A Forum Blog Post From: The Chris Thomas Files
We have all seen the increasing number of newspaper articles where the scientists and climatologists, who were the main protagonists of “man-made” global warming, withdrawing their research and claiming that governments misquoted them. The outcome being that there is now a great deal of doubt over whether the world is warming up, man-made, or not. Most of the arguments have been used to back up the Oscar winning film by Al Gore called An Inconvenient Truth. This film is now part of UK school curriculums for children over the age of eleven. In 2007, a concerned parent began a court case against the British Government claiming that this film, and its supporting material taught in schools, was full of false claims. The court case eventually ended up in the High Court and was adjudged to be tantamount to propaganda as the claims made could not be substantiated by government scientists. The judges ruled on a number of points and declared that, if the film was shown in schools without “balancing” material being taught alongside it, the teacher could also be breaking the law, as teaching propaganda is not legal (section 406 of the Education Act 1996).
So, what is the real truth about Global Warming?
The climate has always changed in accordance with the amount of energy we receive from the Sun. For example, in Roman times, Britain’s climate was an average of about three degrees warmer than currently and the Romans were able to grow grape vines along Hadrian’s Wall. Since then, the average temperature has risen and fallen several times, sometimes warmer than now, sometimes cooler than now. Between 1000 and 1350, the average global temperatures were about one degree warmer than currently and, is known as the Medieval Warm Period. However, in about 1400, the average temperature began to drop to about one and a half degrees below current levels and, a Mini Ice Age began. This was the reason why the Thames froze over in London and the fashion for winter fayres began. The last winter fayre took place in 1815 (PDF has typos) as the temperature began to rise and the Thames no longer froze. Average global temperatures have been rising ever since.
This date of 1815 has been used as the basis of the argument that global warming is man-made as this date also coincides with a growing use of fossil fuels. If the global temperatures are rising because of the carbon dioxide from fossil fuels then, it should continue to rise as we produced more and more carbon dioxide. However, in 1995 global temperatures stopped rising and have generally dropped ever since (official figures from the Meteorological Office). This period of cooling also coincides with a reduction of the Sun’s activities (called a Maunder Minimum) which is still continuing and hence, the slow drop in temperatures. This is why all of the scientists are back-tracking on their claims. [T]here is no evidence to support them.
So where did the claims for man-made global warming arise?
The first evidence of it being a deliberate attempt to mislead us was uncovered by researcher and presenter Ian R. Crane in a document written by the Club of Rome. This document is called The First Global Revolution and was written in 1991. This document outlined a plan where if humanity was made to believe that fossil fuels were responsible for global warming, a “carbon tax” could be levied which would be used to finance “The New World Order”. This is the same New World Order that every head of government, worldwide, has proclaimed for the last twenty years. In other words, carbon based man-made global warming is a deliberate hoax. This deliberate hoax is confirmed by the hundreds of emails released from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit.
I can hear you all whispering “conspiracy theory” behind the back of your hands and giggling about what I’ve said here. Except, the High Court ruling, together with the release of the emails, means that this is not a conspiracy “theory” but, a conspiracy “proof”.
Always “feel” for the truth of a claim before you believe it.
But, we are likely to see temperatures rising again in the near future as the Maunder Minimum comes to an end, estimated in 2011/2012 and the Sun increases its energy output. Other changes are also to come as the Earth’s axis continues to shift to vertical (see The Universal Soul). This shift of axis has recently been confirmed by the Inuit peoples of Canada by their long-term observations of celestial constellations. The Inuit noticed that the constellations are in a different position leading them to conclude that the Earth’s axis is moving towards the vertical.
This observation by the Inuit is also backed up by the observations of hundreds of amateur astronomers. The axis shift also accounts for the Magnetic Pole shift. The Magnetic Pole isn’t actually shifting. That is staying in the same place. It is the relationship between the Pole and land masses that is changing as the Earth’s axis changes. In other words, the Pole is staying put but, it is the Earth that is moving. This axis change will also bring about climate change but, it is more likely to bring about a stable climate than storms and floods.
However, this does not mean that we should abandon our obligations to the planet and to the environment. The strategies adopted by many people, who took their responsibility for responsible use of fossil fuels seriously, needs to continue. Don’t forget that every tree cut down is a tree lost and, all coal, gas and oil used depletes the Earth’s resources, as well as adding to pollution. [S]o, we all need to continue to be aware of the impact of our actions.
Make your footprints as small as possible…carbon or otherwise
© 2011 Chris Thomas
“Alligator sucking on helium wins parody Ig Nobel Prize”
Scientists are answering a question no one is asking. What would it sound like if an alligator sucked up helium? When a team of international researchers wanted to find out whether a gator’s vocalizations relate to its body size, they devised an experiment that would earn them the 2020 Ig Nobel (a wordplay on “Nobel” and “ignoble”) Prize for acoustics. Researchers captured footage of the snorting alligator in a helium-filled tank. In perhaps one of the biggest letdowns in the history of scientific study, it sounded nothing like a cartoon chipmunk. Now in its 30th year, the annual Ig Nobel Prize awards ceremony, usually presented at Harvard University’s Sanders Theatre, was conducted remotely due to pandemic restrictions.
Among this year’s other elite competitors, a study which demonstrated that meticulously groomed eyebrows are a reliable indicator of grandiose narcissism took home the prize in psychology. The prize in economics went to an international team of creeps (presumably) who wanted to know whether the rate of French kissing correlated with national income inequality. Based on data from 13 countries across six continents, they found that where kissing was more frequent, income inequality was also more likely to occur. Go figure. American Richard Vetter took home the prize in entomology for his brave study on spiders (which aren’t technically insects) that revealed most of his peers are, allegedly, arachnophobic. And, the award for materials science went deservedly (because it’s gross) to a collaboration between the US and the UK to study whether frozen human feces could be made into usable knives. Spoiler alert: It certainly cannot.
But, who could forget the most Ig Nobel moment in recent history? The medical education prize went to a roundup of sometimes ill-advised world leaders for showing that “politicians can have a more immediate effect on life and death than scientists and doctors can” during the global coronavirus pandemic.
“A report warns that fleets of new communication satellites in low-Earth orbit will spoil some astronomical observations, even if all known mitigation strategies are taken.”
Astronomers and the operators of new, thousands-strong […] low-orbiting satellites will have to work together to prevent them from having a devastating impact on ground-based observations of planets, stars and other celestial objects, says a [recent] report […]. Even then, there is no escaping some harm from the fleets of commercial orbiters.
“No combination of mitigation will eliminate their impact,” added astronomer Connie Walker of the U.S. National Optical-Infrared Astronomy Research Laboratory.
The satellites, designed to provide internet access in remote areas, now number in the hundreds. [Following] the launch of the first batch by SpaceX in May 2019, astronomers were alarmed by how bright they appear in the sky. If all the planned [launches] go ahead, the number of satellites will grow beyond 100,000. Since last year, there have been a number of independent studies of [satellites’] possible impact. [The] workshop’s report is the first time the satellite companies, and those who would be affected (astronomers to the agencies that fund them and their telescopes), have pooled their results and worked out a strategy for the future.
The satellite trails are very bright, and out of focus slightly, so they’re wide and cover several pixels on images taken with a test version of the (soon to open Vera C.) Rubin Observatory’s camera, notes Tyson. [Telescopes] that need to work during twilight will also run into problems. Because the satellites are in low orbits, they will often be seen close to the horizon and will be most visible when they are still in sunlight but, the observer is not. If, however, satellite operators choose orbits above 600 kilometers, the situation gets worse because, then, their spacecraft are visible for more of the night, and in [the] summer, all night long. Astronomers should also develop software tools to remove satellite trails from images and the companies should make accurate orbital data available for their orbiters so telescopes can try to avoid them.
The only measure the report could offer to totally eliminate the damage to astronomy was to launch fewer or no low-orbiting satellites…likely not an option given the financial investments the companies are making in the [satellites] and the lucrative market they foresee.
Tyson and his colleagues have been working with SpaceX engineers to modify their satellites to reduce their brightness. His team has also modeled trying to steer the Rubin Observatory telescope to avoid passing satellites but, Tyson says there are simply too many. Astronomers are already actively pursuing image processing solutions but, he says “the jury’s out” on how much that can help.
Report Offers Roadmap (American Astronomical Society)
SATCON Report (NOIRLab)
Satellites Could Spoil View of Giant Sky Telescope (Science Magazine February 27, 2020)