Dopey British Parliament Declares ‘Climate Emergency’
In London Britain’s parliament declared a symbolic climate change “emergency” on Wednesday. Are these people truly insane or corrupt?
As independent researcher, T.L. Winslow writes to denounce these fools:
“They want us to be deathly afraid of not tens of degrees but 0.1C-0.2C in global warming per decade, and a total of 0.8C since 1880. What do they even mean by global warming? An increase in global avg. daily max surface temperatures? No, just yearly global mean surface temperatures, which includes night as well as day. Every day the temperature rises and falls tens of degrees, and nobody could detect a 0.1C change in the middle of the day without instruments, much less a mathematical mean, and even less that tiny amount in a decade, but even worse, the so-called yearly global mean surface temperature is an artificial non-physical statistic concocted from often questionable measurements and calculated with computers after running climate models filled with CO2 warming subroutines existing only in scientists’ heads that invariably run hot and are chaotic.
Speaking of history, ever heard of the Ordovician Period, from 485.4 million years ago to 443.8 million years ago (41.2 million year span)? The atmospheric concentration went from 7,000 ppm, when the climate was hot, down to 4,400 ppm, when there was a million-year ice age. How ridiculous the CO2 greenhouse warming hoaxers of today look with their pathetic attempts to wrest catastrophe from an increase from 300 ppm to 400 ppm.”
But as seasoned skeptical readers know all too well the sheeple are the most scientifically illiterate section of the population and look to ‘role models’ to do all the thinking and act for them.
What is a climate emergency?
Dozens of towns and cities across the UK have already declared “a climate emergency”. There is no single definition of what that means but many local areas say they want to be carbon-neutral by 2030. What does that idiocy really mean? De-industrialization?
Reuters reports that:
“Eleven days of protests by the Extinction Rebellion activist group caused major disruptions in central London in recent weeks, and Swedish schoolgirl campaigner Greta Thunberg addressed lawmakers on a high profile visit.”
Nutjob leader of the Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn told lawmakers they should listen to those “who have the most to lose” from climate change, saying the younger generation is “ahead of the politicians on this, the most important issue of our time”.
This ‘important issue of our time’ stinks to high heaven as much the last ‘important issue of our time’ which was the dreaded Y2K fear of armageddon when the world’s computers had to cope with the ‘crisis’ of the calendar passing the year 2000.
“Speaking of religion, as the big year 2000 approached, not only was the techie world rife with alarmist fears of Y2K, which resulted in a government boondoggle to fix computer programs even when they didn’t need it, the Christian world was rife with alarmist fears of the End of Days (Apocalypse) and the Second Coming of Christ, the Spirit in the Sky, which didn’t happen, so that by now a void has been left, just in time for you know who Albert Arnold “Al” Gore Jr. (1948-), the new huckster prophet who doesn’t know science or math but pretends to have a crystal ball and see the future, which is kaching! climate alarmism – see my TLW’s Climate Alarmistscope for a list of recent climate alarmist agitprop articles on the Web.”
The believers in such BS spewed remorselessly by the Jeremy Corbyns of this world are utterly unaware that the proper metric for measuring our planet’s temperature is by using the Kelvin scale (rather than Fahrenheit and Celsius scales used commonly). That tells us a very different (and sobering story).
The Kelvin scale was discovered by Lord Kelvin (William Thompson). The size of each degree is the same as those of the Celsius scale but the Kelvin scale starts on absolute zero (273.15 degrees lower than 0oC
What is the surface temperature of earth in degrees kelvin?
That means all the idiots out there are getting upset about a change in global mean surface temperature from 287 K to 288 K.
As T.L. Winslow tells us:
“How does global mean surface temperature work? Let’s try for local mean surface temperature. Do they sample it continuously, even, say, once a minute, or once an hour? Then what? Do it for the next station over, but how far away? 1 mile?
There are 197 million sq. mi. of Earth surface area. Maybe they take a giant thermometer and stick it up the Earth’s ass like an infant. Obviously global mean surface temperature is an illustration of the slogan that statistics lie, and the only useful physical measurements are the daily max and min temps, and real global warming would see these two track each other closely, else any talk of global warming would be crapola.
And NASA’s claim that they can calculate a world temperature back to 1880 is moose hockey, because outside the U.S. until recently there was almost no data being recorded. Notice that the global warming figures never have any real mathematical validity as proved by failure to provide a standard deviation and variance, and to name which type of statistical model governs it. Why?
Because they’re peddling junk science, tricking-up a statistic like a pretzel then pushing it for more than it’s worth to claim horrific looming Armageddon, always with the apology that the tinier the global warming the more we should be scared of it.
Meanwhile the greenhouse gas warming agitprop artists love to push the meme that there is no evidence of a global conspiracy among scientists, even after the Marxist Green New Deal was announced exposing their hand that they’re all on the same team working to destroy capitalism itself to create a Communist utopia like in Stalin’s defunct Soviet Union.”
The whole con game runs off the term Greenhouse Gas Effect. It should be called Greenhouse Glass Effect, because it’s not CO2 it’s glass that traps heat generated by visible and UV light from the Sun and keeps greenhouse air warm, all by convection, not infrared radiation, since infrared passes through glass.
For example, infrared heat lamps and infrared camera lenses, letting it out of the greenhouse, while the glass blocks convected air from leaving, building up a warm layer at the top that builds back down to the surface, causing runaway warming up to a limit set by the Sun until the windows are opened or shades are drawn.
As to CO2, greenhouse operators not only use windows and shades, but pump CO2 into their greenhouses to feed the plants, usually setting a level of 1200 ppm. It doesn’t increase the greenhouse’s air temperature any more than your CO2-rich breath can heat your zipped-up sleeping bag more than your metabolism did. CO2 has nothing to do with warming greenhouses, but they might stock CO2 fire extinguishers for emergencies.
Read more at www.historyscoper.com
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX. Telephone:
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Trackback from your site.
Hans Schreuder
| #
“Are these people truly insane or corrupt?” They’re just bored and they’re all braindead from exposure to social media, spurred on by amongst others by the current BBC’s incessant publication of unscientific dribble. Best to ignore them as fighting them is as pointless as reducing emissions is to control the planet’s temperature.
Reply
Robert Beatty
| #
It is frequently lamented that “everybody complains about the weather, but nobody ever does anything.” Well now they are ‘doing’ something which we can all regret.
Reply
Judy
| #
It is the eternal battle between good and evil on planet Earth.One good person is more productive than many of the evil.That is why there are so few of us compared to them. Evidently this is heaven on earth.
Reply
Vincent
| #
I’m trying to find some experiments involving real greenhouses, in relation to the following statement in the article.
“As to CO2, greenhouse operators not only use windows and shades, but pump CO2 into their greenhouses to feed the plants, usually setting a level of 1200 ppm. It doesn’t increase the greenhouse’s air temperature.”
The fact that farmers sometimes pump CO2 into their greenhouses to increase crop yield, seems to be an undeniable indication of the benefits of increased atmospheric CO2 levels in helping to green the planet.
However, if it is true that CO2 can trap heat, like the glass walls of an actual greenhouse trap heat as a result of the restriction on convection, then adding CO2 to the greenhouse environment, whilst everything else such as water and fertilizer remains the same, should have the effect of contributing to the warming inside the greenhouse.
Have any scientists actually conducted such experiments? That is, positioning several greenhouses in the same area, exposed to the same sunlight, containing the same type of soil and plants and the same quantity of water irrigation, all equipped with shaded thermometers, and the only difference being the level of CO2 in the greenhouses.
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Vincent,
You wrote: “I’m trying to find some experiments involving real greenhouses,”
If you go to http://solarcooking.org/saussure.htm you can read: “the increased use of glass during the eighteenth century made many people aware of its ability to trap solar heat. as Horace de Saussure, one of Europe’s foremost naturalists of the period, observed: “it is a known fact, and a fact that has probably been known for a long time, that a room, a carriage, or any other place is hotter when the rays of the sun pass through glass. This French-Swiss scientist was quite surprised that such a common phenomenon had not led to any empirical research on the maximum temperature attainable in a glass solar heat trap. when experimenting with solar energy, his contemporaries preferred to work with burning mirrors, which could perform such amazing feats as burning objects at a distance or melting the hardest metals within seconds. in 1767, de Saussure set out to determine how effectively glass heat traps could collect the energy of the sun.”
Horace’s experiment (about which you can find more information if you Goggle key words) is the basis of the GHE idea. However, Horace had one object: to see what maximum temperature could be obtained in the ‘hot box’ he constructed. It seems obvious he stopped observing the temperature in the hot box once its interior temperature of it began to cool. So, he never let it set out all night, under a cloudless sky, to observe that its temperature could decrease well below the ambient air temperature.
I have constructed a ‘hot box’ similar to Horace’s design using extruded Styrofoam as the insulating-structural material. But when you point it at the summer near the summer solstice when the atmosphere appears cloudless, you need be careful because I know from experience that the Styrofoam might melt even a little before 230F. And I know from experience that its interior temperature, short before sunrise when the atmosphere’s relative humidity is quite low so that water vapor will not be observed to have formed on the top glass surface, that the temperature might 10F or more below the ambient temperature of the air. Which pretty much establishes that the glass does not trap heat.
I have also experimented, with similar results, with one-half of the simple, economical balloon-borne net radiometer which V. Suomi, D. O. Staley, and P. M. Kuhn (SSK) designed, constructed, and tested. In this case they substituted polyethylene films for the glass panes. They formally introduced this new instrument to the meteorological community in an article published in the Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, vol 84, No. 360, Apr. 1958, pp. 134-141.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Vincent
| #
Thanks for your detailed reply, Jerry. I can understand that spaces enclosed by glass (greenhouses) trap heat. The warmer air cannot escape through the normal process of convection, and the glass is not as transparent to the lower frequencies of infrared, which are radiated from the interior surfaces in the greenhouse as it warms.
Horace’s experiments do not address the CO2 issue. CO2 is described as a ‘greenhouse’ gas because it is claimed to trap heat like the glass of a greenhouse. It therefore seems logical to me that the best experiment to demonstrate the heat-trapping effect of CO2 is to add CO2 to the atmosphere inside an actual greenhouse and observe any resulting changes in temperature, compared to other greenhouses in the same location exposed to the same degree of sunlight, but with different levels of CO2.
However, I wasn’t aware that greenhouses can get so very hot if they are not ventilated. In such heat perhaps nothing can grow. If one ventilates the greenhouse then that allows the hot air to escape and makes it difficult to assess the effect of small increases in CO2 levels.
For certainty on any issue, the scientific methodology requires that repeated experiments be conducted under controlled conditions that represent as accurately as possible the natural conditions that are being investigated.
The great obstacle to achieving any certainty about the warming effect of increased CO2 levels, is the impossibility of creating accurate models of our planet which represent the complex nature of our planet.
I thought maybe an actual greenhouse with growing plants might more accurately represent the natural environment than bottles half filled with water in a classroom experiment, with the air in one bottle almost entirely CO2.
I’m wondering if there is any glass-like material which is roughly equally transparent to both infrared and visible light. If the greenhouses were very large, and the inside materials were painted bright white, and the soil inside was covered with white pebbles, and the walls and roof were of a synthetic material that was more transparent to infrared wavelengths than conventional glass, and the plants grown were types such as Cacti which can grow in unusually hot environments, then perhaps such an experiment could confirm that moderate increases in CO2 have a warming effect in an environment which is far more similar to our planet than a bottle or tube in a laboratory.
Reply
Dan Paulson
| #
Vincent, such a greenhouse experiment could never be conclusive, as it would be impossible to exactly replicate the conditions and variables.
If you wish to see some experimental evidence of the lack of heating from CO2 addition, find experiments conducted with filament light bulbs, with various gasses added.
Reply
John Doran
| #
On CO2 I like this transcript of Dr. Patrick Moore’s GWPF speech.
He co-founded Greenpiss but left when they were flooded with Communist human haters:
http://www.thegwpf.org/patrick-moore-should-we-celebrate-carbon-dioxide/
CO2: the basis of all life on Earth. NOT a warming pollutant.
Simply brilliant.
John Doran.
Reply
John Doran
| #
The science, unfortunately, is the least part of the fraud.
In short, the motives behind the CAGW fraud are:
1) A vast depopulation.
2) De-industrialisation.
3) A World Totalitarian Government.
The money 1%s, the Bankster Rockefellers et al own & control our Main Stream Media & our politicians. They are pushing this Satanic agenda.
Read climatologist Dr. Tim Ball’s brave little book:
Human Caused Global Warming The Biggest Deception In History.
He names the protagonists & their motives.
The science & scandals, the politics & profiteers.
The bent politicians & bent “scientists”. The dumb duo who concocted the 97% consensus lies: Naomi Oreskes & John Cook.
Only 121 pages, a must read.
The monsters condemned out of their own mouths:
http://www.c3headlines.com
Click on Quotes.
John Doran.
Reply
John Doran
| #
Dr. Tim’s website:
http://www.drtimball.ca
John Doran.
Reply
The Old Man
| #
“that CO2 can trap heat” assumes that heat is a substance. Of course it’s not, so the discussion goes out the window, or through the window might be closer. Heat, as all likely know here, is simply the process of exchanging kinetic energy between two systems.
Reply
Vincent
| #
Old Man,
So you would claim that actual, physical, greenhouses cannot trap heat because heat is not a substance. Right?
‘Trap’ means ‘to prevent from escaping’. The glass walls and ceiling of a greenhouse prevent the molecules of air which have been energized by the sun’s rays, from escaping. Is that not correct?
Likewise, the Earth’s atmosphere ‘traps’ a certain portion of the heat (or infrared waves) which are radiated from the Earth’s surface, and prevents them from disappearing to outer space, resulting in warmer conditions than would otherwise be the case if there were no atmosphere.
The issue for me is that it doesn’t seem reasonable to claim that such a small increase of a trace gas such as CO2, from 0.028% to 0.04% of the atmosphere by volume, could have any significant effect worth worrying about. But I’m not sure it has no effect at all in contributing to the current warming.
Reply