Monthly Archives: September, 2022

Will There Be War With Russia?

Americans have played a leading role in what is shaping up as a Second Cold War.


(Photo: Mr. Tempter/Shutterstock)

Patrick J. Buchanan Jul 16, 2022

At the NATO summit in Madrid, Finland was invited to join the alliance. What does this mean for Finland?

If Russian President Vladimir Putin breaches the 830-mile Finnish border, the United States will rise to Helsinki’s defense and fight Russia on Finland’s side.

What does Finland’s membership in NATO mean for America?

If Putin makes a military move into Finland, the U.S. will go to war against the world’s largest nation with an arsenal of between 4,500 and 6,000 battlefield and strategic nuclear weapons.

No Cold War president would have dreamed of making such a commitment—to risk the survival of our nation to defend territory of a country thousands of miles away that has never been a U.S. vital interest.

To go to war with the Soviet Union over the preservation of Finnish territory would have been seen as madness during the Cold War.

Recall: Harry Truman refused to use force to break Joseph Stalin’s blockade of Berlin. Dwight Eisenhower refused to send U.S. troops to save the Hungarian freedom fighters being run down by Soviet tanks in Budapest in 1956.

Lyndon B. Johnson did nothing to assist the Czech patriots crushed by Warsaw Pact armies in 1968. When Lech Walesa’s Solidarity was smashed on Moscow’s order in Poland in 1981, Ronald Reagan made brave statements and sent Xerox machines.

While the U.S. issued annual declarations of support during the Cold War for the “captive nations” of Central and Eastern Europe, the liberation of these nations from Soviet control was never deemed so vital to the West as to justify a war with the USSR.

Indeed, in the 40 years of the Cold War, NATO, which had begun in 1949 with 12 member nations, added only four more—Greece, Turkey, Spain and West Germany.

Yet, with the invitation to Sweden and Finland to join as the 31st and 32nd nations to receive an Article 5 war guarantee, NATO will have doubled its membership since what was thought—certainly by the Russians—to have been the end of the Cold War.

All the nations once part of Moscow’s Warsaw Pact—East Germany, Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Romania, Bulgaria — are now members of a U.S.-led NATO—directed against Russia.

Three former republics of the USSR—Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania—are now also members of NATO, a military alliance formed to corral and contain the nation to which they had belonged during the Cold War.

Lithuania, with 2 percent of Russia’s population, has just declared a partial blockade of goods moving across its territory to Kaliningrad, Russia’s enclave on the Baltic Sea.

To Putin’s protest, Vilnius has reminded Moscow that Lithuania is a member of NATO.

It is a dictum of geostrategic politics that a great power ought never cede to a lesser power the ability to draw it into a great war.

In 1914, the kaiser’s Germany gave its Austrian ally a “blank check” to punish Serbia for its role in the assassination of the Archduke Francis Ferdinand, heir to the Austrian throne. Vienna cashed the kaiser’s check and attacked Serbia, and the Great War of 1914-1918 was on.

In March 1939, Neville Chamberlain issued a war guarantee to Poland. If Germany attacked Poland, Britain would fight on Poland’s side.

Fortified with this war guarantee from the British Empire, the Poles stonewalled Hitler, refusing to talk to Berlin over German claims to the city of Danzig, taken from her at the 1919 Paris Peace Conference.

On Sept. 1, 1939, Hitler attacked and Britain declared war, a war that lasted six years and mortally wounded the British Empire.

And Poland? At Yalta in 1945, Winston Churchill agreed that a Soviet-occupied Poland should remain in Stalin’s custody.

Putin is a Russian nationalist who regards the breakup of the USSR as the greatest calamity of the 20th century, but he is not alone responsible for the wretched relations between our countries.

We Americans have played a leading role in what is shaping up as a Second Cold War, more dangerous than the first.

Over the last quarter-century, after Russia dissolved the Warsaw Pact and let the USSR break apart into 15 nations, we pushed NATO, created to corral and contain Russia, into Central and Eastern Europe.

In 2008, neocons goaded Georgia into attacking South Ossetia, provoking Russian intervention and the rout of the Georgian army.

In 2014, neocons goaded Ukrainians into overthrowing the elected pro-Russian regime in Kiev. When they succeeded, Putin seized Crimea and Sevastopol, for centuries the home base of Russia’s Black Sea fleet.

In 2022, Moscow asked the U.S. to pledge not to bring Ukraine into NATO. We refused. And Putin attacked. If Russians believe their country has been pushed against a wall by the West, can we blame them?

Americans appear dismissive of dark Russian warnings that rather than accept defeat in Ukraine, the humiliation of their nation, and their encirclement and isolation, they will resort to tactical nuclear weapons.

Is it really wisdom to dismiss these warnings as “saber-rattling”?

Patrick J. Buchanan

The Principles of Tyranny

Bea Jaspert Oct 11, 2019

Tyranny is a phenomenon that operates by principles by which it can be recognized in its early emerging stages, and — if the people are vigilant, prepared, and committed to liberty — countered before it becomes entrenched.
— Jon Roland

There is a story by HG Wells called ‘the Country of the Blind’, in which a sighted man accidentally stumbles across a society of blind people. They treat him as sick because of his sight and (SPOILER HERE) the story ends with them putting his eyes out to make him ‘healthy’ like the rest of them.

In our sick society the people who see the truth through the rhetoric, who speak out against lies and injustice, who stand out from the herd, are the exceptions. Some of us might privately grumble, but most of us toe the line, don’t ask questions and look the other way, hoping those in charge know what they’re doing but in any case leaving the big decisions up to them.

Even when we feel uneasy about the ethics or morality of what is being done in our name we tend to suppress our reservations — we want a quiet life!
It’s dangerous to speak out. We’ve learned that challenging authority, or even standing out from the crowd, leads to punishment, bullying and ostracism.
Our families, our schooling and peers, our hierarchical workplace systems, all teach us to respect authority, to be obedient and to fit in, and those lessons are perpetually reinforced by the authorities, by propaganda and by the mainstream media.

A healthy society is one in which dissent can be voiced, questions raised and challenges made, freely and openly and without fear of retribution.
The right to stand up and speak out should be the cornerstone of every democracy, but increasingly, speaking out — against the curtailment or abuse of human and civil rights, against miscarriages of justice, and against the abuse of power — is largely left to grassroots activists, whistleblowers, investigative journalists and human rights lawyers.

Without such people there are few remaining checks and balances to restrain the powers that be who, after all, are fallible.
The more we silence dissenting voices, the more isolated we become and the narrower our perspective. Tunnel vision makes us paranoid and insecure. Resistant to sources of external influence and afraid of losing control, our institutions, our narratives, our media and our politics become increasingly oppressive.

This is the definition of tyranny.

We need people who refuse to be “blinded”, who take risks and bear punishments in our name, and are brave enough to stick their heads over the parapet to expose wrongdoing.

Outlawing dissent is the action of a repressive and sick regime.
It is the blind cutting out the eyes of the sighted.
And then who will be left to watch out for us?

Bea Jaspert

Source: Bea Jaspert

Turkey: Nerve center for ISIS fugitives, weapons, finance

In Turkey, convicted ISIS members roam free and their weapons easily cross borders. Even Turkish intelligence admits Turkey has become the nerve center of ISIS activity.

By Erman Çete February 28 2022

Turkey has become the nerve center of ISIS activity and weapons transfers

Photo Credit: The Cradle

Two reports have recently created an awkward situation for Turkey. The first one, an official report by Turkey’s Financial Crimes Investigation Board (MASAK), revealed that the ISIS weapons supply chain is based in Mersin, a port city in southern Turkey on the eastern Mediterranean coast.

Three companies were allegedly involved, and a China-born Uyghur man provided materials for the operation of armed drone equipment sales and the production of chemical weapons. All three companies had operated on behalf of ISIS as procurement liaison for drone and IED equipment from 2015 to 2017.

Second, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan announced in a TV interview that Turkish intelligence (MİT) had captured Nuri Gökhan Bozkır in Ukraine. Bozkır is a suspect in the assassination of Necip Hablemitoğlu, a popular academic among Kemalist circles before he was killed on 18 December 2002, right after the Justice and Development Party (AKP) had assumed power.

Erdoğan also claims that Bozkır has links with the banned Gülen movement, commonly referred to by Turkish authorities as the Fethullahist Terrorist Organization (FETÖ) named after its exiled leader, Muhammed Fethullah Gülen. Additionally, he is said to have supplied weapons and ammunition to ISIS.

Following the capture of Bozkır, further information has surfaced regarding his involvement in the arms trade. As a former Turkish army special forces member, he claimed that he had bought arms from Eastern Europe and Central Asia and transferred them to Syria from 2012 to 2015 on behalf of Turkey.

According to Bozkır himself, he had dispatched arms weapons to Syrian Turkmen, a total of 49 times, concealing them as boxes of food and vegetables.

Bozkır may be further implicated with the Turkish establishment than originally thought. In 2017, Turkey was looking for an engine for its domestic battle tank, ALTAY. Both the government and contractor company, TÜMOSAN had entered an agreement with Ukraine’s state-owned arms manufacturer, UkrOboronProm.

As it turned out, Bozkır was a partner in the Turkish representative for the company, Delta Defence Savunma LTD.

Court cases and ‘fugitive’ ISIS operators

Although his affiliations with Daesh are less documented, Bozkır was a suspect in a case regarding the discovery of improvised explosive device (IED) equipment in Akçakale, Şanlıurfa in 2015, and was wanted for supplying arms to ISIS and for being a member of the extremist group.

However, Bozkir wasn’t the only fugitive associated with ISIS in the country. The suspect in the deadliest terrorist attack in modern Turkey – the Ankara Train Station Massacre on 10 October 2015 was Mustafa Dokumacı, who nevertheless managed to flee the country.

His Azerbaijani wife, Ulkar Mammadova, told the police that when she and Dokumacı were trying to cross the border in 2014, they were assisted by Turkish soldiers. She claimed that her husband was later killed in a drone attack in 2020.

Following her confession, a court ruling released six women, including Mammadova and a few other wives of senior ISIS leaders. Mammadova was on the Turkish police ‘suicide bomber’ list.

Yet, according to one of the lawyers of the victims of the Ankara massacre, Senem Doganoglu, the acquittal of those women remains suspicious.

Doganoglu told The Cradle there were gaps in the women’s testimonies. “They simply informed on deceased ISIS militants or gave very general information about ISIS,” she explained. “I think they were acquitted in return for their silence.”

Right at the very top

It was also revealed last year that ISIS leader Jamal Abdel Rahman Alwi, accused of issuing the fatwa to burn alive two Turkish soldiers, was free and operating a bird shop in Gaziantep, Turkey. He was arrested only after the ensuing public uproar.

Last year, a senior figure, thought to be Turkey’s ISIS leader Abu Osama Al-Turki, was arrested in Syria and brought to Turkey by MİT, who had become aware of a plot to carry out a large-scale operation by illegally entering Turkey armed with explosives.

Another suspected ISIS member, Muhammed Cengiz Dayan, stood accused of being the leader of the Azeri-Turk division of the terror group. Despite denying accusations of his involvement in the Ankara massacre, he received a jail sentence of 10 years, 10 months and 37 days, but lawyer Eylem Sarıoğlu told the court that, despite all the evidence gathered, Dayan had been arrested and released twice before 2017.

Lawyer Senem Doganoglu said that one of the key witnesses in the case, Kuteybe Hammet, was acquitted for being a member of ISIS, after the court rejected the lawyer’s appeal for Hammet.

Furthermore, according to Doganoglu, it is questionable if this person even exists. “There are records [of Hammet] which go back to 1994, but whether he has left or entered Turkey is not clear,” Doganoglu said.

With several instances of ISIS members evading capture, is there collusion between ISIS and Turkey? Doganoglu seems to believe some courts have been trying to turn a blind eye.

“We can analyze active ISIS militants, who are put on trial or have been put on trial, from court cases,” she explained, adding that fugitive ISIS operators have not been seriously pursued by officials.

Keep the money flowing

In February 2021, the Turkish Gendarmerie announced that the head of the financial affairs of ISIS had been arrested.

An interesting coincidence occurred, however; this ISIS operator was caught in Mersin, which the MASAK report says is the center of the ISIS arms trade.

Mersin, according to the German Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ) newspaper, is the main station for ISIS militants going to Europe disguised as refugees.

Another ISIS operator, the former ‘finance minister’ of the organization, Sami Jasim [al-Juburi],  was captured by the Iraqi government, with the help of Turkish intelligence, MİT, according to Reuters. It was claimed Jubiri had been residing in northwestern Syria but was arrested in Turkey.

There have been other interesting accounts of ISIS trade activities in Turkey. Turkish citizen Ömer Yetek was released from prison in 2020. Yetek is the so-called ‘media minister’ of ISIS who recorded and later released gruesome footage of Turkish soldiers as they were burning.

Yetek then became an informant, but it has been revealed that one of his three companies, used while he was with ISIS, is still operating in Turkey.

In June 2021, a Turkish Presidential decree declared that Turkey had frozen the assets of a company under the name of Alfay. The company was founded in 2018 in Sakarya by two Iraqis and a Syrian. The three were blacklisted by the US Treasury as ‘ISIS financial facilitators’ in May 2021.

Although the US announced that the founder of the company, Idris al-Fay, was in Iraqi custody, it was unclear whether Turkish authorities acted against the other two, or how this company could operate from 2018 to 2021.

Doganoglu recalled that four companies – Saksouk, Al Haram, Al Rawi, and ACL – had been sanctioned and named by the MASAK report.

The Turkish intelligence had uncovered their transactions in 2019, according to the MASAK report. “They were used for FX [foreign exchange] transactions,” she said. “Moreover, the report documents that those front companies collected charity for families in Al Hol detention camp. Then we got an odd decree that froze ISIS-related companies that do not exist anymore.”

In 2019, the US Treasury designated two Turkish citizens and four companies as part of the ‘ISIS Financial, Procurement, and Recruitment Networks in the Middle East and South Asia.’

A Turkish presidential decree was issued two years later, in 2021, to freeze the company assets of those two Turkish citizens. However, one of their companies, the Tawasul company, had commenced dissolution in February 2020 and had ended the process by September 2020.

By the time Turkish authorities acted, the Tawasul company no longer existed.

Finally, last January, a Turkish court repealed an asset freeze verdict against a Turkish company, Al Alamia, due to “lack of reasonable cause.” Al Alamia was accused of financing ISIS operations from Reyhanli, Hatay.

According to Doganoglu, the MASAK report confirms that Turkey has become a hub for ISIS transactions.

“Now, the MASAK proves that the fugitive ISIS suspects in the Ankara massacre case used their real identities for financial operations,” she said. “So, how do they [the officials] not monitor them?”

Questions that refuse to be answered

In a parliamentary question, Mersin MP Alpay Antmen, member of the main opposition party CHP, wanted answers from the Interior Minister Süleyman Soylu in relation to the arms trade of ISIS.

In particular, Antmen wanted to know about an ongoing investigation into ISIS suspects.

“It seems that security forces had monitored those suspects for years,” he says.

According to Antmen, a critical question remains unanswered – how Turkish authorities allowed these ISIS suspects to operate a company on Turkish soil and how citizenship was given to one of them: the Aleppo-born ISIS suspect Hag Geneid, in 2017 – the very same Geneid who, in 2019, was mysteriously granted a ‘no prosecution’ decision by a Turkish public prosecutor.

Turkey’s complex and contradictory relationship with ISIS has received further unwanted attention, with two successive ISIS leaders now having been killed in Syria’s north-western Idlib province, where Turkey has long supported armed opposition groups.

As such, the country has been accused by the US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) in the northern Kurdish-held areas of providing a safe haven for ISIS. This in turn may put a strain on an already uneasy NATO partnership.

The views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect those of The Cradle.

Author: Erman Çete

Source: The Cradle

Man-Made Climate Change Does not Exist!


  • Piers Corbyn argues that Man-made Global Warming caused by CO2 is “nonsense”. Instead, he argues that “In the long run CO2 levels are an EFFECT NOT A CAUSE of changes in Climate / temperatures,” and that it is the sun that drives climate.
  • He challenges whoever is willing in Reading University or other appropriate institutions to a debate on the failed Global Warming scam Vs evidence-based science.
  • Piers Corbyn is an astrophysicist and Director of WeatherAction long range (months and years ahead) forecasts. He has a First class degree in Physics from Imperial College and an MSc in Astrophysics from Queen Mary College. He has published numerous peer-reviewed academic papers ranging from meteorology to cosmology and galaxy formation and has presented at many international conferences.

The mainstream media peddle the claim that 97% of (climate) scientists believe in man-made Global-Warming and that, therefore, there is no debate to be had on the subject. This is false and irrelevant. To get the 97% figure, they basically counted people who had mentioned Climate-Change in an abstract or heading of a scientific paper. Dr Legates has reviewed the work and shows that, in fact, only 0.3% of the papers claim that ‘man had caused most post-1950 warming’. Nonetheless, science isn’t about consensus, it is about facts; and no Global-Warming Inquisition is going to prevent me exposing their nonsensical theories. So here goes.

Piers Corbyn Astrophysicist and Director of

“…not only is the man-made Global Warming story false, the tax and control policies pursued because of it are hugely damaging for ordinary people.”

The CO2 “Climate-Emergency” story says that the trace gas CO2 (0.04% of air) is the main “control knob” of weather extremes and climate, and that Man’s CO2 – 4% of 0.04% of the atmosphere – is a major dangerous factor in this. Therefore, the story concludes, you must be taxed and controlled.

To put that in perspective, imagine if the whole atmosphere is represented by a rod the height of Big Ben’s tower (316 ft); the level of CO2 in the atmosphere is about 1.5 inches (3.8 cm) on top and Man’s contribution to that CO2 is between 1 & 2 mm – a pigeon dropping – on top. Look at the Big Ben picture and think about what climate alarmists are claiming!

For the CO2 narrative to be true REQUIRES:

  1. Man’s (4%) CO2 to control the rest of (96%) CO2.
  2. CO2 to be the main controller of temperature and climate.

BOTH CLAIMS FAIL AGAINST SCIENCE, and are not made any less false by any number of new or old celebs generating large carbon footprints by attending “Save-The-Planet” stunts where they tell us all to not fly, not eat meat, not drive cars, not breathe etc. Nor do the industrial scale official temperature data set “adjustments”, alarmist forecasts which never come true, or the hysterical propaganda claims of “record” heat at questionably selected urban heat islands, make falsity valid.

The first contention, the idea that Man’s CO2 controls the rest of natural CO2 – plant growth and decay, termite CO2/Methane production (which is significantly more in net supposed “greenhouse” effect than Man’s – and thus it is questionable as to why we have not declared war on termites), volcanoes etc etc. – is an absurd conspiracy theory of nature. There is no evidence for this madness. Do termites in the jungle increase CO2 production when you ride in a bus around your town, simply because your CO2 is human produced?

The second assertion, that CO2 controls climate is negated by observations. In the long run CO2 levels are an EFFECT NOT A CAUSE of changes in Climate / temperatures. Sea temperatures rule CO2 as the oceans hold 50 times more CO2 than the atmosphere. If the sea warms, CO2 is released (like warming a glass of fizzy drink) and if it cools it absorbs CO2 from the air. This happens on a daily/weekly/monthly/yearly basis and on average CO2 in the whole atmosphere stays around for a few years before going back into the upper levels of the ocean or into the soil; CO2 levels in these relatively small changes LAG behind temperature changes. [REF.1,2,3,4,5]

On longer time scales extra CO2 emitted from the sea surface in warm periods gets swallowed up into the cold deep ocean by currents off e.g. Greenland and emerges 500-800 years later in the air over the Pacific etc. after a long deep sea trek (more info click here and see slides 43 & 44). So, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, over the long run, is an effect, and not a cause, of temperatures and lags behind the climate by about 500-800 years.

This is backed up by observable, scientific data. On the scale of decades over the last hundred or so years, and in spite of what climate alarmists claim, CO2 has been steadily rising while temperatures have oscillated – half the time moving with CO2 and half against – see above graph of USA temps (red+black) & CO2 (green). Over a longer period, ice-core data shows that CO2 levels, smoothed over centuries, FOLLOW world CLIMATE temperatures by about 500-800years. This is shown in the graph below (Note here time is Right to Left).

The current increase in CO2 levels in the last 100 years are after effects of the medieval warm period. This took place around 500-800 years ago and was warmer than our current period, despite having fewer people burning fewer fossil fuels, by about one degree worldwide, or at least two degrees in parts of temperate zones. It was a period of economic boom for most of Europe where crops grew faster etc. But most importantly, it was the heating during that period which has been driving the rising CO2 in the atmosphere over the last hundred or so years.

This “tail-wagging dog” problem is known to Climate Scientists. Their response is something like “Yes but the extra CO2 that comes off AFTER temperatures go up then makes it extra warm.” This assumes what it’s trying to show – that CO2 has warming powers – and means there would have to be another peak or raising of temperatures AFTER the peak or top level in CO2. THAT IS NOT OBSERVED.

[Hockey stick graph REF.6]

The idea that CO2 has magic warming powers is based on Fake Physics!

The BBC and schools use a “back radiation” explanation of Global warming by a “CO2 blanket” – that is, the increased CO2 in the atmosphere forms a blanket preventing heat returning into space, thus keeping the Earth warm. An American double-glazing company apparently believed this nonsense and tried to make “better double glazing” by putting CO2 into the inter-glass space – yes, they went bust… [REF.7]

This is because it is contrary to basic physics? Objects in a “radiation enclosure” will actually balance out to the same temperature (reach equilibrium) independent of their colour (Physics is non-racist!). A white, grey or black ball will warm at different rates, yes, but they reach the same temperature (absorption=emissions) – and this is the same for regions of CO2 enriched air. Indeed, if their nonsensical theory was true, the CO2 would emit more heat than it would absorb, from which we could power a heat engine forever, thus breaking the first law of thermodynamics (as we get something for nothing). The second law of thermodynamics (a receiving object cannot get hotter than its source) is also broken, because the theory requires extra CO2 in the atmosphere to get extra warm compared with its source (the earth), which it sends back making the ground extra warm – like a ponzi scam investment scheme! In other words the “back-radiation” model of Greenhouse effect is delusional nonsense.

“…data shows that CO2 levels… FOLLOW world CLIMATE temperatures by about 500-800years.”

Better scientists know that the CO2 blanket / “back radiation” theory is bad physics and resort to another more valid explanation, which in the end also fails. The better approach is to examine the lapse rate – the fall in temperature as we go higher in the atmosphere, or the height above ground at which heat (radiation) escapes into space; the lapse rate actually has nothing to do with CO2 or any other so called “greenhouse” gas. Nonetheless, if there are more greenhouse gasses around – CO2 etc. – the height at which radiation can more easily escape, all things being equal, goes up. This slightly deeper (from radiation outgoing “top” to ground) atmosphere leads to the ground getting warmer (because you go further down from there to reach the ground). That all sounds Ok (even if a small effect)! However, this model also says that with more CO2 the upper atmosphere at a certain level will get warmer. Based on this, a hotspot above the equator was predicted as CO2 increased from 2000 to 2010. However the hotspot turned out to be a coldspot!

Why did the theory’s predictions fail? Because physicists were trying to over-simplify reality. The heat-exit height is not a static temperature but has day night fluctuations which get larger when there is more CO2 (and other “greenhouse” gasses) and this makes more cooling (further explained in box Fake Physics in More Detail) – thus giving us the observed cold spot (which, lapse-rated to the ground, makes a relative cooling which can negate the original expected surface warming). (see slides 53, 54, 55 here).

So, if sea temperatures rule CO2, what rules climate temperature?

The Sun rules the climate! Smoothed world temperatures are nothing to do with CO2 and follow solar activity. In the first graph above, the black dotted line is added to show the ~60yr solar-magnetic / Lunar cycle which we at show as the main likely cause of fluctuations in climate temperature over the last century. Likewise, previous Little Ice Ages all occurred when solar activity was low – e.g. the Maunder Minimum (~1645-1715) and Dalton Minimum (~1790-1830). Yes, the sun, that big ball of fire in the sky, is far more important for the climate than we are…

Indeed, the sun’s current activity suggests that another new Little-Ice Age is upon us. The recent low activity solar cycle 24 and expected low cycle 25 mean we are at the early part of another Little Ice Age. There are many sub-cycles especially involving the magnetic solar (“Hale”) cycle (~22yrs NOT the ~11yr cycle), and Timo Niroma showed that 10 Hale cycles give an approx (smoothed out) repeating pattern of solar activity and hence ~Temperatures. The last 10,000 years – the relatively warm ‘interglacial’ period since the last ice age – has had 10 sub peaks of warmth. The previous 9 have all been warmer than this one while they had LESS CO2. This peak, smoothed on scales of say ~60yrs, has ended – and the true peak was probably ~1930s/40s judged (eg) by the annual number of days 100F & 110F are exceeded in USA. The ~22yr and ~60yr fluctuations are smaller. This says one thing. We’re at the knee of the expected curve match with ~221 yrs ago. Another Dalton/Maunder level minimum is upon us.

Our current weather extremes match a developing Little-Ice Age. This year’s weather extremes and contrasts, which were well predicted in long range by, come from wild, on average south-shifted, jet stream swings. These are the wrong type of extremes for the CO2 story which must have a generally warmer world and so a North shifted, shorter, less wavy Jet stream. Occasional EXTREME hot blasts and extreme cold periods, as we have been experiencing, are a signature of Little-Ice-Age circulation: for example, some weeks of the hot ‘Belgian Wind’ 1666 parched London – the Thames froze many times in Winters around then.

The BBC, mainstream media, establishment and energy companies recognise this. They usually respond with dishonest exaggerations of heat using dodgy urban heat island data to pretend the world’s warming when it’s now cooling. Their data “adjustments” (fraud) which have likely “increased” recent temps by about 0.5 to 1C have been exposed by the late Christopher Booker, Tony Heller @SteveSGoddard, and The figure is a sample of their hype; also, see the box above Global Warmist, iconic hockey stick graph exposed a fraud.

Indeed, in 2004 I presented to the elite Global Oil Summit, Houston, Texas where I was well received by the various attendees (including Director of Iraqi oil, the US military, Putin’s chief economic and science policy advisor etc.). Afterwards the then (retiring) Chief Executive of a major oil giant came to me and showed similar graphs to what we had produced saying that they were ‘on the case’ and wanted my ‘independant corroboration’. Following this, we decided that we would approach oil companies for money (along with the UN so we could keep impartial), but the oil companies came straight back with, “We like Mr. Corbyn’s work but we will not be able to fund him because we don’t want to upset the Green Lobby.” From this event in 2004 the Oil companies accepted that Solar activity drives climate but decided to go with the CO2-driver fake science to make higher profits (from rising oil prices) and have stuck with that position and are happy to be portrayed as a false enemy of the (so-called) Green Lobby as long as it boosts profits. Their deal with governments is that (see their websites via my Presentation) they go along with anti-CO2 measures “as long as there is a uniform price for carbon across the board”. Hence the increased energy charges (subsidies) needed to make biofuels, wind farms etc “economic” mean a huge ongoing increase in their profits. Note on a world scale only 2% of energy is “sustainable”.

“Our current weather extremes match a developing little-ice age.”

However, not only is the man-made Global Warming story false, the tax and control policies pursued because of it are hugely damaging for ordinary people. It is these green policies which have been deindustrialising our country (which really just exports – not reduces – CO2 emissions abroad at the expense of jobs in Britain), increasing energy prices for the poorest, and causing mass power cuts in developing countries. The population of bats, birds and pollinating insects is endangered by wind farms, and EU regulations push for deadly flammable building insulation – as in Grenfell Tower. Millions die of fuel poverty related causes due to Climate policies every year. The largest victim group is African women suffering and dying from smoke inhalation due to open cooking fires because “sustainable” climate policies hold back coal-fired power station electrification of Africa (and thus hold back economic development) – effectively, UN-EU Climate policy is racist. I Could Go On.

It is for this reason that I, Piers Corbyn, challenge whoever is willing in Reading University or other appropriate institutions to a debate on the failed Global warming scam Vs evidence-based science.


  • Join in #Action4Life! #CO2isGOOD4You! #RealGreenNotFakeGreen! Activity 20-26 Sept to counter the anti-science globalist plunder brainwashing protest / “Climate strike”.
  • The BBC must answer #Scientists4Truth challenge – Give evidence CO2 drives Climate.


  1. On short time scales of changes involving sea surface and land with air CO2 changes LAG temperature changes by ~10 months.
  2. See Mike Haseler (on Prof Murry Salby) [MH-MS] “Climate What we know and What we don’t”, Fig 12,  ISBN 1901546640 via St Matthew Publishing
  3. The large slow changes of CO2 involving deep sea cold water subduction lagging temperature by ~500-800yrs are imposed on shorter term changes smoothed over ~decades, involving land and sea surfaces.
  4. The ‘lifetime’ of CO2 in air is a few years. It must be a fraction of CO2 decay time (~9yrs) for CO2 containing C14 created by nuclear testing [MH-MS]. Prof Salby soundly shows IPCC (Bern Model) claims for longer lifetimes are false.
  5. The main sources of CO2 into the atmosphere are from Tropics NOT from the industrial Usa-Europe-China temperate belt [MH-MS showing SCIAMACHY satellite].
  6. Article further detailing the Hockey Stick case:
  7. April 7th 2016.

Piers Corbyn September 19, 2019

Astrophysicist and Director of WeatherAction

Reading University Debating Society Climate ChangeClimatologyCO2Global WarmingGreenhousePhysicsPiers CorbynPublic debatesolarweatherWeatherAction  


Eat beef, save the planet

Ian Plimer

Prof. Ian Plimer book

Yet again, farmers are under attack. This time, it is the beef industry because, apparently, cattle burp and fart out methane and we’ll all fry-and-die because of the accelerated global warming produced by this methane. Is this fact or fiction? In my field of science, we often do mass balance calculations because material is added, exchanged, and lost during natural processes. Let’s do the same with the beef industry.

Grass grows by using carbon dioxide from the air as plant food. Why do climate activists want to reduce the amount of plant food in the atmosphere? Cattle eat grass, some grass remains as roots and stubble, and hence not all carbon atoms in grass end up in cattle. The carbon from grass is stored in meat, milk, intestines, bones, and skin and the amount of stored carbon increases with growth. Semi-solid waste materials from cattle fertilise grass for further recycling of carbon.

Humans are omnivores with teeth for cutting plants and animal flesh and then masticating to create a large surface area to assist digestion. We have the gut enzyme trypsin specifically for breaking down meat. Not all plant material can be broken down into nutrients which is why there is little nutritional value in us eating grass, stems, wood, or bark. Unlike cattle, humans cannot digest cellulose in grass. Bacterial and enzyme reactions in ruminant’s stomachs release the gas methane as burps and farts during digestion. This methane, a carbon-hydrogen compound, very quickly oxidises in the atmosphere to carbon dioxide and the most abundant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, water vapour.

For me, there is nothing like medium rare beef with a matching red-coloured fluid derived from releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere by grape fermentation. The beef is digested in my body because of trypsin which breaks down meat into amino acids for circulation in my bloodstream. Meat fat ends up as brain food. Vegetarians and vegans ignore the benefits of human evolution and waste trypsin by not eating meat. In evolutionary terms, meat-eating has allowed the human brain to grow over time. In a past life when I took university student geological field trips, I noticed that the meat eaters were the first to the tops of mountains, vegetarians were struggling way behind and vegans were still trying to work out how to get out of the vehicle!

Some of the carbon in beef I eat is used and stored by my body, the rest is oxidised and exhaled. I breathe in air with 0.04 per cent carbon dioxide and exhale air with more than 4 per cent carbon dioxide. The gaseous waste product from cattle digestion is methane, and the gaseous waste product from human digestion is carbon dioxide. Some of the milk or cream I use in coffee and on morning porridge is stored in my flesh and bones as is the butter used in cooking.

When I’ve snapped my hobbles and decompose in a grave, most of my body carbon, including that from eating beef, will be released as methane and the rest will end up sequestered in soils. Blood and bone from cattle is used as a fertiliser and is sequestered in soil. Cattle skins are used to make leather which is sequestered into footwear and other leather goods. The whole process of going from grass to grave involves a carbon cycle and short-term sequestration of carbon atoms.

The number of carbon atoms returned to the atmosphere from beef farming is less than that removed by grass growth. Therefore, cattle farming and eating beef is a carbon sequestration process. If the popular mantra is used, we are saving the planet by eating beef.

If we do not eat meat, then grass decomposes anyway and releases methane into the atmosphere for oxidation to carbon dioxide and water vapour. If the grass is burned, carbon dioxide is returned to the atmosphere. The cycle of atmospheric carbon dioxide via meat production and digestion removes carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and then later releases this carbon dioxide back to its source. What’s the problem? Whether grass is used to grow meat, decomposed, or burned, no new carbon atoms are created in this carbon cycle and, by growing beef, some carbon atoms are removed from the cycle for short-term sequestration.

It is absolute nonsense to claim that beef farming accelerates hypothetical global warming. Carbon atoms are just being recycled. We are being conned with a scare campaign by unelected climate activists who want to control every aspect of our lives, including the source of our animal protein.

If beef is replaced on the menu by insects, then I’ll pass. I will get all my nutrients from 47 pints of Guinness, 2 glasses of milk, and one of orange juice each day.

Emeritus Professor Ian Plimer’s latest book “Green Murder” could not have been written without 2GR wagyu and fermented fluids. 


Eat Meat To Save The Planet

…but not quite as much as you probably eat already

Originally published in The Sunday Times

At Monkton Wyld Court, a commune in Dorset, Simon Fairlie was eating a vegetarian lunch of soup with bread and butter – just like everybody else. Well, not everybody ate the bread, because that contained wheat. And the butter was not acceptable to vegans. But the point to emphasise is that nobody was eating meat when the Sunday Times paid a visit.

And that’s fine by Fairlie. But he did come to live among the eco-warriors and alternative-lifestylers at Monkton Wyld Court, a few months ago, to look after the livestock. And now he’s published a book that threatens to blow apart the green consensus that raising animals to eat them is a bad thing.

Mealtimes at the commune could be about to turn rather awkward.

But this doesn’t only affect beardie-wierdies. Fairlie’s book forensically dismantles a number of views that have entered the mainstream about the wastefulness and emissions associated with animal husbandry.

Only last October, the economist Lord Stern declared that, to save the planet, we must stop eating meat.

But Tim Lang, professor of food policy at City University, in London, says: “Meat, animals and dairy have been in the firing line for so long that in some circles the assumption is taken for granted that there is no case, ever, anywhere, to be made for the role of animals in farming, landcare or diet. Simon Fairlie offers a wonderful and challenging corrective.”

The environmentalist George Monbiot, has argued forcefully for a switch to vegan diets. He’s attacked more than once in Fairlie’s book. Despite this, the book persuaded Monbiot to rethink: “I was wrong about veganism,” he wrote recently. “Let them eat meat – but farm it properly.”

For changing his mind, Monbiot was at once attacked by former allies: “He clearly feels that it is ethically acceptable to kill some animals for food, even when his own life is not at risk,” sniffed the Vegan Society.

The director of the animal rights campaign group, Peta, said Monbiot had been “taken in” by “the latest attempt to justify meat-eating”. There are countless reasons why we should all go vegan, said Poorva Joshipura, Peta’s director, and not a single plausible one why we shouldn’t.

But what exactly is Fairlie saying? He’s certainly no fan of factory farms. Nor does he think we can carry on eating as much meat as we do. But he doesn’t think we should give it up.

Fairlie, 59, has an unfashionably gruff manner, dresses in old tweedy jacket with ragged cuffs, and appears to waste no more time than absolutely necessary on grooming. He describes himself as an “enthusiastic carnivore”, but doesn’t eat meat all the time. “That would take away the excitement of frying up the liver from the pig you have just slaughtered,” he says.

He has spent years writing about this subject – as an editor of The Ecologist and more recently in trenchant stories, heroically well researched, for the magazine he edits, The Land. He inherited robust prose from his father, the legendary political journalist Henry Fairlie (who coined the phrase, ‘the establishment’). And he knows a thing or two about livestock because he’s worked with animals since joining his first commune, after dropping out of Cambridge University.


For six years, he was a vegetarian. “But I was faced with its inconsistency when I started keeping goats. What was to be done with the male kids?” They wouldn’t produce milk or offspring, so Fairlie ate them and became a born-again carnivore (“the worst kind”).

Animals are often described as a “wasteful” way to eat: you could feed more people out of a field full of soya than a field with livestock. But the wastefulness derives from our unwillingness to use the whole beast. In The Goldrush, Charlie Chaplin boiled up his boots to eat them with knife and fork. Things haven’t got that bad in Nigeria yet, says Fairlie, but leather producers there are worried by the growing popularity of a delicacy made with boiled cow hides.

In the UK we are too dainty for such fare, and have even gone off soaps made with animal fat; as a result, rainforest is sacrificed for the production of palm oil.

Animals put on fat to keep warm, whereas plants contain oil to stop seeds drying out – thus animal fats are abundant in northern Europe and vegetable oils elsewhere. While others rush to embrace local food, British vegans – and vegetarians who won’t use lard or dripping – are heavily reliant on fats and protein from far away.

For about ten years, Fairlie lived in another commune that he chooses to call Happy Valley. It aspired towards self-sufficiency but spent about £200 a fortnight importing olive oil, sunflower oil, margarine, peanut butter, tahini, soya milk and yoghurt, nuts, chick peas, beans, lentils, molasses, dried fruit, rice, quinoa and more.

Meanwhile the grass and dairy operation on site – for which Fairlie was responsible – produced perhaps 350 kilos of meat, dripping and lard a year. “We were producing, from grass, a substantial proportion of the protein and fat that we required for our nutrition, but this was shunned. Instead we imported it from countries where people go hungry.”

read The Only Brit In The Strawberry Field ]

To research the book, Fairlie did not splodge around farms or trek across savannah. “The work consisted of a trawl through what academics pompously call ‘the literature’. The only time I get my hands dirty is when I try to sift out the bullshit.”

He’s contemptuous about statistics underpinning the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation’s 2006 report, “Livestock’s Long Shadow”, which suggested that farm animals generate 18 per cent of human-generated global warming gases – more than transport. Fairlie suspects the FAO bumped up the figure to win more publicity.

He demolishes a statistic banded about by Monbiot, Jonathan Porritt and others – to the effect that producing a kilo of beef requires 100,000 litres of water.

“Let’s apply this to Bramley, a steer I had the pleasure of rearing,” says Fairlie. “When he was slaughtered he provided over 125 kilos of meat. That means he consumed 12,500 tonnes of water in his 16-months life, or 25,000 litres on each day of his life. How he managed to achieve this feat I am at a loss to explain. Anyway, it’s not as though he locked all this water up in his little body so that nobody else could use it.”


Turning to the plight of the pig in the nanny state, Fairlie argues that pigs could become an asset in the fight against climate change, instead of a burden.

After the emergence of BSE, many people were revolted to discover that government allowed cows and sheep – which are herbivores – to be fed rendered meat and bone meal. Whereupon the government overreacted, Fairlie argues, by banning the practice and also forbidding farmers to feed animal waste to pigs. But pigs are omnivores: why shouldn’t they eat slaughterhouse waste?

In 2001 the foot and mouth outbreak was traced to a farm that had illegally fed pigs uncooked swill. Instead of cracking down to ensure swill was properly cooked, the government banned feeding swill to pigs altogether. Then the EU followed suit. Thus a 9,000-year-old recycling industry was regulated out of existence. Today, rainforest is felled to grow soya instead.

Keepers are forbidden to feed pigs even kitchen scraps – though this was encouraged during WW2 and generated vast amounts of extra food. If we fed waste food to pigs instead of burning or burying it, Britain could produce an additional 800,000 tonnes of pork each year – about a sixth of today’s entire annual meat consumption.

Animal rights groups say these problems can be avoided by shunning meat. Fairlie disagrees. “A vegan diet, laudable though it may be for the individual, is neither sensible nor attainable for society as a whole.”


Every agricultural system, he explains, produces surplus, waste and otherwise hard-to-use biomass that is best kept in the food chain by feeding to livestock. Meat or dairy produced in this fashion has little or no additional environmental impact. Fairlie calls this “default livestock”, and calculates that it could provide about a third of the animal protein currently enjoyed in “overdeveloped” countries.

Animals kept on small farms produce benefits – fertilising soil and managing predators and pests. Only with factory farming does muck cease to be an essential component of the farming cycle and become a waste-disposal problem.

But surely a move towards a more vegan diet in the UK would release grassland currently dedicated to sheep and cows for other uses – tree planting, biofuel production or wildlife?

“Yes, but the roles that animals play in a fossil-fuel free environment go beyond the mere provision of meat and milk. They are the best means we have of keeping wide areas clear and open to solar energy and wind energy. They harness biomass and recycle waste that would otherwise be a disposal problem. And they’re the main means we have of ensuring that the phosphate which leaks out from our land is brought back into the food chain.”

If we all turned vegan, how would we deal with wild boar digging up gardens, deer destroying trees, squirrels crawling over nut plantations, badgers rolling wheat fields, pigeons, slugs and carrot fly attacking vegetables? “Most vegans are currently protected from the ravages of pests through the discreet measures being taken by the rest of society. If animals are culled, why not eat them? Culling is either hunting, or else it is a waste of good food.”

The only alternative would be to cut off humans from the animal kingdom altogether, using impenetrable fences.


Fairlie’s dismissal of other people’s ideas is impressive. What does he propose instead?

His ideal would be for the entire country to be farmed organically, on small farms. He insists this could feed us perfectly well – we’d have to cut meat consumption by half, but dairy would remain about the same.

But it will never happen. “Not by outlawing chemical farming,” he agrees, “but simply reversing priorities – making organic farming the standard procedure and chemical farming the certifiable exception. At the moment organic farmers have to prove they are organic, at great expense, while chemical farmers can just get on the phone and order a drum of weedkiller.

“Penalizing good practice is a bizarre way to encourage it. We don’t make bicyclists and pedestrians prove that they don’t drive, and then award them a certificate – we make motorists buy a licence. If farmers had to apply for a licence to use chemical fertilisers and pesticides, and food in supermarkets was assumed to be organic unless it had a label saying it wasn’t, the tables would be turned.

“Without in any way restricting the public’s right to choose, organically produced food would become the norm again, and farmers would be keener to manage manure and nutrients efficiently – and achieve a balance between livestock and arable on their farms.”


Fairlie dismantles four myths

Livestock create more emissions than transport
The UN calculation that livestock generate 18% of global greenhouse gas emissions – more than the entire transport infrastructure – contains basic mistakes, says Fairlie. It attributes all deforestation that culminates in cattle ranching in the Amazon to cattle; muddles up one-off emissions from deforestation with ongoing pollution; and confuses gross and net production of nitrous oxide and methane.

Producing a kilo of beef costs 100,000 litres of water
Many greens thoughtlessly repeat this statistic. It’s nonsense, says Fairlie – it implies a daily intake of around 25,000 litres per cow. “There is no doubt some virtue in calculating the amount of rain that falls on a the land a beef cow occupies, but if the cow wasn’t there the grass would still grow, and rabbits or deer would graze it and consume the same theoretical amounts.”

Pigs should not be allowed to eat food waste
Governments that don’t understand animal husbandry have forbidden feeding kitchen or slaughterhouse waste to omnivorous pigs. As a result, European pigs are mostly fed GM soya from North America or non-GM soya from the Amazon. If the law was changed, and we fed all our food waste to pigs, Britain could enjoy another 800,000 tonnes of pork each year.

Meat production is inefficient
It’s widely believed that the global average conversion ratio of useful plant food to useful meat is 5 to 1 or as high as 10 to 1. If you feed animals only food that humans could eat, that may be true. But animals also eat food we can’t eat, such as grass. “If you stopped feeding grain to animals (apart from surplus in good years), you would get less meat, but all this meat would constitute a net addition to human food supplies, while releasing enough grain to feed hungry people.” The real conversion figure, Fairlie believes, is 1.4 to 1.



Meet The Man Who Has Exposed The Great Climate Change Con Trick

Imagine how wonderful the world would be if man-made global warming were just a figment of Al Gore’s imagination. No more ugly wind farms to darken our sunlit uplands. No more whopping electricity bills, artificially inflated by EU-imposed carbon taxes. No longer any need to treat each warm, sunny day as though it were some terrible harbinger of ecological doom. And definitely no need for the $7.4 trillion cap and trade (carbon-trading) bill — the largest tax in American history — which President Obama and his cohorts are so assiduously trying to impose on the US economy.

Imagine no more, for your fairy godmother is here. His name is Ian Plimer, Professor of Mining Geology at Adelaide University, and he has recently published the landmark book Heaven And Earth, which is going to change forever the way we think about climate change.

‘The hypothesis that human activity can create global warming is extraordinary because it is contrary to validated knowledge from solar physics, astronomy, history, archaeology and geology,’ says Prof. Ian Plimer, and while his thesis is not new, you’re unlikely to have heard it expressed with quite such vigour, certitude or wide-ranging scientific authority. Where fellow sceptics like Bjorn Lomborg or Lord Lawson of Blaby are prepared cautiously to endorse the International Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) more modest predictions, Plimer will cede no ground whatsoever. Anthropogenic global warming (AGW) theory, he argues, is the biggest, most dangerous and ruinously expensive con trick in history.

Not For Greens – Ian Plimer. Australian Parliament Library [PDF] :

To find out why, let’s meet the good professor. He’s a tanned, rugged, white-haired sixtysomething — courteous and jolly but combative when he needs to be — glowing with the health of a man who spends half his life on field expeditions to Iran, Turkey and his beloved Outback. And he’s sitting in my garden drinking tea on exactly the kind of day the likes of the Guardian’s George Monbiot would probably like to ban. A lovely warm sunny one.

So go on then, Prof. What makes you sure that you’re right and all those scientists out there saying the opposite are wrong?

‘I’m a geologist. We geologists have always recognised that climate changes over time. Where we differ from a lot of people pushing AGW is in our understanding of scale. They’re only interested in the last 150 years. Our time frame is 4,567 million years. So what they’re doing is the equivalent of trying to extrapolate the plot of Casablanca from one tiny bit of the love scene. And you can’t. It doesn’t work.’

What Heaven And Earth sets out to do is restore a sense of scientific perspective to a debate which has been hijacked by ‘politicians, environmental activists and opportunists’. It points out, for example, that polar ice has been present on earth for less than 20 per cent of geological time; that extinctions of life are normal; that climate changes are cyclical and random; that the CO2 in the atmosphere — to which human activity contributes the tiniest fraction — is only 0.001 per cent of the total CO2 held in the oceans, surface rocks, air, soils and life; that CO2 is not a pollutant but a plant food; that the earth’s warmer periods — such as when the Romans grew grapes and citrus trees as far north as Hadrian’s Wall — were times of wealth and plenty.

All this is scientific fact — which is more than you can say for any of the computer models turning out doomsday scenarios about inexorably rising temperatures, sinking islands and collapsing ice shelves. Plimer doesn’t trust them because they seem to have little if any basis in observed reality.

‘I’m a natural scientist. I’m out there every day, buried up to my neck in sh**, collecting raw data. And that’s why I’m so sceptical of these models, which have nothing to do with science or empiricism but are about torturing the data till it finally confesses. None of them predicted this current period we’re in of global cooling. There is no problem with global warming. It stopped in 1998. The last two years of global cooling have erased nearly 30 years of temperature increase.’

Plimer’s uncompromising position has not made him popular. ‘They say I rape cows, eat babies, that I know nothing about anything. My favourite letter was the one that said: “Dear sir, drop dead”. I’ve also had a demo in Sydney outside one of my book launches, and I’ve had mothers coming up to me with two-year-old children in their arms saying: “Don’t you have any kind of morality? This child’s future is being destroyed.’’’ Plimer’s response to the last one is typically robust. ‘If you’re so concerned, why did you breed?’

This no-nonsense approach may owe something to the young Ian’s straitened Sydney upbringing. His father was crippled with MS, leaving his mother to raise three children on a schoolteacher’s wage. ‘We couldn’t afford a TV — not that TV even arrived in Australia till 1956. We’d use the same brown paper bag over and over again for our school lunches, always turn off the lights, not because of some moral imperative but out of sheer bloody necessity.’

One of the things that so irks him about modern environmentalism is that it is driven by people who are ‘too wealthy’. ‘When I try explaining “global warming” to people in Iran or Turkey they have no idea what I’m talking about. Their life is about getting through to the next day, finding their next meal. Eco-guilt is a first-world luxury. It’s the new religion for urban populations which have lost their faith in Christianity. The IPCC report is their Bible. Al Gore and Lord Stern are their prophets.’

Heaven And Earth is the offspring of a pop science book Plimer published in 2001 called A Short History of Planet Earth. It was based on ten years’ worth of broadcasts for ABC radio aimed mainly at people in rural areas. Though the book was a bestseller and won a Eureka prize, ABC refused to publish the follow-up; so did all the other major publishers he approached: ‘There’s a lot of fear out there. No one wants to go against the popular paradigm.’

Then someone put him in touch with a tiny publishing outfit in the middle of the bush — ‘husband, wife, three kids, so poor they didn’t even have curtains’ — and they said yes. Plimer couldn’t bring himself to accept an advance they clearly couldn’t afford. But then something remarkable happened. In just two days, the book sold out its 5,000 print run. Five further editions followed in swift succession. It has now sold 26,500 copies in Australia alone — with similarly exciting prospects in Britain and the US. There’s even an edition coming out in ultra-green Germany.

But surely Aussies of all people, with their bushfires and prolonged droughts, ought to be the last to buy into his message? ‘Ah, but the average punter is not a fool. I get sometimes as many as 1,000 letters and emails a day from people who feel helpless and disenfranchised and just bloody sick of all the nonsense they hear about global warming from metropolitan liberals who don’t even know where meat or milk comes from.’

Besides which, Australia’s economy is peculiarly vulnerable to the effects of climate change alarmism. ‘Though we have 40 per cent of the world’s uranium, we don’t have nuclear energy. We’re reliant mainly on bucketloads of cheap coal. Eighty per cent of our electricity is coal-generated and clustered around our coalfields are our aluminium producers. The very last thing the Australian economy needs is the cap and trade legislation being proposed by Kevin Rudd. If it gets passed, the country will go broke.’

Not for one second does Plimer believe it will get passed. As with its US equivalent the Waxman-Markey cap and trade bill, Kevin Rudd’s Emission Trading Scheme legislation narrowly squeaked its way through the House of Representatives. But again as in America, the real challenge lies with the upper house, the Senate. Thanks in good measure to the influence of Plimer and his book — ‘I have politicians ringing me all the time’ — the Senate looks likely to reject the bill. If it does so twice, then the Australian government will collapse, a ‘double dissolution’ will be forced and a general election called. ‘Australia is at a very interesting point in the climate change debate,’ says Plimer.

The potential repercussions outside Oz, of course, are even greater. Until this year, environmental legislation has enjoyed a pretty easy ride through the parliaments of the Anglosphere and the Eurosphere, with greener-than-thou politicians (from Dave ‘Windmill’ Cameron to Dave ‘climate change deniers are the flat-earthers of the 21st century’ Miliband) queuing up to impose ever more stringent carbon emissions targets and taxes on their hapless electorates.

In the days when most people felt rich enough to absorb these extra costs and guilty enough to think they probably deserved them, the politicians could get away with it. But the global economic meltdown has changed all that. As countless opinion surveys have shown, the poorer people feel, the lower down their list of priorities ecological righteousness sinks. ‘It’s one of the few good things to come out of this recession,’ says Plimer. ‘People are starting to ask themselves: “Can we really afford this green legislation?”’

Reading Plimer’s Heaven And Earth is at once an enlightening and terrifying experience. Enlightening because, after 500 pages of heavily annotated prose (the fruit of five years’ research), you are left in no doubt that man’s contribution to the thing they now call ‘climate change’ was, is and probably always will be negligible. Terrifying, because you cannot but be appalled by how much money has been wasted, how much unnecessary regulation drafted because of a ‘problem’ that doesn’t actually exist. (South Park, as so often, was probably the first to point this out in a memorable episode where Al Gore turns up to warn the school kids about a terrible beast, looking a bit like the Gruffalo, known as ManBearPig.)

Has it come in time to save the day, though? If there’s any justice, Heaven And Earth will do for the cause of climate change realism what Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth did for climate change alarmism. But as Plimer well knows, there is now a powerful and very extensive body of vested interests up against him: governments like President Obama’s, which intend to use ‘global warming’ as an excuse for greater taxation, regulation and protectionism; energy companies and investors who stand to make a fortune from scams like carbon trading; charitable bodies like Greenpeace which depend for their funding on public anxiety; environmental correspondents who need constantly to talk up the threat to justify their jobs.

Does he really believe his message will ever get through? Plimer smiles. ‘If you’d asked any scientist or doctor 30 years ago where stomach ulcers come from, they would all have given the same answer: obviously it comes from the acid brought on by too much stress. All of them apart from two scientists who were pilloried for their crazy, whacko theory that it was caused by a bacteria. In 2005 they won the Nobel prize. The “consensus” was wrong.’

Ian Plimer’s Heaven And Earth: Global Warming — the Missing Science is published by Quartet (£25).


Frontier Centre July 15, 2009

%d bloggers like this: