Forget ‘settled’ science or ‘consensus’ – that is a political construct designed to quash debate in the interests of promoting a command-and-control Net Zero agenda. One of the great drivers of continual changes in the climate is heat exchange within both the atmosphere and the Earth’s surface. Current understanding of the entire picture is limited, and it seems the opportunity has been taken to fill this gap by blaming carbon dioxide almost entirely for the recent gentle warming. A new paper on the so-called ‘greenhouse’ effect highlights the vital role played by oceans and water vapour flows. CO2 is said to have “minimal effect” on the Earth’s temperature and climate.
The paper has been published by the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) and is written by meteorologist William Kininmonth, a former consultant to the World Meteorological Organisation’s Commission for Climatology and former head of the Australian Government’s National Climate Centre. Kininmonth argues that the oceans are the “vital inertial and thermal flywheels” of the climate system. If one wants to control climate, it will be necessary to control the oceans, he argues. “Efforts to decarbonise in the hope of affecting global temperatures will be in vain,” he adds.
In Kininmonth’s view, the recent warming is “probably simply the result of fluctuations in the ever-changing ocean circulation”. CO2 “must be recognised” as a very minor contributor to the observed warming, and one that is unlikely to prolong the warming trend beyond the peak generated by the natural oceanic oscillations, he notes. He explains that the main driver of global temperature is the movement of energy in water, both in the oceans and the atmosphere after evaporation.
Kininmonth proposes that tropical oceans have warmed recently, not as a result of additional atmospheric CO2, but most likely because of a reduction of heat as ocean currents have slowed. Heat has been exchanged with the tropical atmosphere, and transported by the winds to enhance northern polar warming. It is accepted that warming over the Arctic has been greater in the recent past than elsewhere over the globe. Ocean surface temperature in the tropics has warmed much less than the Arctic. However Arctic warming has occurred predominantly during the cold winter half of the year, when the surface is largely in darkness. For Kininmonth, this implies that it can only be the result of heat transport from warmer latitudes. Kininmonth’s conclusions are of course a subject for scientific argument and debate, but It might be noted that they provide a plausible insight into why temperatures at the South Pole have barely moved for at least 50 years.
Settled science is all in on the predominant role of CO2 acting as the climate control thermostat. As we reported recently in the Daily Sceptic, a bizarre ‘fact check’ by Facebook partner Climate Feedback of one of our previous articles stated: “Natural (non-human) drivers of climate change have been mostly stable since the onset of modern warming and all the available scientific evidence implicates human greenhouse gas emissions as the primary culprit.” As I argued, the claim that the climate has not undergone any natural change for almost 200 years is nonsense. Not a scrap of evidence can be submitted to back up this proposition, and Climate Feedback’s claim is little more than a denial of climate change.
The political narrative, however, seems to demand that like the White Rabbit in Alice in Wonderland, six impossible things must be believed before breakfast. To back up the narrative, imprecise science often ends up being fed into climate models, along with improbable guesses of massive CO2-caused future global warming. But as Dr. John Christie, Professor of Atmospheric and Earth Sciences at the University of Alabama, recently noted: “Models fail to reproduce accurate energy flows, and this is the guts of how the climate system works.”
Despite this, climate models remain exhibit A in the attempt to prove that we are on a path to climate disaster unless humans stop using fossil fuels. But increasingly, their controversial role is being called into question. The recent World Climate Declaration signed by around 250 university professors, and led by a Nobel physics laureate, noted that models had many shortcomings, “and are not remotely plausible as global policy tools”. We must free ourselves from the “naïve belief” in immature climate models. In future, climate research must give significantly more emphasis to empirical science, it states.
Of course Kininmonth’s work will be largely ignored in the mainstream. The BBC will bin it, the Guardian might be tempted to run its usual in-house slur that bungs are being paid by BP; anyone publicising its conclusions runs the risk of woke corporations like PayPal suddenly withdrawing financial transactional services, while footling ‘fact checks’ will ensure black marks and warnings across social media. GWPF invited the Royal Society and the Met Office to review the Kininmonth paper, promising any response would be published as an appendix. “No reply was received,” noted the Foundation.
Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor.
Stop Press: Watch Chris join Laurence Fox on his opening GB News run with Insulate Britain protester Cameron Ford – you just never know what is going to happen on live TV.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
The judiciary needs to be put in its place. The people are sovereign. Withdrawing from the reach of the European Court of Human Rights is a necessary condition for the restoration of democracy in England.
BLiar’s UK 1998 HRA act embeds the German Empire’s HR and open borders. This is the ‘legal’ reason why nothing is being done. The uniparty does not care. They all make money from it.
And then put our Supreme Court in its place: no more overreach
No government can protect its people from something that doesn’t exist. This means that this is not about controlling the weather, so what is it about controlling?
“People and all their activities, including birthrates and population growth. resources including oil, coal and gas, rare minerals etc etc”. —–That will just about cover it for starters.
Of course my question was rhetorical.
You asked “so what is it controlling” and I answered. ——–You are correct it isn’t and never was about the climate. —–Infact I would go so far as to say it is about almost everything else EXCEPT the climate.
We’re basically going back to the dark ages.
Instead of witches and the devil it’s global warming. The thing pushed by religious fanatics and used by the sociopathic to crush people in their way.
Plus throw in the odd “pandemic” to ramp up the fear
This is just as crazy as the Canadian idiot suing the govt because he wants them to fund his fetish to have both a prick and a pussy. He can go f- himself (literally and figuratively)
No govt can singularly protect its people from something that, by definition, is global. This is patently absurd. Moreover, “One woman said she could not leave her house for three weeks during the summer.” is not a threat to her life.
What will they do? Provide the populace with Umbrella’s in the winter and parasols and fans in the summer?
Or maybe fairy dust, and lashings of wishful thinking?
As US Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in his dissent in the “gay marriage” case:
“The Court’s decision today is at odds not only with the Constitution, but with the principles upon which our Nation was built. Since well before 1787, liberty has been understood as freedom from government action, not entitlement to government benefits. The Framers created our 2 OBERGEFELL v. HODGES THOMAS, J., dissenting Constitution to preserve that understanding of liberty. Yet the majority invokes our Constitution in the name of a “liberty” that the Framers would not have recognized, to the detriment of the liberty they sought to protect. Along the way, it rejects the idea—captured in our Declaration of Independence—that human dignity is innate and suggests instead that it comes from the Government. This distortion of our Constitution not only ignores the text, it inverts the relationship between the individual and the state in our Republic. I cannot agree with it.”
Exactly so.
Obama called the Constitution “A document of negative Liberties” . he said “It says what the government cannot do to you, but does not say what the government can do for you”. ———–No doubt protecting us all from climate change would be one of those things Obama and the democrats would want to do for people—-to “protect us”
When St Barry says ‘do for you’ he means ‘do to you’. And that’s what Common Law and Constituions are for, to stop Governments being actively engaged in deciding what you must have.
And in deciding what other people must have, that will be taken from you.
Thanks. I didn’t realise he had said that. No surprise to learn that’s what he thinks, but interesting he was happy to admit to it publicly.
wink
The architectural ugliness of the ECHR building, which resembles a pair of slurry silos, is a metaphor for many of the decisions they take.
“have to protect people from climate change”. ———-Which ofcourse means everything that is contained in NET ZERO. ——We will remove your petrol car to protect you from climate change. We will take away your gas boiler to protect you from climate change. We will take away all the cheap energy and give you expensive energy, we will force you to have a smart meter all to protect you from climate change. ——Basically we will just get the entire GREEN BLOB force you back to preindustrial times with it all to “protect you”———————-ha ha ha ah a jeezus. ——Why am I laughing, because it would only be funny if it was not so utterly PATHETIC
As opposed to protecting ppl from freezing to death in this ice age in which we live.
Doesn’t harm have to be proven?
I have not read up on the three cases. I imagine the complainants have made some vague references to anxiety which makes it all your* fault.
*’Your’ being a reference to whoever they’re complaining about.
Presumably the judges will take their bench down to the beach and get cross when the incoming tide makes their feet wet.
Surely you are not suggesting they are as stupid as a certain king, long ago? Then of course there is the present one. Does nothing ever change?
It is a rather bold assertion that a government has a duty to protect against the natural ordering of things. They might have a duty to protect you from a criminal or an enemy state. This can clearly be seen as part of the social contract. But I don’t see how it could ever be argued that a government has a duty to protect its people from climate change. You might say that any government is duty bound to examine any crisis that might come along or any activity which might be detrimentally affecting the weather but they are attempting to say something different. They have violated logic in the attempted persuance of a scam. Thankfully the whole world is starting to get it. It is as if we, the masses, are some sort of pustule and they will inject needle after needle into it in the hope that it might go away.
They forget they work for us.
Oft quoted here (although phrasing escapes me) “we cannot vote our way out of this”
I’m not completely convinced. So many of the constituencies in the last GE were won with turnouts well under 20k. FPTP is an obvious impediment, but anger is a fabulous motivator, so campaign to make people angry (if they’re not already). Likely we’d be called conspiracists, deplatformed or insulted but I’m politically homeless right now and really pissed off…
I think FPTP should go. Even though countries with PR seem to be doing no better, at least there’s a chance of getting a voice.
“Oft quoted here (although phrasing escapes me) “we cannot vote our way out of this”
Would it be…
Our salvation will not arrive via the ballot box.
My advice would be listen to some music and read some poetry because thereis no space in their universe for either. Like Bob Marley him say, we chant down Babylon.
We all know and can feel that something really big is about to happen. And so your humanity should drive you towards how we manage that situation and its aftermath because it will probably mean the end of a lot of things. If we are true Brits and really care about reality then we need to be fine tuned to the reality to come.And given the scale of loss that is going to occur over the next few months there won’t be any room for insincerity. We have achieved a lot on these islands in the last two thousand years and well before and we need to look after each other. That will be the main measure when we are sized up.
We are moving into different times. Lets say you got a suden urge to build a boat in your front room – you and your son. This is where we are at so lets develop an understanding based on humanity because of what is to come. This isn’t going to be the way things were in the past on a lot of levels. This time is very bad for women and girls especially given the progress over the last two hundred years. We aim to keep it together and as men we will protect the female realm I’m sure. All I can say is that I devote my time to keeping things together. I put my life in the way of any attempt to destroy it.
“I put my life in the way of any attempt to destroy it.”
Please explain what you mean.
Physical life is by its nature temporary and inevitably ends in physical death.
On the other hand spiritual life is eternal and cannot be destroyed.
So what are you ‘putting your life in the way of any attempt to destroy it’?
“yet another attempted ideological power grab on the part of a self-selecting and self-serving elite out of touch with reality”.”
Could equally apply to the U.N. NATO and the WHO. Hope she’s noticed though I doubt it.
As many of us have said on this site and others Covid was the test run for Locking us up and taking away our freedoms in preparation for the big one, tyranny and a new world order under the auspices of Climate change and emergency. These people are dangerous and are the enemy of freedom and all that is good about western society. We let them rule us and take notice of their directives at our peril.
Seconded
How is it they get to tell us what to do from inside two large water tanks on stilts?
3 words – Burden Of Proof
What is it, provide it unredacted and be prepared to debate it. We want the raw unsullied empirical data, so we ourselves can apply the Scientific method ourselves, with all necessary rigour, and see if we can replicate their claims and finding.