Global Warming or Overawing.

Cambridge Dictionary,  Overawing - to cause someone to feel a mixture of respect and fear. to feel threatened, intimidated, alarmed and frightened.

I’ve just been looking at the subject of global warming and it’s alleged causes.  I don’t think anyone is arguing that the earth is not warming, it’s the cause that is in dispute. I know that it is said to be due to an accumulation of greenhouse gases caused by the activities of humans in the last 100 years or so.  This allegation is by no means proven, it's a theory supported by an assortment of assumptions.

The major greenhouse gases are water vapour, which causes about 36–70% of the greenhouse effect; carbon dioxide (CO2), which causes 9–26%; methane (CH4), which causes 4–9%; and ozone (O3), which causes  3–7%.

To me at least and according to the above figures, 36-70%......the biggest culprit is water vapour, which is surely caused by global warming, but not necessarily the cause of it.  You must have more warming to increase the level of water vapour. Next we are told carbon dioxide is to blame for 9-26%.  Compared to water vapour it doesn’t seem amount to much.  Methane 4-9%, ok it has a more powerful, warming effect than CO2, but 9% maximum is not a lot.

The energy output from the Sun has increased significantly during the 20th century, according to a new study. Many studies have attempted to determine whether there is an upward trend in the average magnitude of sunspots and solar flares over time, but few firm conclusions have been reached.

Now, an international team of researchers led by Ilya Usoskin of the Sodankylä Geophysical Observatory at the University of Oulu, Finland, suggest the answer. They examined meteorites that had fallen to Earth over the past 240 years. By analysing the amount of titanium 44, a radioactive isotope, the team found a significant increase in the Sun's radioactive output during the 20th century. Over the past few decades, however, they found the solar activity has stabilised at this higher-than-historic level.

Prior research relied on measurements of certain radioactive elements within tree rings and in the ice sheets covering Greenland and Antarctica, but these can be altered by terrestrial processes, not just by solar activity. The isotope measured in the new study is not affected by conditions on Earth. 

The results, detailed in this week's issue of the journal Astronomy etc; Astrophysics Letters, "confirm that there was indeed an increase in solar activity over the last 100 years or so," Usoskin told SPACE.com

So if global warming is the result of natural cyclical increases in the sun’s output, obviously the earth will warm up; the ice caps begin to melt, water vapour increase, green house gases build up.

I note several favourite phrases littering the public announcements from IPCC, such as, “ long-term warming can be explained by ...” - “ extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature” from 1951 to 2010 was caused by human activity”,  what, only half by human activity, who caused the other half?  “Natural variability in the Earth’s climate is unlikely to play a major role in long-term warming”.  You can read these documents and be persuaded, but once you take a note of the vagueness of the language, you should be suspicious of their conclusions.

None of these theories, suspicions, opinions are as firmly stated as the opinions, theories and suspicions that Johann Bessler was a fraud!

This begs the question, if they (the powers that be) are wrong or lying about the cause of global warming, why? 

Further research indicates a number of discrepancies in the claimed 97% of scientists in agreement with the IPCC.  For instance only those who publish their science are in agreement, but we know all about publishing science and how it has to pass the peer review test.  This automatically rules out every scientist who hasn’t published or failed to get published because his work did not pass the peer review.....or in other words, went against the current climate of opinion.  Excuse the pun, but I liked it!

BUT....if the truth be known, it doesn’t really matter what reason is offered for the climate change, the arguments demanding  the reduction in the use of fossil fuels, the target of carbon zero, the discovery of finding new forms of energy and its generation is a good thing, in my opinion.  I just don’t like the feeling that we are being led by the nose by the so-called experts.  We know them well and we don’t trust them.

JC