Skip to content

Vote for Antony Antoniou

Antony Antoniou – Reform UK Northampton North
Prospective Parliamentary Candidate
(PPC) 2024 General Election

The Great Climate Change Agenda

The Great Climate Change Agenda

Exposing The Self-Serving Scam

People are perishing. Entire ecosystems are in freefall. We find ourselves at the precipice of a mass extinction event, and all you profiteers can prattle on about is money and fanciful tales of perpetual economic growth. How dare you corrupt fear-mongers exploit these vulnerabilities!

This is the sordid tale of how an eccentric environmental scare blossomed into a rapacious global racket. “It’s a wonderful business opportunity, okay? You want climate catastrophism, we’ll manufacture climate chaos! There’s an obscene amount of money involved.”

This has metastasised into a gargantuan, institutional money-spinning scam. “There are not just billions, but trillions of dollars at stake now.” It reeks of self-interest and insatiable government slush funds. “Careerists like myself, our livelihoods hinge entirely on climate research funding. This is what I’ve been doing for pretty much my entire professional life. They’ll never willingly abandon such a gravy train.”


“If CO2 isn’t inflicting the cataclysmic impacts we originally claimed it was, how can we possibly remain operational?” Vast numbers have become grievously codependent on perpetuating this ruse. “They’re certainly not going to voluntarily surrender such illicit sustenance.”

This is the disturbing tale of science’s debasement. “There’s simply no such climate emergency transpiring on this planet right now. None whatsoever! It’s…there’s utterly no evidence of one!” The climate alarm is utter poppycock, you know. “It’s a hoax. I’ve never been partial to ‘hoax’ as a descriptor. I find ‘scam’ a rather more apposite term, but I’m willing to settle for ‘hoax.'”

It’s a narrative rife with the bullying and intimidation of any who dare challenge the climate alarm orthodoxy. “To voice even mild scepticism about climate change was essentially career suicide.” Radical environmentalists are even advocating for criminalising any dissent whatsoever.

This is the story of an audacious assault on individual liberty. “It’s such a propitious pretext for expanding government power if there exists some ostensible worldwide existential threat. Well, you’d need an omnipotent, globalized government authority to tackle it. We’re witnessing all these draconian, authoritarian measures being unilaterally imposed under the auspices of ‘saving the planet.'”

Since the industrial revolution, free market capitalist mass production has enabled an ever-increasing abundance of goods to reach an ever-expanding proportion of the population at affordable prices. Mass consumption has gone hand-in-glove with mass production. In our modern era, ordinary working people are enjoying standards of living unprecedented in human history.

Yet we are ceaselessly lectured that such progress has ravaged the planet. Computer models have purportedly calculated that the weather will only worsen, the planet will boil over, and us rapacious humans must resign ourselves to strict lifestyle limits – consuming less, travelling less. “Those who refuse to accede to the reality of this climate crisis are not merely mistaken…They’re a pernicious danger! Propagating the toxic seed of doubt among a credulous populace. These deviants deserve to be shunned, disgraced and silenced.”

However, the official empirical data and scientific findings paint a markedly contrasting portrait…

Professor Steven Koonin, who served as a science advisor to President Obama and was formerly the Vice President of the prestigious Caltech institute, teaches climate science at NYU. “I always instruct my students: scrutinize the datasets and papers for yourselves. They universally emerge from that course with their eyes wide open.” Professor Koonin’s bestselling book “Unsettled” contends that mainstream scientific studies accepted by official agencies fail to substantiate any notion of a climate crisis whatsoever.

“Of course I’ve been derided as a ‘denier.’ My rejoinder is: precisely what am I denying? I’m quoting verbatim from the official UN scientific reports.”

Dick Lindzen, one of the world’s preeminent meteorologists who served on the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), dismisses such hysterical claims. “Even the IPCC’s own Working Group 1 scientific section doesn’t actually validate any of these assertions. I can assure you, having been on it…it’s a biased panel. But you simply couldn’t get any real scientists to endorse some of the nonsense being promulgated.”

Will Happer, another esteemed American physicist who has advised three presidents, derides the notion that scientific truth is dictated by consensus. “In genuine science, there are always divergent viewpoints, you know. No field is ever ‘settled’ – that’s just absurd, especially for as dynamic a system as Earth’s climate.”

Dr. John Clauser, winner of the 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics, laments “The science being conducted is appallingly shoddy in my estimation. A sizable number of scientists vehemently dissent from the standard climate change position. They refer to themselves as ‘skeptics.’ Since I no longer need to appease funding bodies or employers…I openly self-identify as a ‘climate change denier.'”

These distinguished, elite scientists are not unhinged conspiracy theorists or anti-science cranks. So what evidence has prompted their dismissal of climate catastrophism’s wild-eyed assertions?

We are continually admonished that present temperatures are unprecedentedly and perilously high. However, we possess extensive physical evidence of Earth’s climatic history spanning millions upon millions of years which enables us to evaluate such claims.

In Israel’s Judean Desert near the Dead Sea, Professor Nir Shaviv has uncovered geological clues that undermine such feverish prophecies of climatological calamity. “Thousands of years ago this place was submerged under water, and etched into the rocks are stratified historical climate records if you understand how to interpret them. These fossilized lakebeds chronicle how the climate has oscillated over time.”

Poring over these sedimentary deposits elucidates past eras of abundant aquatic life whenever the climate was warmer. Geologists can discern previous climatic conditions through various other techniques, Shaviv elaborates. “We can examine stalagmite growth rings in caves, drill oceanic sediment cores or examine other stratigraphic evidence. But here, I believe, offers one of the most visually comprehensible illustrations of climatic fluctuations through the ages.”

The paleoclimate data reveals that for nearly 200 million years when dinosaurs roamed, at no point were global temperatures as frigid as today’s. “If you go back 200 million years, it was around 13°C warmer on average than present. From a geological perspective, this isn’t unprecedented at all.”

In fact, over the past half-billion years, our planet has experienced far higher temperatures for the overwhelming majority of that period compared to today. “We’re in a remarkably cool era right now if we look back over the past 550 million years. There was only one other comparably cold period in that span.”

The epoch when mammals first evolved some 60 million years ago was considerably warmer than modern times. “Any interval within the last 65 million years was warmer than it is essentially today.” It appears mammalian species, humans included, thrive in warmer climatic conditions compared to the present.

“There’s no doubt that geologically, warmer has proven better than cold. We are a tropical species whose African evolutionary origins conditioned us for a hot climate. A human being exposed naked to just 20°C would succumb to hypothermia.”

Over the past 50 million years, eventually culminating in our current ice age, global temperatures have steadily declined into this unprecedentedly chilly period. “We’re at the tail end of a 50 million year cooling trend, yet they’re claiming it’s too hot!”

Examining temperature patterns over just the past few million years reveals them plunging between alternating episodes of extreme glaciation when the planet was largely frozen over, and slightly milder interglacial periods with only polar ice sheets.

For the past 10,000 years, humanity has been graced with one of these relatively benign interglacial periods known as the Holocene. “With weather moderating, humans finally emerged from their caves. Several thousand years ago, we witnessed the rise of the first great civilizations amidst this blissful Holocene Climatic Optimum when temperatures were toastier than today’s.”

Since then, temperatures have cooled and fluctuated in cycles. “During Roman times, there was a balmy warm period, followed by a bitterly cold spell and the Dark Ages. Then came the pleasantly temperate Medieval Warm Period, according to many studies as warm or warmer than today, followed by the particularly brutal Little Ice Age which may have been the coldest of the past 10,000 years.”

The longest instrumental temperature record in the world hails from central England, plainly depicting this pattern. “Since the nadir of the Little Ice Age around 1650, it shows warming of little over 1°C. This central England dataset, one of the world’s most treasured climate records, exhibits no alarming temperature signal whatsoever as it climbs out of the Little Ice Age depths.”

Putting that roughly 1°C increase into perspective, let’s examine New York City’s Central Park. Records indicate no overall temperature change since 1940, yet the annual average can still vary by 3°C between years without much notice. In fact, the spread between the hottest year in the 1960s and the coolest in 2000 was fully 5°C.

“So when I hear these hysterics pontificating that 1.5°C of warming will precipitate civilization’s collapse, I can only wonder what narcotics they’ve ingested. Are you utterly deranged?”

According to the instrumental global temperature dataset since 1880 commonly cited by officialdom as demonstrating dangerous anthropogenic warming, there has only been a very mild degree of temperature increase. And that seemingly dramatic upward trend line only manifests as such through deceptive compression of the Y-axis scale.

But is that widely-touted record even accurate? Professor Ross McKitrick, an expert statistician at the University of Guelph, found something highly irregular in the modern surface temperature records. Thermometers, even in close regional proximity, can register starkly divergent readings depending on their exact locations.

“I was interested in understanding what dictated this uneven patchwork of warming – why some areas warmed significantly while others barely budged. It transpired there was a tight correlation between the spatial pattern of warming and that of industrial economic activity. Areas with greater human activities registered more waste heat signatures.”

This is the well-known Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect. “The UHI effect is essentially London, right? Pick any major city like London with its proliferation of buildings and [human] activities, and you’ll find it reading several degrees Celsius warmer than the surrounding countryside. This is an unavoidable byproduct of urbanization.”

The UHI effect is starkly illustrated in urban heat maps like one depicting Paris, whose core can be up to 5°C hotter than its outskirts. “Paris, London, Beijing, Shanghai, New Delhi…you name it, they all unmistakably demonstrate these UHI effects, often with the obvious culprit being heat-absorbing concrete and asphalt surfacing.”

So how has the inexorable spread of urbanization skewed the official temperature records? “In the early 20th century, it was standard practice to locate weather stations just outside of towns – close enough for convenient daily readings, but still avoiding the urban heat sink. But over the course of the 1900s, those very towns became enveloped by mushrooming suburban sprawl.”

“Suddenly all these once-rural thermometer locations found themselves encompassed by shopping malls, office buildings, factories, homes…you name it. Towns and the areas housing thermometers on average grew vastly in population since 1880. So you have all these non-climatic influences like concentrated buildings and paved surfaces heating up those temperatures.”

“To properly monitor global temperature trends, you really need to correct for this data corruption by focusing exclusively on rural weather stations insulated from urban development.” This has now been done by a team led by Dr. Willie Soon.

“We aggregated all the best rural stations, applying whatever corrections were possible. When you only rely on rural datasets uncontaminated by urban heat sources, you get a starkly divergent picture of recent temperature changes.”

According to rural stations, the temperature rose from the 1880s until peaking around 1940. It then endured a marked cooling phase until the 1970s, after which it rebounded without ever replicating the high temperatures of the 1930s/1940s peak.

“Essentially you have a warming surge from the 1900s into the 1930s/1940s, then substantial cooling until around 1976, followed by warming but still below the prior peak. There’s a hallmark 50-60 year cycle, not some continuous upward trend.”

Maritime temperature measurements taken from shipborne sensors deployed since the 19th century corroborate the lack of modern warming reflected in the rural datasets. “While the land records in red depict accelerating warming from around 1900, the ship-based oceanic temperatures in blue show nowhere near that degree of warming over the 20th century. You’d expect the oceans to remain insulated from urban heat contamination.”

Arboreal experts studying millennial-aged tree ring growth chronologies have similarly failed to detect any remarkable present-day warming. “You see that same gentle warming progression until mid-century followed by cooling into the 1970s, then some recovery – but still barely differing from the 1930s/1940s temperatures. It all aligns with the rural station records.”

Satellite monitoring has provided the most accurate and comprehensive global temperature readings yet from the 1980s onward. Dr. Roy Spencer, former senior scientist for climate studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, was a pioneer in developing this innovative satellite observational method along with his colleague Dr. John Christy.

“Our first complete globally-integrated satellite temperature dataset originated in January 1979 and continues unbroken through to the present,” Spencer clarifies. “It enabled us to conclusively determine whether the perceived warming trends on the surface were legitimate or simply an artefact of expanding urbanization.”

“And what we consistently found, especially in urban areas, is a strikingly large conflating urban heat signature creeping into the surface thermometer data! Since 1880, most of the warming seems to derive from the Urban Heat Island effect.”

Spencer expresses his gratitude that these two climate scientists have provided an unadulterated, independently-derived temperature record to counterbalance the heavily-massaged surface datasets embraced by global agencies.

“We’re fortunate to have a few independent-minded scientists like John Christy and Roy Spencer with their trustworthy satellite monitoring of atmospheric temperatures. Before they started releasing this, the ground-based temperature records were going wild with no restraint. Now at least they’ve been obliged to reconcile with this independent, almost certainly more accurate means of gauging planetary temperature trajectories – which are by no means alarming.”

The statistical evidence from multiple lines of empirical enquiry – satellite monitoring, weather balloon measurements, isolated rural temperature stations, maritime sea surface records, borehole reconstructions – all converges to invalidate the notion of an inexorable, catastrophic, anthropogenic warming pattern over the past 120 years.

The instrumental temperature datasets marketed as apocalyptic by official bodies, government agencies and mainstream media outlets have been artificially exaggerated and contaminated due to unvented urban heat emissions.

“You examine the radiosonde [weather balloon] records, the satellite records, the pristine rural station records, the maritime ship measurements…they all demonstrate this stark inflection where the rapidly warming trend pervades in the Northern Hemisphere’s urban-influenced land records, where most of the thermometer data contamination originates.”

Even if we extend the excessive benefit of the doubt and accept the compromised surface temperatures at face value, that mild warming signal still underperforms the predictions of computerized climate models produced at staggering taxpayer expense over recent decades.

As Professor John Christy elucidates, “There are now dozens of climate models that have been intensively developed over decades at a cost of billions, maybe tens of billions, of dollars. Yet we consistently find that virtually all generate too much projected warming over this period since 1979 up to the present relative to the real-world observations.”

“Even if we accept the controversial surface temperature data, this still doesn’t produce the extreme warming that most of the climate models insist should have occurred, let’s say over the past 50 years. The models, individually and collectively, whether averaging their ensembles or examining them separately, are plainly wrong! They fail to replicate what we empirically observed.”

Atmospheric physicist Dr Richard Lindzen concurs, “You can already see that the primary scaffolding underpinning the climate catastrophism movement – those enormous, elaborate computerized climate models – are fundamentally flawed! They simply don’t align with observed realities. They don’t accurately reproduce geographical temperature distributions, ENSO [El Nino/La Nina] cycles…it’s all just nonsensical gibberish. Every last one of those models runs way too hot.”

“I contend there is no connection whatsoever between CO2 and climate shifts. It’s all a crock, a complete scam in my view. There is no validity to the notion that current temperatures are hotter than the Earth experienced in the past. That’s a lie. There’s no truth that atmospheric CO2 concentrations now have exceeded safe bounds. That’s another lie.”


0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments