Scientific papers refuting man made climate change

 Not only do believers still use the debunked claim that scientists are 97% agreed man is changing the climate, the BBC just said it was now over 99%. They are lying as here is a list to prove it.

General dismissal  Warming caused by increased energy absorption Warming caused by decreased cloud cover Warming is natural Warming caused by changes in cloud albedo

It seems the media missed this matching set of reports connecting warming with less shade blocking sunlight from the surface.

The medieval warm period was real Physical evidence of the medieval warm period Sea surface temperatures during the medieval warm period Was MWP global (summary)

Also: No warming in southern coral seas

Solar influence on climate (93 papers)

The UN IPCC claim solar changes have very little effect on temperature. They clearly filter what they read.

Climate model uncertainties (summary) 

Natural holocene climate fluctuations Glaciers shrunk more during MWP than present

No Tricks Zone. See index of similar papers

More studies questioning the hockey stick

21 new papers showing current warming is not significant and it was warmer in the Holocene

To come: Papers by name of dissenting scientists.

Where is Satan

 Satan has two qualities. Firstly you can't be troubled by him (it is actually a force, ruling people) unless you invite him in. Of course you won't do this if you know who it is, so he has to gain your trust until you think he is your friend, then you are virtually selling your soul to the devil. It is consent, but the second quality is that it is false consent, as totally based on deception.

Therefore, once you have accepted Satan it is not because you are aware of it, quite the reverse. You believe they are helping you, and any suffering is to avoid a worse fate. Once you realise it is Satan you automatically reject him.

This is the simple formula. My lesson here is how to recognise him, so you can as an individual reject him. You will probably not be capable of persuading anyone else to do so as it is a very hard spell to break, but you can share the signs so at least they know what they are looking for,

The first, and greatest, is the problem/reaction/solution formula. Lock you down to protect from a virus. Wear masks outdoors even though you may not go near enough to pass it on to anyone, and it's almost impossible to spread in open air.

Stop your heating and travel, and restrict your diet to 'stop the earth warming'. Even if this was actually happening history knows it will only be an improvement, and happen over such a long period generations will have more than enough time to adapt. But Satan catches you in his heart and not your head, as fear is based in the lower brain which reacts like an animal and is incapable of thinking. It is why rational parents keep their daughters in while others are free to roam, as they fear they will be attacked, but at the same time accept their friends are safe to do so.

It is not even subtle. In fact it is becoming more and more open and obvious. Muslims no longer fight 'Zionists' but Jews. The UN admit the climate policies are only to bring about a world economic distribution. Climate scientists admit they can't model or even measure most climate parameters, so they simply produce the data they are asked for and alter the equations and measurements to fit them. Nowadays the clues are on ten foot high pedestals with lights flashing on them, but the missing link is the media, as hypnotised minds only listen to sources they trust, and in most cases this is the 'trusted' media sources like the BBC and established newspapers, who of course publish nothing to detach our thinking from Satan as they are run by the same force.

I guarantee if the BBC put a single known situation on the main news, by the next day whatever it had been supporting previously before it was released would collapse. If they exposed the algorithm all main temperature sensing organisations use which creates nearly all modern warming then people would all feel cheated and never fall for that scam again, and probably many more as once your eyes are open they rarely close again. You have been awakened, red pilled, and it is now virtually impossible to fool you again as there is a formula and it is extremely narrow and limited.

This is all you need to know, if even 30% of people wake up it will be impossible to maintain any illusions any longer, as, to use a current phrase, there will be a herd immunity of the minds. Satan will fall.

These things are all legal but they're wrong

 Politics is full of glaring loopholes. Some, you will see, are obviously wrong, others are based on the problem/reaction/solution formula, where you would believe they were wrong unless they were offered as an alleged solution to something worse. Of course when that something worse doesn't happen they always claim it's because of the solution, even though it will always be impossible to know either way, much like the local criminals offer to look after your car so it doesn't get stolen or your business so it doesn't burn down. After nothing happens to it they claim it was because of the insurance you paid, although what they actually meant is if you don't pay them then they'll steal your car or burn down your business.

1) Offshore taxation. This is a totally legal loophole. It means in many countries any firm nominally located in a tax haven pays barely any tax wherever it does business. We all know the main culprits and it can easily be changed by taxing business on where it is done, not where it is based.

2) Phoenix companies. It is possible to own a limited company, go broke, not pay any of your liabilities, and then buy back the company in another name and start up the next day or so with the same assets and no debts. There has never been a single politician who challenged this ancient loophole in the law.

3) Energy rationing. Our first solution to an imagined problem. If using energy to heat, travel and manufacture using cheap and reliable fuel emits a poison then it is banned, as with the Clean Air Act requiring coal plants and the like to scrub their emissions before they left the chimneys, and ended smog. But if it emits CO2, which is known as essential to all life on earth through the carbon cycle, and is treated in the same way as it is alleged CO2 causes not just warming but this warming is overall bad for life on earth, then as stated in the Kyoto Protocol, you must reduce energy usage.

If there was a plentiful and constant alternative fuel we would have done so already and changed to use it, but there isn't. Instead the British government wants us to lower our radiators by 10C to around 10C. That is the average temperature on a winter's day, and basically unless it's almost freezing it is the same as not having any heating on at all. They will make this happen partly through banning gas boilers and partly through smart meters which can regulate how much energy you use.

Surely forcing people to restrict their heating, which we know is bad for your health as there is a physical optimum temperature and minimum temperature for indoors, and that is what everyone sets their heating at. People are already dying of cold in winter as the green taxes mean they can't afford enough heating, so people are dying in their thousands every year already for something not even expected to happen till around 2050 at the most liberal estimates.

4) Travel restrictions. This is the twin of energy rationing, as restricting car and plane travel are for the same purported reasons as above, and previously only something done automatically in totalitarian regimes. Banning certain vehicles from cities even though they all pass their MoT tests suggests either the strict MoT emissions tests are useless, or they are actually sufficient so the additional bans are pointless. Both can't be true at the same time.

On top of vehicle restrictions, which include banning all cars except electric by 2050, blocking roads makes no sense unless they are death traps. All others provide access to buildings and through traffic and will mean emergency vehicles and deliveries are made almost impossible to access. Add some speed humps and chicanes and you will combine many more deaths a year from ambulances who have to drive slowly and will not reach victims in time, or get victims to hospital in time, with accidents from people trying to avoid traffic forced onto the wrong side of the road by chicanes. Vehicles are not  designed to be dropped vertically very often besides off-roaders, and this can happen a hundred times a day now in many suburban areas, and councils have special funds for vehicles damaged by hitting one underneath. Bad drivers will always cause accidents as they are ignorant, and putting bumps on the road will ruin journeys for the huge majority of safe drivers and will do little or nothing to prevent bad drivers causing havoc.

5) Hunting animals. If you're not going to eat it, don't kill it. If you do, then be quite prepared to be killed by an animal yourself, it's the same thing as what you're doing.

6) Live animal exports. These should be kept to a minimum, killing the animals where they originate and then freezing the meat for export. Many have no food or water and die on the journeys which can be for thousands of miles.

I'm sure there are plenty more similar examples which I would like to hear about if so, but these are all examples where either fraud or harm is legalised, with or without a plausible but baseless excuse. Mankind will not evolve until its worst elements such as these are tamed.

Sources:

Offshore tax havens

Phoenix companies

Kyoto Protocol

Turning down heating

Deaths from cold through high bills

Cars to be banned from cities

Road humps cause around 500 deaths a year

Live animal exports

Climate confessions

 It is impossible to lie plausibly for an indefinite period, so sooner or later paid experts who create the scary stories to frighten innocent citizens into handing over their rights are unwittingly going to tell the truth. In law you won't need a trial if the defendants plead guilty, so all the arguments my side make to dismantle their claims won't even be needed once they've admitted the true position themselves. Half of these are direct confessions to the media, the others were hacked from their personal correspondence while they assumed no one would ever see them besides their intended targets. Putting this all together it is fairly impossible not to realise they are pretty much making it all up as they go along as they are under higher orders to produce a consistent picture regardless of the actual data, or fill it in when there is none at all.

However, once you read this the rest is just narrative. This was actually Mike Hulme, apologies.

However, he did say this, which is close enough.

The UN IPCC themselves in 2001 stated what ought to be obvious to anyone educated to O level:

"The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible."

What a bloody mess. Now looking at the dates . . . something bad has happened, hasn’t it. COBAR AIRPORT AWS [data from an Australian weather station] cannot start in 1962, it didn’t open until 1993! . . . getting seriously fed up with the state of the Australian data. So many new stations have been introduced, so many false references . . . so many changes that aren’t documented . . . I am very sorry to report that the rest of the databases seem to be in nearly as poor a state as Australia was . . . Aarrggghhh! There truly is no end in sight!

Dr John McLean published the first-ever audit of Britain’s HadCRUT4 temperature data set and commented:

It’s very careless and amateur. About the standard of a first-year university student … Governments have had 25 years to check the data on which they’ve been spending billions of dollars. And they haven’t done so once.

Summary of admissions

 In a January 2002 Scientific American article Stephen Schneider wrote:

"I readily confess a lingering frustration: uncertainties so infuse the issue of climate change that it is still impossible to rule out either mild or catastrophic outcomes, let alone provide confident probabilities for all the claims and counterclaims made about environmental problems. Even the most credible international assessment body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), has refused to attempt subjective probabilistic estimates of future temperatures. This has forced politicians to make their own guesses about the likelihood of various degrees of global warming"

He also said elsewhere: "So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This 'double ethical bind' we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."

Phil Jones: "There is much debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period was global in extent or not. The MWP is most clearly expressed in parts of North America, the North Atlantic and Europe and parts of Asia. For it to be global in extent the MWP would need to be seen clearly in more records from the tropical regions and the Southern Hemisphere. There are very few palaeoclimatic records for these latter two regions." meaning "Of course, if the MWP was shown to be global in extent and as warm or warmer than today (based on an equivalent coverage over the NH and SH) then obviously the late-20th century warmth would not be unprecedented. On the other hand, if the MWP was global, but was less warm that today, then current warmth would be unprecedented."

The UN economic leaders Ottmar Edenhofer and Christina Figueres both stated very clearly in public global warming was not about the climate but economic redistribution.

"This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution,"

Affirming her predecessors almost identical statement: "But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy."

Mike Hulme went even further in a Guardian interview, openly admitting it was necessary to lie to reach the required results:

"Self-evidently dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth seeking, although science will gain some insights into the question if it recognises the socially contingent dimensions of a post-normal science. But to proffer such insights, scientists - and politicians - must trade (normal) truth for influence. If scientists want to remain listened to, to bear influence on policy, they must recognise the social limits of their truth seeking and reveal fully the values and beliefs they bring to their scientific activity."

Combine these from alleged believers, here are statements from equally qualified experts who don't believe and they say exactly why. There is no possible picture of a consensus. Statements from experts

Sources: Phil Jones quotes

Ottmar Edenhofer interview Mike Hulme interview