Detailed Full PowerChair Related ONLY Menu HERE
Detailed Wheelchair Accessible Vehicles ONLY menu HERE
Detailed Menu of Everything else HERE!
VW Caravelle VR6
BUILT ULTIMATE POWERCHAIRS:
2 | 3
My VERY Modified Off Road & All terrain DO ALL
| 2 |
Goes Wrong Power Wheelchairs
Drive your Powerchair by Radio Control
Powerchairs & Range
Off Road DO ALL Indoor & Outdoor Powerchairs
Off Road ONLY Outdoor Powerchairs & 4x4
Manual or Electric Wheelchair?
Why ALL Powerchairs
NEED to be Off Road Capable!
Choosing a Suitable Powerchair
AND ELECTRICAL (POWERCHAIRS & SCOOTERS + MOTOR VEHICLES):
Batteries for Both Vans & Power Wheelchairs
Inverters & Chargers
Very flexible charger!
Fast Charge Your Power
Which batteries to buy
FROM A WHEELCHAIR" VEHICLES:
Grand Caravan 1
Grand Caravan 2
Dodge Grand Caravan 3
Dodge Grand Caravan 4
Latest 2008 2009 2010
Disabled Converted Dodge Chrysler And Voyager Minivans
Suzuki Wagon R
Kia Sedona - soon!
USED VEHICLES & OTHER
Disabled Adapted Cars
& DRIVE BY TRANSFERRING:
Grand Caravan can be used to transport up to 4 Wheelchair Seated Occupants
Citroen Berlingo - soon!
Fiat Multiplas (Wheelchair
passenger travels in the front)
Kangoo ASSIST (wheelchair
passenger transfers & drives)
Puncture proof tyres
Run Flat tyres
Tyre Weld Aerosol
Hand Controls Manual
Hand Controls Electronic
Van / Car Door openers
Van / Car Wheelchair Tie Downs
Used Disabled Equipment for sale
How to lose weight FAST!
Email about modifying powerchairs
Keep it looking new 1
Cars are a Joke!
& About Me
Man Made Climate Change -- is a "belief" among the
average person (and its not even half good science!)
Cars and why its all a Joke! (on the poor tax payer)
"If we diverted all the government
funding from man made climate change research into an examination of the tooth
fairy, you'd have a list of BSc's and PhD's as long as my arm, with computer
models of her wings and credible theories as how she flies."
And remember this when you consider
the Inter governmental panel on climate change that everybody now "believes" as
The above paragraph is perfectly
true. People are naturally going to find
links, connections and make working computer models if you pay them to do so.
The other side of the argument doesn't get a chance or funding!
Its how man made "climate science
computer models" came about. And these
are the same kind of models that cannot predict the weather a week away...
And they run these flawed incomplete computer models using whatever
"assumptions" they choose to make. A tiny adjustment to one or another parameter
results in wildly different predictions. And this is the ONLY "proof" of man
made climate change!
I have a high IQ and I run on
pure science and logic. To me things are
either: proven, likely if they have "some valid supporting evidence" and merit
further research. Or they are like a religion. A belief system.
Man made global warming is like
the last one because the science is
absolutely tenuous and there are very valid arguments and real science to show
that climate change is perfectly natural. It has after all in the past been much
hotter than today. And much colder. And if you look back further than the few
years that the "climate scientists" choose to do then the current warming or
rate of warming does not look remotely abnormal or indeed unusual...
Don't get me wrong there is
absolutely no doubt that the climate changes!
And it does so fast. I just do NOT believe that
humans are responsible. At least to any measurable or relevant degree.
I just find the supporting
"evidence" rather thin in light of the
mass of evidence that says its perfectly natural and not at all unusual. The
governments "panel of scientists" and the various TV news readers, TV
advertising for new "planet saving" products and many other media people all
talk about climate change as if its fact! Its not. Far from it. A great
many real Scientists do not agree and find the claims ridiculous. The problem is
that this distortion of science is now so indoctrinated in western society that
everyone (especially school kids) believe every word is true! You are not
"allowed" to disagree! Trouble is its NOT proven and looks very unlikely.
And they talk as global warming
is a bad thing.
That's also the opposite of what
the earths history shows. In the distant
past it was MUCH hotter and colder than now. Humans have only been around for at
the most 2 million years! In the history of the earth that's just 1 second on a
24 hour clock. Remember the earth is 4.5 billion years old and over that time
huge changes in both temperature directions and in CO2 content has happened many
But even in the very recent past
it was hotter. (during the last 0.2
seconds of the earths existence!) There were vineyards and wine production in
the UK, people and animals thrived, expanded and spread further north and south.
More of the planet became inhabitable. Plants and greenery spread much further
north and south giving a wider band around the earth of vegetation and land for
animal life to live on. This isn't religion, this is provable science and
Science knows this period very
well. It has a fancy name.
Holocene climatic optimum. Now this
wasn't a particularly warm period in the earths history. A tiny blip. But it was
a lot hotter than today. But it was very recent so we have better
records and its easier to understand. There was no catastrophic sea rise. It was
not a "bad" thing at all in fact! It was a time of plenty and of advancement and
expansion of not only people but all life including vegetation. Then we
had the "mini ice age" where the Thames was frozen over regularly and most of
Europe had more cold and snow. And now as we are coming out of that the global
warmists are surprised its getting warmer!
And here's the strange thing...
The man made global warming
brigade insist that the following is true:
- That its getting warmer.
When in fact for the past ten years the complete opposite has been true.
We know that, science knows that and
they know that too. But this upsets the global warmists so much because
their whole belief system, income (Scientists and Industry) and industry
building "environmentally friendly everything" (cars, power stations, homes,
washing powder in fact you name it!) that they re-named it from Global
Warming to "climate change"...
- That rising C02
levels are causing the temperature rise. When
in fact the ice core samples clearly show the CO2 level rising in response
to the temperature... In every test done. This is because
vegetation (rotting leaves) the seas (over 2/3rds of the planet) give up
their dissolved CO2 in the same way as warming a carbonated drink (COKE?)
which is why its "fizzy" in your mouth. The CO2 simply boils out. It does
the same when the seas warm. And the opposite as they cool. The evidence
clearly supports this but is largely ignored.
- The suns output has
nothing to do with the temperature...
Fact, the suns output varies quite dramatically.
Right now (this decade) the sun is very quiet.
Very little solar activity or sun spots. And the worlds average measured
temp has fallen for ten years solidly. No surprise there then! Many
scientists including the Japanese governments own scientists say this is
what's really happening and is expected.
Their models do not take into account things like
water vapour, the differential temperature at different altitudes, (which is the
wrong way around if CO2 is responsible) or the suns output. And they only see
this small amount of warming as "unusual" because they only look at the last
couple of hundred years instead of the last few thousand, few hundred thousand,
few million, or few BILLION! Its actually not remotely unusual at all.
Even if we accept the theory
of human global warming caused by CO2 from our cars and factories (which nobody
that looks at the real facts could) and accept that its bad (it never was in the
past) then what could we actually do about it?
Frankly we cant really do
anything that will have any effect.
E.G. Our government is currently giving away
thousands in subsidies (of my and other taxpayers money) of absolutely useless
technology to "help" cut CO2 production. (its not real
production of course it just frees up what some trees and
dinosaurs locked away as oil, gas, coal) to allow some more plants to grow
faster to re lock it all up again. After all plants grow better with CO2 as its
their version of Oxygen! They need it.
And right now there is almost non in our
atmosphere. 0.2 of one percent.
so little its almost zero! That's 380 parts per MILLION! That's equivalent
to about 3 blades of grass in your lawn. To put this into perspective
that's 20 times less than a few million years ago. TWENTY TIMES...
And It is all but
insignificant as a greenhouse gas
compared to the other greenhouse gasses such as water vapour which is by far the
most important. Of that TINY amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, the vast majority
comes from natural sources anyway such as microbes, seas, forests and their
leaves and vegetation decaying. And volcanoes and animals / humans breathing. We
only add around 5 percent of this. Again this is a tiny bit, of the tiny bit of
the most insignificant greenhouse gas. Which naturally gets used up by plant
life as they grow better.
Now back to the 2k government
subsidy to buy a "green" car... This is just an example. There are many such
foolish ideas. but this one goes like this. 2k to scrap your old (but perfectly
serviceable) car and buy a planet saving "green" car.. Which pleases greenies
and the simpletons...
So to begin with we have to
make the new car. That uses an awful lot
of the planets resources and fuel in everything from mining and smelting the
ore, to building the factories, to transporting the goods and workers to and
from the plant and way more that we don't have time to add here.
The new planet saving car uses
batteries! So these heavy short lived
inefficient devices also have to be made, shipped (completely across the world
twice in the case of the Prius)
And batteries waste energy
hugely. Typically a 100 amp hour battery
can only have that extracted over twenty hours. You only get say 70ah from the
same battery at the 5 hour rate. In a car you probably want that power out in
2.5 hours so your 100 ah battery is really only giving you say 60 ah.
That's a loss of 40 percent of
your energy. But wait! Its gets even
better. When you charge a battery the correct charge is typically around 140
percent of its capacity. So you have to fill it with 1.4x the amount it really
holds. The rest is wasted due to the batteries internal resistance amongst other
things. So now we lost 40 percent charging it, and another 40 percent running
the car... Batteries? Waste of time.
But wait it gets worse!
Your electric car is really heavy! Batteries
are unbelievably heavy and you need a lot of battery power. So your small car is
inefficient since it weighs the same as a small truck. So as well as
wasting 40 percent charging, 40, driving you also waste another huge chunk
driving a ton of batteries about. We wont mention short range, crap performance.
But wait! Its worse than
that... It STILL burns fossil fuels. The
power stations that it needs to charge it all run on oil, coal or gas. Apart
from a very small percentage of Nuclear ones. So now you are wasting MORE fuel
than just driving a normal (better) small car and creating MORE Carbon Dioxide
in the process... (We will ignore the fact that the batteries need replacing,
remanufacturing and disposal of nasty chemicals every 300 charges (cycles) as
But wait! It gets worse!
The power station wastes fuel and is only
about 70 percent efficient in generating the electricity. And then it wastes
some more in the transformers used to step up to the power line voltage of half
a million volts. Then it wastes a bit more on the losses in the transmission
lines. Then some more stepping it down to work your charger. Which if it is a
high efficiency switch mode one will only waste 10 percent more while charging
your (140 percent charge) batteries... Please, tell me again how this
saves the planet??? Not that CO2 actually causes a problem anyway.
So what's the best solution?
There isn't one. Unless you accept the
inefficiency, and build lots of nuclear power stations. Then turn the water into
hydrogen via electrolysis and run your conventional car on that with a simple
There are many schemes.
Another example. We are all forced to buy these new power saving lights. Old
incandescent ones are now both frowned upon and unavailable. Its the
environmental law. Them mentalists are stupid. In this country one
of the problems we have is heat. Its cold enough to require the central heating
on about 200 days a year to a small degree at least. I typically leave my
heating on all year set thermostatically. So we "save power" with these new
lights. But we don't get the waste heat. So now the central heating needs to
consume more power to make up the difference! And we leave them on now since
they are "cheap" to run... So the net result is we use either the same or more
power overall and we have worse lights that take 5 mins to warm up and nasty
chemicals to dispose of... Clever!
So there's nothing we could
ever do to stop global warming because "we" are not the cause!
And to try is both pointless and
damaging to the economy and therefore our standard of living. Plus even if
humans ceased to exist the effect on the TOTAL CO2 level is absolutely
insignificant. Not that CO2 derives temperature anyway!
I could go on but what's the
point. You cant convince
someone with a "belief" because they are already brainwashed and logic and
evidence is wasted.
My last attempt is to get you
to download a movie that explains all this.
Its a BBC Documentary called the Great Global
Warming Swindle. Torrents are available. They showed it once and there was an
uproar from the mentalists saying it was a distortion. They have yet to explain
the facts that this documentary produces though.
This global warming bull will
eventually go the way of the last big panic. The scary Ozone Hole! Apparently we
had to stop using CFCs or we would all die of cancer or something. And we had
already pumped enough CFCs into the atmosphere to make the Ozone hole last for
decades to come. 50 years was the figure mentioned. Funny how you don't hear any
more about that isn't it? They went very quiet.
Because once the South
American volcano that had been pumping CFCs into the atmosphere at a huge rate
stopped the hole fixed itself... All that fuss for nothing. Air conditioning
redesigned to use different gasses, companies that used CFCs all over the globe
had huge changes and expense or went bust. All for nothing it seems.
I WAS SENT THIS BY EMAIL BY A
READER... DON'T KNOW WHERE HE ACQUIRED IT BUT SINCE ITS IMPORTANT I REPOST IT
HERE. IF ITS YOURS I APOLOGISE!
100 Reasons why the ‘Copenhagen’
Governments and other proponents of “man-made” Global Warming theory of Climate
Change are completely wrong
1. Politicians and activists say we must tackle global warming by reducing
greenhouse gas emissions, but there is no real scientific proof that the current
warming is caused by the rise of greenhouse gases resulting from human activity.
2. Why should politicians devote our scarce resources in a globally competitive
world to a false and ill-defined problem, whilst ignoring the real problems the
entire planet faces, such as: extreme poverty, hunger, disease or terrorism.
3. Politicians and activists say we must tackle global warming, pointing to
rising sea levels but the ongoing rise in the sea level does not depend on
short-term temperature changes, and in any case the rate of sea-level increases
has been steady since the last ice age 10,000 years ago.
4. Activists and dubious “scientists” provide ice core proof of how warming over
the centuries has been accompanied by raised CO2 levels, but as Professor Ian
Clark, an expert in Palaeoclimatology from the University of Ottawa, and other
scientists have claimed, warmer periods of the earth’s history came around 800
years before rises in CO2 levels.
5. For activists, global warming is accompanied by raised CO2 levels but after
World War II, there was a huge surge in recorded CO2 emissions – while global
temperatures fell for four decades after 1940.
6. As Philip Stott, Emeritus Professor of Biogeography at the School of Oriental
and African Studies in London, and many other scientists have said, climate
change is too complicated to be caused by just one factor, whether CO2 or
clouds. Stott said: “The system is too complex to say exactly what the effect of
cutting back on CO2 production would be or indeed of continuing to produce CO2.”
7. It is a myth that the “hockey stick” graph (used by the UN’s IPCC) proves
that the earth has experienced a steady, very gradual temperature increase for
1000 years, then recently began a sudden increase, because significant changes
in climate have continually occurred throughout geologic time. It is known that
the Medieval Warm Period, from around 1000 to1200 AD was followed by a period
known as the Little Ice Age. Since the end of the 17th Century the “average
global temperature” has been rising at the low steady rate, although from 1940 –
1970 temperatures actually dropped, which some will recall led to a “Global
8. A proper analysis of ice core records from the past 650,000 years
demonstrates that temperature increases have come before, and not resulted from,
increases in CO2 by hundreds of years, which is an indication that ocean warming
is an important source of the rise in atmospheric CO2.
9. Since the cause of global warming is mostly natural, then there is in actual
fact very little we can do about it. (We are still not able to control the sun).
10. As Peter Lilley MP stated in the House of Commons on 5th November 2009,
“…fewer people in Britain than in any other country believe in the importance of
global warming. That is despite the fact that our Government and our political
class—predominantly—are more committed to it than their counterparts in any
other country in the world.” There is no genuine belief in man-made global
warming theory because it simply does not add up.
11. The United Nation’s International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which
created a statement on scientific unanimity on climate change and man-made
global warming, was exposed as seriously troubled when new information was
released (under threat from Freedom of Information legislation), demonstrating
that substantial numbers of the panel of 2,500 climate scientists had serious
concerns, which the Panel rejected as it publicly claimed to have formed a
“consensus”. There was no such agreement. There was serious dissent.
12. A computer hacker released a number of files and e-mails from the University
of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU), a Unit which works closely with a
handful of other meteorological institutes around the world, which details the
source of the basic temperature data that underpins the “science” of global
warming. The evidence from this episode demonstrated that the small group of
scientists, with some associations to the IPCC, had been manipulating the
essential data, applying “adjustments” to create or exaggerate warming trends.
They are now the subject of an inquiry. This is the exclusive data on which the
modern global warming hypothesis rests.
13. The United Kingdom’s Met Office has been forced this year to re-examine 160
years of temperature data after admitting that public confidence in the science
on man-made global warming has been shattered by revelations about the data.
Their new analysis of the data will take three years, meaning that the Met
Office will not be able to state with absolute confidence the extent of the
warming trend until the end of 2012.
14. Politicians and activists push for renewable energy sources such as wind
turbines under the rhetoric of climate change, but it is essentially about money
– under the system of Renewable Obligations Certificates (ROCs), wind companies
can sell their energy at an almost guaranteed price. Much of the money is paid
for by consumers in electricity bills. It amounts to £1 billion a year, and
Ofgem calculates that it will amount to about £4 billion by 2020.
15. The “Climate-gate” scandal revealed that a scientific team had tampered with
their own data so as to conceal inconsistencies and errors.
16. The “Climate-gate” scandal revealed that a scientific team had campaigned
for the removal of a learned journal’s editor, solely because he did not share
their willingness to debase science for political purposes.
17. The “Climate-gate” scandal revealed that a scientific team had mounted a
venomous public campaign of disinformation and denigration of their scientific
opponents via a website that they had expensively created.
18. Even the head of Britain’s Climate Change watchdog has predicted that
households will need to spend up to £15,000 on a full energy efficiency makeover
if the Government is to meet its ambitious targets for cutting carbon emissions
in response to nonsensical climate change targets.
19. A healthy public relations collusion between politicians across the globe
spread the message that 4,000 IPCC scientists believed in global warming, when
actually there were only c. 3,750 people, and when we remove the duplications
and the total number of authors plus reviewers, it drops from 3,750 to 2,890,
and when we consider that in about 25% of the cases, the editors rejected the
suggestions, then there is even less. In fact, we eventually get to the
predicament in which 53 authors and seven favourable reviewers make up a total
of 60 people who explicitly supported the claim made by the IPCC that global
warming represents a threat to the planet. That is one scientist for every two
20. In pursuit of the global warming rhetoric, wind farms will do very little to
nothing to reduce CO2 emissions.
21. While the wind power industry argues that there are “no direct subsidies”,
this form of power involves a total subsidy of as much as £60 per MWh, which
falls directly on electricity consumers. The burden on consumers will grow in
line with attempts to achieve its targets – as the recent OFGEM report has
22. In pursuit of global warming ideology, wind farms have been erected but
because wind is unpredictably and continuously variable, wind power requires
back-up. Even the British Wind Energy Association (BWEA) accepts a figure of 75%
back-up is required, making them highly inefficient.
23. In the UK, a group of scientists informed the media that we are “at the top
end of IPCC estimates”, and that global temperatures “could increase by 6
degrees”, but the truth is that global temperatures are below the low end of
IPCC predictions, and that there is indeed no need for alarmism.
24. The small (+0.7 deg C) increase in the average global temperature over the
last hundred years is entirely consistent with well-established, long-term,
natural climate trends. The predictions of the IPCC’s computer models continue
to fly in the face of observed data.
25. Professor Plimer – Professor of Geology and Earth Sciences at the University
of Adelaide – has provided an authoritative sketch of 4½ billion years of earth
climate history, stating that the idea of taking a single trace gas in the
atmosphere, accusing it and finding it guilty of total responsibility for
climate change, is an “absurdity” bordering on madness.
26. Throughout the earth’s history, temperatures have often been warmer than
today’s climate and CO2 levels have often been higher – more than ten times as
27. A Harvard University astrophysicist and geophysicist, Willie Soon, said he
is “embarrassed and puzzled” by the shallow science in papers that support the
proposition that the earth faces a climate crisis caused by global warming.
28. Climate alarmists have raised the concern over acidification of the oceans
but Tom Segalstad from Oslo University in Norway, and others, have noted that
the composition of ocean water – including CO2, calcium, and water – can
actually act as a buffering agent in the acidification of the oceans.
29. The UN’s IPCC computer models of human-caused global warming clearly predict
the emergence of a “hotspot” in the upper troposphere over the tropics, but
former researcher in the Australian Department of Climate Change, David Evans,
said that radio temperature data for the upper troposphere actually shows there
is no such hotspot.
30. The argument that climate change is a result of anthropogenic global warming
is the argument of flat earthers.
31. The aggressive and ideological manner in which US President Barack Obama
sidestepped Congress to order emission cuts shows how undemocratic and
irrational the entire transnational decision-making process has become with
regards to emission-target setting.
32. William Kininmonth, a former head of the National Climate Centre and a
consultant to the World Meteorological Organisation, wrote “the likely extent of
global temperature rise from a doubling of CO2 is less than 1C. Such warming is
well within the envelope of variation experienced during the past 10,000 years
and insignificant in the context of glacial cycles during the past million
years, when Earth has been predominantly very cold and covered by extensive ice
33. As Canada has shown the world, targets derived from the existing Kyoto
commitments were always unrealistic and that didn’t work for the country.
34. News announced by the Met Office asserts we are in the hottest decade since
records began but this is precisely what the world should expect if the climate
is cyclical, and based on solar and astronomical factors.
35. In the lead up to the Copenhagen summit, David Davis MP rightly said of
previous climate summits, at Rio de Janeiro in 1992 and Kyoto in 1996 that many
had promised greater cuts, but “neither happened”. Are we really continuing
along the same lines?
36. The UK’s environmental policy has a long-term price tag of about £55
billion, before taking into account the impact on its economic growth.
37. The science of what determines the earth’s temperature is in fact far from
settled or understood.
38. The UN’s panel on climate change warned that Himalayan glaciers could melt
to a fifth of current levels by 2035 but this is severely inaccurate says a
professor at Ontario Trent University , J. Graham Cogley, and he believes, quite
rightly, the UN authors got the date from an earlier report wrong by more than
39. In pursuit of hysterical climate change policy, the EU under existing Kyoto
obligations has attempted to claim success, while actually increasing emissions
by 13 per cent, Lord Lawson has warned. To make it worse, the EU has pursued
this scheme by purchasing “offsets” from countries such as China, who it has
paid billions of dollars to destroy atmospheric pollutants, such as CFC-23,
which they had manufactured purely in order to be destroyed. The EU emissions
trading scheme itself has been a complete failure.
40. It is claimed that the average global temperature was relatively unchanging
in pre-industrial times, has sky-rocketed since 1900, and will increase by
several degrees more over the next 100 years (as stated under the Mann et al.
“hockey stick” curve) but the Mann et al. curve has been exposed as a
statistical contrivance. There is no convincing empirical evidence that past
climate was unchanging, nor that 20th century changes in average global
temperature were unusual or unnatural.
41. Michael Mann of Penn State University has shown that the Medieval Warm
Period and the Little Ice Age do in fact exist, which contrasts with his earlier
work that produced the now infamous hockey stick graph that showed a constant
temperature over the past thousand years or so and a recent dramatic upturn.
42. The globe’s current approach to climate change in which major industrialised
countries agree to nonsensical targets for their CO2 emissions by a given date –
as it has been under the Kyoto system – is very expensive and has no bearing on
43. The “Climate-gate” scandal revealed that a scientific team had emailed one
another about using a “trick” for the sake of concealing a “decline” in
temperatures in the paleoclimate.
44. The “Climate-gate” scandal revealed that a scientific team had expressed
dismay at the fact that, contrary to all of their predictions, global
temperatures had not risen in any statistically-significant sense for 15 years,
and had been falling for nine years. They had admitted that their inability to
explain it was “a travesty”. This internal doubt was in contrast to their public
statements that the present decade is the warmest ever and that “global warming”
science is settled.
45. The world “warmed” by 0.07 +/- 0.07 degrees C from 1999 to 2008, not the
0.20 degrees C expected by the IPCC.
46. The IPCC predicts that a warmer planet will lead to more extreme weather
(including drought, flooding, storms, snow, and wildfires), but the last century
– during which the IPCC claims the world experienced more rapid warming than any
time in the past two millennia – did not experience significantly greater trends
in any of these extreme weather events.
47. The IPCC says “it is likely that future tropical cyclones (typhoons and
hurricanes) will become more intense, with larger peak wind speeds and more
heavy precipitation associated with ongoing increase of tropical sea surface
temperatures” but despite the supposed global warming of the twentieth century,
there has been no increase in the intensity or frequency of tropical cyclones
globally or in any of the specific oceans.
48. In explaining the average temperature standstill we are currently
experiencing, the Met Office Hadley Centre ran a series of computer climate
predictions all of which had programmed into them the 0.20 deg C long-term IPCC
trend and found that in many of the computer runs there were decade-long
standstills but none for 15 years – so it expects global warming to resume
49. Richard S. Lindzen, Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, has written “The notion of a static, unchanging climate
is foreign to the history of the earth or any other planet with a fluid
envelope. The fact that the developed world went into hysterics over changes in
global mean temperature anomaly of a few tenths of a degree will astound future
generations. Such hysteria simply represents the scientific illiteracy of much
of the public, the susceptibility of the public to the substitution of
repetition for truth, and the exploitation of these weaknesses by politicians,
environmental promoters, and, after 20 years of media drum beating, many others
50. Despite the 1996 Kyoto Protocol’s status as the flagship of the fight
against climate change, it has been a failure.
51. In pursuit of an appalling European climate change policy, the first phase
of the EU’s Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), which ran from 2005 to 2007 was a
failure. Huge over-allocation of permits to pollute led to a collapse in the
price of carbon from €33 to just €0.20 per tonne, meaning that the system did
not reduce emissions at all. And the second phase, from 2008-2012, is likely to
52. In pursuit of climate change policy, the EU trading scheme, which has
completely failed, actually allows European businesses to duck out of making
their emissions reductions at home by offsetting – which means paying for cuts
to be made overseas instead.
53. To date “cap and trade” carbon markets have done almost nothing to reduce
54. In the United States, the cap-and-trade is an approach designed to control
carbon emissions and will impose huge costs upon American citizens. It will
impose a carbon tax on all goods and services produced in the United States. The
average family of four can expect to pay an additional $1700 or more each year.
It is predicted that the United States will lose more than 2 million jobs as the
result of cap-and-trade schemes.
55. Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama
in Huntsville, has indicated in a presentation of his research that out of the
21 climate models tracked by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC),
the differences in warming exhibited by those models is mostly the result of
different strengths of positive cloud feedback – and that increasing CO2 is
insufficient to explain global-average warming in the last 50 to 100 years.
56. Ice-core data clearly show that temperatures change centuries before
concentrations of atmospheric CO2 change. Thus, there appears to be little
evidence for insisting that changes in concentrations of CO2 are the cause of
past temperature and climate change.
57. There are no experimentally verified processes explaining how CO2
concentrations can fall in a few centuries without falling temperatures – to the
contrary, it is changing temperatures which cause changes in CO2 concentrations,
which is consistent with experiments that show CO2 is the atmospheric gas most
readily absorbed by water.
58. The last warm period ended less than 800 years ago and when thorough
researchers compare and contrast these climate changes with changes in
civilization and human standards, it is generally concluded that warm periods
are beneficial to mankind and cold periods harmful.
59. Despite activist concerns over CO2 levels, rising CO2 levels in the
atmosphere can be shown not only to have a negligible effect on the earth’s many
ecosystems, but in some cases to be a positive help to many organisms.
60. Despite activist concerns over CO2 levels, rising CO2 levels are our best
hope of raising crop yields to feed an ever-growing population.
61. Despite activist concerns over CO2 levels, rising CO2 levels of some
so-called “greenhouse gases” may be contributing to higher oxygen levels and
global cooling, not warming.
62. The biggest climate change ever experienced on earth did not take place
recently but actually took place around 700 million years ago.
63. Despite activist concerns over CO2 levels, CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas,
unlike water vapour which is tied to climate concerns, and which we can’t even
pretend to control.
64. Despite activist concerns over CO2 levels, today’s CO2 concentration of
around 385 ppm is very low compared to most of the earth’s history – we actually
live in a carbon-deficient atmosphere.
65. How can politicians insist on global warming when the slight increase in
temperature which has been observed since 1900 is entirely consistent with
well-established, long-term natural climate cycles, or even that in the last ten
years, the earth has cooled slightly?
66. In line with climate change activist’s wishes, the Government’s Renewable
Energy Strategy contains a massive increase in electricity generation by wind
power and will cost around £4 billion a year over the next twenty years while
the benefits will be only £4 to £5 billion overall (not per annum). So costs
will outnumber benefits by a range of between eleven and seventeen times. It is
claimed by the government that the loss of around £65 billion will be
compensated by the “non-monetary benefits”.
67. It is a myth that global temperatures are rising at an unprecedented rate
because accurate satellite, balloon and mountain top observations made over the
last three decades have not shown any significant change in the long term rate
of increase in global temperatures.
68. Whilst CO2 levels have indeed changed for various reasons, human and
otherwise, just as they have throughout history, the CO2 content of the
atmosphere has increased since the beginning of the industrial revolution, and
the growth rate has now been constant for the past 25 years.
69. It is a myth that CO2 is the most common greenhouse gas because greenhouse
gases form about 3% of the atmosphere by volume, and so CO2 constitutes about
0.037% of the atmosphere.
70. It is a myth that computer models verify that CO2 increases will cause
significant global warming because computer models can be made to “verify”
anything by changing a great number of input parameters or any of a multitude of
negative and positive feedbacks in the program used. In this context, the IPCC
predictions do not “prove” anything.
71. It is entirely inconsistent that the United Nations claimed to prove that
man-made CO2 causes global warming while in a 1996 report by the UN on global
warming, two statements were deleted from the final draft stating that “None of
the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the
observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases” and “No study to date
has positively attributed all or part of the climate change to man–made causes”.
72. It is a myth that CO2 is a pollutant, because nitrogen forms 80% of our
atmosphere and human beings could not live in 100% nitrogen either: CO2 is no
more a pollutant than nitrogen is and CO2 is essential to life.
73. It is simply not true to claim that global warming will cause more storms
and other weather extremes because, while regional variations may occur, there
is no scientific or statistical evidence whatsoever that supports these claims.
74. It is myth that receding glaciers and the calving of ice shelves are proof
of global warming given that glaciers have been receding and growing cyclically
for many centuries. Ice shelves have been breaking off for centuries.
75. It is a falsehood that the earth’s poles are warming; polar ice caps are
breaking up and melting and the sea level rising, because that is natural
variation and whilst the western Arctic may be getting somewhat warmer, due to
cyclic events in the Pacific Ocean, we also see that the Eastern Arctic and
Greenland are getting colder. The main Antarctic continent is actually cooling.
76. The IPCC claims “new evidence suggests that climate-driven extinctions and
range retractions are already widespread” and the “projected impacts on
biodiversity are significant and of key relevance, since global losses in
biodiversity are irreversible (very high confidence)” but those claims are
simply not supported by scientific research.
77. The IPCC threat of climate change to the world’s species does not make sense
as they have proven to be remarkably resilient to climate change. Most wild
species are at least one million years old, which means they have all been
through hundreds of climate cycles involving temperature changes similar to or
greater than those experienced in the twentieth century.
78. Politicians and climate activists make claims to rising sea levels but the
real state of sea levels is not what they have stated. Climate scientists have
sought to measure the tide gauge. Tide gauging gives different answers for
wherever you are in the world. Certain members in the IPCC (Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change), chose Hong Kong, which has six tide gauges, and they
chose the record of one, which gives a 2.3 mm per year rise of sea level. It is
known that this is a subsiding area. It is well known in geological terms that
this is the only record which you should not use, but the IPCC has done so.
79. The accepted global average temperature statistics used by the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change show that no ground-based warming has
occurred since 1998. This eight-year-long temperature stasis has occurred
despite an increase over the same period of 15 parts per million (or 4 per cent)
in atmospheric CO2. How can CO2 rises bring about global warming?
80. If one factors in for non-greenhouse influences such as El Nino events and
large volcanic eruptions, lower atmosphere satellite-based temperature
measurements show little, if any, global warming since 1979, a period over which
atmospheric CO2 has increased by 55 ppm (17 per cent). How can CO2 rises bring
about global warming?
81. There is strong evidence from solar studies which suggests that the earth’s
current temperature stasis will be followed by climatic cooling over the next
82. Research goes strongly against claims that CO2-induced global warming would
cause catastrophic disintegration of the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets. In
the case of Antarctica, the research actually suggests the opposite: that
CO2-induced global warming would tend to buffer the world against such an
83. The IPCC claims the climate variation due to changes in the solar output
since 1750 is smaller than its estimated net anthropogenic contribution. A large
body of scientific research suggests the opposite: that it is the sun that is
responsible for the greater share of climate change during the past hundred
84. The IPCC alleges that “climate change currently contributes to the global
burden of disease and premature deaths” and will “increase malnutrition and
consequent disorders.” In fact, the overwhelming weight of evidence shows that
higher temperatures and rising CO2 levels have played an indispensible role in
making it possible to feed a growing global population.
85. The historical increase of the air’s CO2 content has probably helped
lengthen human lifespans since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, and
into the future it will likely provide more of the same benefit.
86. The historical increase in the air’s CO2 content has improved human
nutrition by raising crop yields during the past 150 years on the order of 70
percent for wheat, 28 percent for cereals, 33 percent for fruits and melons, 62
percent for legumes, 67 percent for root and tuber crops, and 51 percent for
87. The total man-made CO2 emission throughout human history constitutes less
than 0.00022 percent of the total CO2 amount naturally degassed from the mantle
of the earth during geological history.
88. US President Barack Obama pledged cutting emissions by 17 percent from 2005
levels by 2020, representing a 3-4 percent cut from 1990 levels as he aims to
reach a 41 percent reduction by 2030 and 83 percent by 2050. However, target
emissions for 2050 will equal those in 1910, when there were 92 million
Americans. In 2050, there will be 420 million Americans, so Obama’s promise
means that emissions per head will be approximately what they were in 1875. It
simply will not happen. The ideology is wrong. The target is delusional.
89. The European Union, whose various 500 million peoples disagree with its
emission targets, has already agreed to cut emissions by 20 percent to 2020,
compared with 1990 levels, and is willing to increase the target to 30 percent.
However, these are unachievable and the EU has already massively failed with its
Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), as EU emissions actually rose by 0.8 percent
from 2005 to 2006 and are known to be well above the Kyoto goal.
90. Australia has stated it wants to slash greenhouse emissions by up to 25
percent below 2000 levels by 2020, but the pledges were so unpopular that the
country’s Senate has voted against the carbon trading Bill, and the Opposition’s
Party leader has now been ousted by a climate change sceptic.
91. Canada plans to reduce emissions by 20 percent compared with 2006 levels by
2020, representing approximately a 3 percent cut from 1990 levels but it
simultaneously defends its Alberta tar-sands emissions and its record as one of
the world’s highest per-capita emissions setters. Ottawa is asking that no
agreement emerges from the summit which will act as an impediment to its
92. India plans to reduce the ratio of emissions to production by 20-25 percent
compared with 2005 levels by 2020, but all Government officials insist that
since India has to grow for its development and poverty alleviation, it has to
emit, because the economy is driven by carbon.
93. It is claimed that during the late 20th Century, the average global
temperature increased at a dangerously fast rate and reached a high point of
unprecedented magnitude. However, the recent rate of average global temperature
rise has been between 1 and 2 degrees C per century, which falls within natural
rates of climate change for the last 10,000 years.
94. Professor Zbigniew Jaworowski, Chairman of the Scientific Council of the
Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Warsaw, Poland published his
research that found that a change in earth’s temperature would have more to do
with cloud cover and water vapor than CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. He
“points out that cloudiness and water vapour [sic] are nearly a hundred times
more influential on global temperature variations than all the rest of the
greenhouse gases combined. He suggests for example, that if it were possible to
double the global CO2 concentration, the effect could be cancelled out by a 1%
increase in cloudiness.”
95. One petition by scientists trying to tell the world that the politician’s
and media’s portrayal of Global Warming is false was put forward in the
Heidelberg Appeal in 1992, from Germany, with 4000 signatures. The Heidelberg
Appeal was publicly released at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro. By the
end of the 1992 summit, 425 scientists and other intellectual leaders had signed
the appeal. Since then, word of mouth has prompted hundreds more scientists to
lend their support. Today, more than 4,000 signatories, including 72 Nobel Prize
winners, from 106 countries have signed it. Neither a statement of corporate
interests nor a denial of environmental problems, the Heidelberg Appeal is a
quiet call for reason and a recognition of scientific progress as the solution
to, not the cause of, the health and environmental problems that the globe
faces. The Appeal expresses a conviction that modern society is the best
equipped in human history to solve the world’s ills, provided that they do not
sacrifice science, intellectual honesty, and common sense to political
opportunism and irrational fears. The petition was wrongly ignored.
96. Another petition put forward by scientists trying to tell the world about
the false portrayal of Global Warming was the Leipzig Declaration in 1996, from
Germany with 110 signatures, signed up to a statement claiming that “As
independent scientists researching atmospheric and climate problems, we – along
with many of our fellow citizens – are apprehensive about the Climate Treaty
conference scheduled for Kyoto, Japan, in December 1996” and “based on all the
evidence available to us, we cannot subscribe to the politically inspired world
view that envisages climate catastrophes and calls for hasty actions.” Again,
the petition was wrongly ignored.
97. A petition presented by US scientists trying to tell the world that the
Government’s portrayal of Global Warming is false, named the Oregon Petition
Project (from California), stated “We urge the United States government to
reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in
December, 1996, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on
greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and
technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind. There is no convincing
scientific evidence that human release of CO2, methane, or other greenhouse
gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating
of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there
is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric CO2 produce
many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the
Earth.” It has over 31,000 American scientist signatories. Still their voices
98. A report by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC)
concludes “We find no support for the IPCC’s claim that climate observations
during the twentieth century are either unprecedented or provide evidence of an
anthropogenic effect on climate.”
99. Rising CO2 levels increase plant growth and make plants more resistant to
drought and pests.
100. Out of the 210 countries that adopted the Kyoto Protocol, only 32 actually
ratified it. In May of 2004, the Russian Academy of Sciences, the country’s most
prestigious technical institute, published a report concluding that the Kyoto
Protocol has no scientific grounding at all.