The 'global warming' scam: a crime against humanity

And all of the vicious nonsense that has driven Peter Spencer up his pole is in the name of addressing the non-problem of “global warming”.

Just look at some of the other postings on this site. Bossy, hand-wringing, whingeing demands that the economies of the West should be selectively shut down, because otherwise the polar ice will melt, the sea will rise, coral islands will drown, tempests will roar, plagues, famines, droughts and floods will stalk the Earth, and there will be Horsemen of the Apocalypse all over the place.

There is no scientific basis for any of it. None whatsoever. The whole thing has been made up by a tiny handful of malevolent, radicalised scientists highly placed in various Western meteorological organisations. If you want to know who they are, read online the Climategate emails that they exchanged with one another over the past ten years. You will be struck - as I was - by just how nasty these fraudsters are.

If you want to know which scientific frauds each of these wretches committed, come to my lectures across Australia in late January and early February. Dates, times and venues will be posted from mid-January at www.scienceandpublicpolicy.org.

You will also be struck by how cunning these nasty fraudsters are. Science these days is so very highly specialised that a scientist looking at science outside his specialist field is just as much in the dark as a layman with no scientific knowledge at all. If a couple of dozen in different sub-disciplines conspire together to make up bad science - and that is what Climategate shows the UN’s climate panel did - then the vast majority of the thousands of scientists participating worldwide will simply be unaware that they are being deceived, and they will be even more easily deceived than the layman, because they will tend to trust colleagues in their own profession.

The big lie peddled by the UN is the notion that a doubling of CO2 concentration will cause as much as 2-4.5C° of “global warming”. In fact, according to a stream of recent papers in the peer-reviewed journals, it will cause more like 0.5-0.8C° of warming. That is all - and it is harmless.

There has been global warming for 300 years, but we could have influenced just 20 years of warming - the 1980s and ’90s - and even then only in theory. For even if the IPCC were correct in its wildly-exaggerated estimate that CO2 caused 0.8 Watts per square meter of radiative forcing, a fall in cloud cover during these two decades caused more than five and a half times as much forcing, at 4.5 W/m2.

Even if every nation complied with the Copenhagen accord as none has complied with Kyoto, and even if the IPCC’s ludicrously-exaggerated estimate of the warming effect of CO2 and other greenhouse gases were correct, in ten years’ time somewhere between one-thirtieth and one-fiftieth of a Celsius degree of warming will have been forestalled, and at a cost of trillions. Better to wait and see whether - after 15 years with no statistically-significant “global warming” - the UN has gotten its sums wrong yet again.

Otherwise, the Copenhagen Accord’s negligible effect on the climate will have been achieved at the expense of the Australian Constitution, of your right to hold and work your property, and - I fear - of Peter Spencer’s life. If he dies, Kevin Rudd must resign. If I had my way, he would stand trial for crimes against humanity.