The Unique Property Site Blog

---

Climate Change, Some Questions & Some Charts

Watch on Youtube: https://youtu.be/2mbyU9FSlxA 

Our local newspaper gave a whole page to someone with the preferred wisdom on climate change. The article was full of anecdotal stuff, including spurious quotes from peasant farmers, but not a single fact. My response with charts and copious scientific facts got refused, and I'm told to put my arguments in a 300 word letter. What is happening to our world?

Let me start with some questions.

1. What is climate change? When I was at school it was called an Interglacial. It's nothing new, the earth has had rather a lot of them. Ice ages, followed by interglacials, and then another ice age, and so on. All perfectly normal. Why is this one different? And why is mankind responsible for this one when we weren't responsible for any of the others, simply because we, as homo sapiens, were not here? Do please tell me.

2. The earth managed quite well with previous changes which went far higher than current figures, and even current estimates. Just to remind you, current temperature levels are close to those a thousand years ago. So over the course of a millenium no increase , so what's the problem?

3. What has a carbon footprint to do with increased temperatures? The scientific community claims temperature changes are due to changes in the wind patterns, and ocean currents, and a build-up of water vapour in the atmosphere, plus changes in the sun cycles. Do remember that Earth's path around the sun is not circular but an ellipse, and the energy received by the earth at minimum distance is 30% more than when at maximum. What are all the climate-change freaks going to do about that?

Many of the claims about global warming arise because people think it's something new whereas it is a recurring phenomenon – the procession from Ice Age to Interglacial and back to Ice Age. And in the chart below we see quite clearly that our current interglacial has lower maximum temperatures so far than any of the preceding interglacials.

Let's have a look at rising ocean levels. During the last ice age, about 10,000 years ago, you could walk from beyond the SW coast of Ireland, right up the English Channel, take a diversion up to Shetland, and then walk across to Denmark. No North Sea at all.


To get where we are today means there has been an average rise in sea level of at least 1.25 metres every century. By comparison, the rise for the past century is four inches. Hardly an alarming increase. Indeed, it shows a dramatic decrease in the rate of rise due to the obvious fact that most of the ice caps have already retreated thousands of miles. If anyone disagrees with the official figures, please quote your references. I am using figures from an inter-governmental geophysical commission. The trouble with modern life is that people these days listen to politicians and tweets in the chat rooms rather than the scientific community.

Those of you who were paying attention during history lessons (or was that geography?) will remember that in the last interglacial Southern England managed quite nicely with lions and tigers roaming about in temperatures akin to the African savannahs. Please tell me what harm that did to the planet, I'd love to know. But for those of you worrying about the supposed increase in temperatures, it clearly depends on where you start your counting. Here's a chart of the last hundred years. So, once again, no increase there.



Temperatures have varied enormously over the years. Even in my lifetime a field which used to be a prosperous vineyard in the time of Chaucer was covered in so much snow the year I was brought to the UK that we used to have a photograph of a double decker bus stranded on the main road. We could only see the top two or three feet of the bus. The weather is still too unreliable for the old vineyard to be brought back into commercial use. Is that an example of global warming?

That earlier period is known as the Medieval Climate Optimum, and we are told it was caused by increased solar activity and changes to ocean circulation. No-one mentioned CO2, yet Britain at least was warmer then than it is now.

The weather is fickle. During the late sixties I remember climbing out of the kitchen window (we couldn't open the door because of the weight of the snow) and walking a mile and a half to the pub in a straight line. There were no visible roads, no hedges, only snow.

In the eighties my home backed onto a lake on the outskirts of London. My son spent ages with a pickaxe one day trying to get down as far as water. We had bonfires and baked potatoes day after day on the lake.

If you check articles in the newspapers for the fifties and sixties, you will find rather a lot claiming that we were about to return to an ice age. And then what happened?

Five years later I walked along the boardwalk between St Leonards and Old Hastings wearing just a pair of shorts and sandals. The date? Feb 1st. But let's look at the charts. There was a definite run-up in the later eighties and the nineties, but then the temperatures level out:


The so-called Greenhouse Effect charts show a similar pattern, and show an increase in water vapour, but I cant see any CO2. Perhaps you can:



People complain about the rising temperatures. Why? We are in an interglacial, that is what happens. That's why it's called an interglacial. On the other hand, as I said above, weather patterns are fickle. Are temperatures rising? The usual preferred weather cycle is 30 years. Using a 30 year average we can see that mean temperatures are not rising at all at the moment. They were up until the mid nineties, but only for a decade, but since then the figures have been flat.

Does CO2 cause temperatures to rise? Just look at the chart correlations. It isn't CO2 but rather water vapour that is the trigger. That has been known for decades:



It has also been shown that increased CO2, far from causing acidification to shellfish, causes them to grow bigger. Is that really a problem?



However, how many of you know how temperatures are calculated? A friend of mine was a geophysicist at Bath University (that's how I came to be at one of their symposiums), and he presented a paper showing how over a hundred sets of figures were drawn up. I'll give just one example, but this is typical of how the climate change fraud was perpetrated.

There were two gauging points in Colorado in the USA. Both were out in the sticks a hundred years ago. One is still in the countryside, but the other is now in a busy Denver suburb. The one in the countryside gives the same reading as 100 years ago, the one in the city suburb gives a higher reading. Some of us assume that proves that the earth isn't warming up, but city living will provide higher temperatures. For the records, the climate change freaks combined readings from the two stations and averaged them to prove the climate was warming up.





Lighten up folks, the planet is just doing its thing and you won't stop it. When tigers roam the South Downs again you can be sure that it won't be long before temperatures are heading back towards the next ice age. That's the way it has been for as far back as we can check. If you think otherwise just give me some facts, and some answers to those questions I asked at the beginning of this article. But don't quote politicians, quote the scientists writing in Nature, and similar quality journals. Do remember that this whole charade was kicked off not by scientists but by a politician. And do remember that one pseudo-scientist even boasts that he was paid $1.3 million for his support for the CO2 fraud.

Subscribe to our email alerts on the housing markets both in the UK and abroad.