking the US government to reject the Kyoto global warming agreement. A summary of peer-reviewed research is included.

Purpose of Petition: The purpose of the Petition Project is to demonstrate that the claim of “settled science” and an overwhelming “consensus” in favor of the hypothesis of human-caused global warming and consequent climatological damage is wrong. No such consensus or settled science exists. As indicated by the petition text and signatory list, a very large number of American scientists reject this hypothesis.

Publicists at the United Nations, Mr. Al Gore, and their supporters frequently claim that only a few “skeptics” remain – skeptics who are still unconvinced about the existence of a catastrophic human-caused global warming emergency.

It is evident that 31,487 Americans with university degrees in science – including 9,029 PhDs, are not “a few.” Moreover, from the clear and strong petition statement that they have signed, it is evident that these 31,487 American scientists are not “skeptics.”

These scientists are instead convinced that the human-caused global warming hypothesis is without scientific validity and that government action on the basis of this hypothesis would unnecessarily and counterproductively damage both human prosperity and the natural environment of the Earth.

=====================

Links to previous articles