On Oct. 17, 2007, the UN Secretary General issued an alarming warning and demanded a giant effort to limit the carbon dioxide (CO2) emission worldwide, agitating for sparing the Earth the final climatic catastrophe at the very last moment. Is this a fact or not?

The increasing green house effect that never occurred.
The green house effect was always here. Without it  large parts of the world would be covered by ice and the average temperature of the world would be about 14 centigrades below what we see today. 

In the Danish newspaper "Politiken" an election campaign meeting was reported on Oct. 10, 2007, where a parliamentary candidate said: "My daughter usually tells her sister: "If you forget to switch off the light, a polar bear will die!"  The indoctrination has worked perfectly. But now see what a former minister and social democratic speaker on environment said:"It is not enough to change our daily habits. We must also abolish hot water from our taps at home! (to bring the CO2-emission down). The hysterical indoctrination is supported by the Danish Environmental Minister, of course. Still worse: Now the WWF demand a green house tax to be imposed on meat, because a cow releases just as much gas as a family car !!!

Claim: Man-made increase in atmospheric carbondioxide (CO2) content is the cause of global warming, which is leading to climate changes about to kill life on this planet.
In a BBC inquiry the attitude of 4/5 of 22.000 persons asked was that they were willing to suffer comprehensive privation to save the globe from destruction  due to climate changes. The propaganda is tremendously efficient! On Oct. 15 the EU had appointed a BAD, i.e. Blog Action Day , where all blogs were to write about the threatened environment. Apparently few followed suite. The intention was clearly for the EU to start setting the blogosphere agenda and to continue the scare campaign against us. Therefore, the EU blog "blogactiv" proposes (UN-administered) worldwide source-tax  on all capital income to reduce the inclination of the oil sheikhs to raise oil prices and production! The problem is thought to be that otherwise countries not caring about the climate will take over the EU energy-shares, as the EU reduces its consumption. 

During the Kyoto Conference 1997 great progress was said to be made as for reducing CO2-emission. And remaining problems are to be managed in Copenhagen in 2009, in an all-out effort to raise the Danish Environment Minister to the status of the world´s saviour! And on Oct. 12, 2007, Al Gore was awarded the Nobel Peace Price  for his Judgment Day prophecies about the ruin of the Globe, if we do not change our attitudes and cut our energy consumption drastically. On that occasion he said:" The man-made climate changes are the greatest danger the earth has faced". And he added:"The climate crisis is not a political topic, it is a moral and spiritual challenge to all mankind" . He shared the price with the IPCC: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which also assiduously maintain climate changes to be man-made. The IPCC is composed of meteorologists and the UNEP - UNs envonmental programme. The IPCC does not carry out research - but estimates on the basis of "expert articles" - it is consequently a political organ. On Nov. 16 the IPCC issued a warning that the climate of the Earth might be irreparably damaged. At least a giant effort has to be made against CO2 emission.
What is the truth?
However, the UN-dogmatists have not yet refuted some quite decisive arguments against the climate changes being man-made due to CO2 emission. So, their allegations as for the detrimental effects of CO2 are extremely dubious.

Is the CO2 content of the air important for "global warming" ?
CO2 makes up 0,038% of the troposphere (air) . 200 years ago CO2 contents in the air is supposed to have been 0.026%. Then James Watt invented the steam-engine - and the air was polluted. It would be amazing if the following tiny increase in the CO2 content of the air could bring about a global warming, cf. graph 1.

Graph 1 shows  doubling of present CO2-content of the air means an increase in air temperature of 1.76 centigrades at most

It does seem strange that the increase in warming precedes the increase in the CO2 content of the air by hundreds of years. This has been claimed to be due to CO2 being absorbed by the oceans. When warming begins CO2 is released slowly from the oceans - so, the warming is the cause of the increase in the CO2 content of the air - not vice versa.

Graph 2 shows that the CO2 content of the air has increased by about 30 percent the last 10 years

Is there a global warming? NO!

  Graph 3 shows the temperature of the air has decreased during the same time! In fact, 82% of the CO2-increase in the 20. century occurred after the increase in temperature . So, there is no  dependence of the temperature on the CO2-content of the air. Graph 2 also shows that temperature has fluctuated much up and down since the last Glacial Age. In the Middle Ages we had a warm period. It was followed by a Small Glacial Age until late 19. century. The temperature has gone 5 centigrades up since the last Glacial Age. But the last 10 years it has gone down. 

                                                                                                          Graph 2                                                          

What do independent climatologists think ?
To the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development 2005 Carleton University paleoclimatology- professor, Tim Patterson witnessed: "There is no meaningful connection between the temperature of the Earth and CO2 levels in dependence on time. In fact, when the CO2 content of the air was 10 times higher than now, viz. 450 million years ago, this planet was in its absolutely coldest period during the last 500 million years." (ice analysis) Patterson asked the Committee: “Considering the comparatively small increase in CO2 level can any one still believe that it is a main reason for the modest warming in the latest century ?
On the other hand, there are hundreds of studies showing  good  time-dependence between intensity of sun light and the temperature of the Earth.”

Among the real climatologists 54% cannot accept the thesis of climate changes being only man-made. Only 20% of climatlogists find it a good idea to go for prevention of climatic changes alone. 71% want protection against its consequences as well -recognizing they cannot stop them. A majority  opposes  simplified  statements - our politicians´ habit. Only 20% think it is possible to predict future climate!  

Who are the "experts" who according to the IPCC and Al Gore agree that "global warming is man-made"?
They are people like peanut grower Jimmy Carter, paranoid bribed NGOs, biologists, meteorologists and some climatologists earning their livings delivering the politically ordered results. Included are also landscape architects,psychologists, lawyers, a philosopher, a dermatologist, a gynecologist, and a diplomat.   

 Graph 3

shows the temperature of the air has only increased by 0.2 centigrade since 1940!! And since 1860 by 0.7 centigrade! 



An inconvenient truth for Al Gore
On Oct. 11 Judge Michael Burton of the UK High Court allowed a teacher to refuse the use Al Gores film "An Inconvenient Truth" as educational material because of " 9 serious mistakes in an alarmistic and exaggerating context" . Others agree : There are  25 erroneous statements in Al Gore´s Oscar-awarded film “An Inconvenient Truth”.

What may really count
Now researchers have found a maybe better explanation for the melting of the ice cap of the Arktis and the glaciers of the mountains: Soot settles on the ice , which thereby warms. Considering the many lies about the climate so far I don´t know if this is correct. Anyway, it would be a good idea to have the soot particles removed from our cities, where they form smog inversions - and create pulmonary disease.

This whole discussion is characterized by a strong and blind political will to carry on with an agenda to reinforce the UN through the common struggle of a uniting global community against something. They have also tried with mad cow disease, bird flue, international criminality, drugs, fight against terrorism, nuclear proliferation etc. But climate changes are the hit! It seems that some people affiliated to the UN benefit politically by scaring mankind out of its wits. What really lacks is knowledge on what is going on. The politicians are jumping to conclusions, which the real experts cannot accept.

But apparently it would be possible to scrap the claim of the detrimental effect on the climate by CO2.
We can pour incredible sums into a futile fight against CO2 - against climate changes which are not global warming. This will lead to worldwide impoverishment. Which is exactly what the globalists are planning - as declared by UK Foreign Minister Milliband, who intends the EU to be a model for the world at any time - starting by reducing the EU CO2 emission from 160g/km to 100g/km by 2020.
However this drastic reduction at immense costs will probably have no impact on our climate. It seems more likely that above all solar spot activity variations are the cause of the climate change.