Summary

This consultation seeks views on the principle of amending permitted development rights to support deployment of 5G and extend mobile coverage.

This consultation closes at

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/proposed-reforms-to-permitted-development-rights-to-support-the-deployment-of-5g-and-extend-mobile-coverage?utm_source=Members&utm_campaign=3e9a675e14-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2018_06_08_03_15_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_206970988f-3e9a675e14-323862985&mc_cid=3e9a675e14&mc_eid=0ab877a7dd&fbclid=IwAR1QHWHsRhjPgtZJ9W-b-RgcnGTqDdLd53PZq2mWMZCqB4XphmeT7r_9f9c

“90% of the climate scientists hold that CO2 induced climate change is underway and presents serious risks.”

What they leave out is that those 90% of so called scientists have never agreed on what percentage of climate change is caused by Fossil fuels, the most current information puts the number anywhere between 0.000001% to 0.004%, or a .07 degree Fahrenheit change over the next 50 years.

Our natural climate drivers <(sun, moon, oceans, electromagnetic forces, orbital precession and eccentricities, along with our ever changing equatorial tilt)> that don’t include anything that man has done, in earth’s history has changed by up to 14 degrees Fahrenheit over a 50 year span.

The alarmists have NO evidence. That’s aparently why they spend all their time inventing bogus “surveys”, or other distractions.

It’s been warmer than now several times during this interglacial period, The IPCC argues that the current temperature is a record going back several hundreds (highly likely) and somewhat less likely going back to the MWP. But they provide no justification for that. In fact, there is an abundance of evidence from peer-reviewed studies indicating that the temperature was as high, likely higher during those earlier warm durations.

The alarmists deny that the Medieval Warming Period was a global event, and that it was likely warmer back then than it is now (more of Mann’s Mann-made climate). As usual, no basis for that claim. (The reason for their claim is that they cannot explain ANY earlier warming period which experiences temperatures higher than now because rising CO2 is the only cause the computer models deal with. CO2 had been constant for hundreds of thousands of years at the time of the MWP. )

However, in order to provide actual evidence of their claim that the MWP was not global and not was warm as now, it would have been necessary to obtain proxy temperatures around the globe. Mann didn’t bother doing that. But wait..! It has been done by others. First of all, there are 6,000 bore holes around the globe, and these readings are not restricted to areas where ice cores are the only option. The boreholes temperature trends show conclusively that the MWP trend was global. An enlightening discussion of the borehole results can be found at Joanne Nova’s website. Her spouse, Dr David Evans, is well acquainted with climate models. ( Evans has become as big a target as Lord Monckton. The alarmists begin foaming at the mouth at the mention of either name.)

But there’s more ….. google the Greenland study (gisp2). That study demonstrates that Greenland also experienced the MWP trend (and is distant from Europe) and was warmer than now.

Next, the Mendenhall glacier in Alaska recently receded sufficiently to expose a shattered 1,000 year-old forest still standing in its original position. (A similar situation has recently been exposed in the Alps, but dated that forest is dated 4,000 years old.) In either case there are obviously no trees now growing at that latitude anywhere near those sites. Conclusion: it was warmer back then than it is now. The Alaskan exposure indicates Alaska was also experiencing the MWP trend. (Note: Alaska is remote from both Greenland and Europe).

There are also ancient vineyards which have been found at latitudes where grapes cannot be grown today. Ancient graves found beneath the perma frost don’t help the alarmist situation either. All indicate that it was warmer back during this interglacial than now. http://www.livescience.com/…

Next, there are hundreds of peer-reviewed MWP studies. These have been performed by researchers and science organizations around the globe. A subset of these studies specifically address temperatures (rather than such things as rainfall, droughts, etc.) Almost every MWP study has been catalogued by co2science.org and those studies also happen to  be accessible at that website by region. I’ll leave it to the readers to go there, select half a dozen regions (don’t forget the southern hemisphere) and choose in each (if one exists) a temperature based study. We already know from the boreholes that the MWP was global. With these studies you will almost invariably find that the study selected also shows it to be as warm, likely warmer than it is now.

There is an overwhelming amount of REAL evidence conflicting with the alarmists’ denial that the MWP was a global event and likely warmer than now. And… there are new studies confirming the earlier ones which continue to arrive. Also, keep in mind that many of these studies were performed decades ago, and the IPCC acknowledged those in its earlier reports by admitting that the MWP was global and warmer than now. However, there was little interest in asking questions about the conflict after Mann came up with his dubious “hockey stick” graph. (Keep in mind that his 12 tree study conflicts with McIntyre’s study which used 34 trees, and in any event was NOT even close to a global study.)

Surely Obama, a president who claimed climate change was his number one priority, would, with the help of his advisers, justify his claim. Unfortunately, the alarmist “science” was exposed after his  visit to Alaska, where he pointed out two receding glaciers as evidence of “climate change” (which means, at least to that cult, “warming caused mostly by human activity”). However, it turns out there are also other GROWING glaciers, both in Alaska and elsewhere on the globe, which thoroughly disables that claim insofar as evidence. We are, after all, enjoying a relatively brief warming period between ice ages. But, it gets worse… one of the two receding glaciers, “Exit” by name, has been receding since 1730. That’s 100+years before CO2 (the supposed human caused culprit) began increasing. And THAT pretty much sums up the alarmist position on evidence.

Computer model output is not evidence. It merely reflects the author(s) understanding, at best. But, keep in mind that it may also represent confirmation bias and/or some other agenda. Even the IPCC has admitted that climate can only be represented by a nonlinear system that includes various known and unknown chaotic influences, so it remains unlikely that we will be able to produce accurate predictions.
The IPCC has also acknowledged the current temperature “hiatus”. That hiatus rules out the supposed alarmist rebuttal of the MWP because they claim that the MWP, to have been global, must show a multi-decadal synchronous warming. That supposed rebuttal leads to the fact that our hiatus indicates we are not now experiencing global warming either!

Our current warming (such as it is … stalled since 1998) began NOT in the mid 1850s (a cherry-picked date), but, BY DEFINITION, at the first bottom (the low temperature) during the Little Ice Age. That was around 1630-1650, so 200 years BEFORE co2 began increasing, and also 200 years before the industrial revolution. Co2 began increasing around the mid 1800s and it is well known that there is little possibility (at an average annual increase of 2 ppmv per year) that co2 total increase would have been sufficient to impact temperature measurements before another 100 years of measuring the temperature. This implies that we have recorded 300 years of temperature which reflect only NATURALLY caused temperature increase. and this takes us to about 1950. (So, why all the talk about temperatures going back into the 1800s?)

But from the 1940s to the 1970s there was a mild COOLING. (Another hiatus!) So the current alarm about temperature increase is constrained to a bit more than 2 decades of warming, running from 1975 to 1997/1998, which has been followed by a bit less than 2 decades of NO statistically significant ADDITIONAL temperature increase. And 1997/98 are not a “cherry-picked el Nino because the hiatus runs into 2015/16 which is was also an equally (or more) powerful el Nino.

NOAA made a desperate attempt to make the “hiatus” disappear. It was called their “pause-buster”. They replaced the 3,000+ ARGO buoys (specifically designed for environmental measurements) with less reliable temperature readings from ship intake, which, among other problems, has a known .12C temperature bias. The same suspects also attempted to introduce a new (not yet vetted) terrestrial database. Dr. John Bates, a whistle blower at NOAA pointed this out, although some skeptics had recognized earlier what was going on. Dr. Bates does not appear to be a skeptic (aka “denier”) either, but he’s clearly now a heretic in the eyes of the alarmists.

NOAA’s data machinations are highly suspect. And how much ruckus have we heard about which year or month has been “hottest”, courtesy NASA?. What these “scientists” neglect to mention (either that, or the major news media don’t understand, or ignore it) is that the difference betwixt recent year annual temperatures involve a FEW HUNDREDTHs of one degree, whereas the uncertainty error is greater than ONE TENTH of a degree. This means they are babbling about NOISE. REAL scientists wouldn’t stand for that kind of stuff.

Finally, even Obama’s EPA administrator admitted during congressional testimony that there is nothing we can do which will impact the temperature in the out-years. (And that assumes an ongoing effort, involving expenditures of TRILLIONs to supposedly solve this likely non-problem.)

By Denis Ables.

There is no evidence showing that CO2 level has EVER had any impact on the global temperature, not even over geologic periods when CO2 level was 10 to 20 times higher than now. In fact,  the only correlation between temperature and CO2 variation which tracks both up and down trends shows the opposite. It is temperature variation which occurs FIRST and only hundreds of years later do similar variations show up in CO2 level. So you don’t even have a correlation, let alone any evidence.

 

 

The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) is what its name suggests: an international panel of nongovernment scientists and scholars who have come together to understand the causes and consequences of climate change. Because we are not predisposed to believe climate change is caused by human greenhouse gas emissions, we are able to look at evidence the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) ignores. Because we do not work for any governments, we are not biased toward the assumption that greater government activity is necessary.

 

NIPCC traces its roots to a meeting in Milan in 2003 organized by the
Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP), a nonprofit research and education organization based in Arlington, Virginia. SEPP, in turn, was founded in 1990 by Dr. S. Fred Singer, an atmospheric physicist, and incorporated in 1992 following Dr. Singer’s retirement from the University of Virginia. NIPCC is currently a joint project of SEPP, The Heartland Institute, and the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change.

 

NIPCC has produced 14 reports to date:
  • Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate
  • Climate Change Reconsidered: The 2009 Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC)
  • Climate Change Reconsidered: 2011 Interim Report
  • Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science
  • Climate Change Reconsidered II: Biological Impacts
  • Scientific Critique of IPCC’s 2013 ‘Summary for Policymakers’
  • Commentary and Analysis on the Whitehead & Associates 2014 NSW Sea-Level Report
  • Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming
  • Written Evidence Submitted to the Commons Select Committee of the United Kingdom Parliament
  • NIPCC vs. IPCC
  • Chinese Translation of Climate Change Reconsidered
  • Global Warming Surprises: Temperature data in dispute can reverse conclusions about human influence on climate
  • Data versus Hype: How Ten Cities Show
    Sea-level Rise Is a False Crisis
  • Climate Change Reconsidered II: Fossil Fuels
  • Link to website: http://climatechangereconsidered.org/http://climatechangereconsidered.org/

“Why the CO2 ‘Theory’ Fails

1. FACT. There is no evidence for the CO2 climate driver proposition in the real world using real data over hundreds of thousands of years. World temperatures do not follow CO2.
[See weatheraction.com to see how the data has been manipulated]

2. FACT. Even if CO2 had an effect the idea that Man’s 4% of total CO2 flux rules the other natural 96% flux in and out of sea/land making it follow man’s activity is a ridiculous conspiracy theory of nature.

3. FACT. The reason why the CO2 atmosphere theory can never work is that the Ocean-atmosphere interface controls the amount of CO2 in air – a warmer ocean (which holds 50x more CO2 than the atmosphere) emits CO2 and vice versa. This is very basic physics”

“Hysterical claims that July world / any country temps are “hottest ever / since records began” are FRAUD.
– intended to coerce and brainwash politicians and the public into accepting World-Economic-Forum + mega-corporations schemes to control and rob the world for deluded projects to ‘Save the Planet’ which are actually intended to boost the super rich and Save the banks from otherwise imminent doom.
The truth is, as the late Christopher Booker, renowned journalist & first editor of Private Eye, exposed, Climate data is fraudulently “adjusted” on an industrial scale via WMO (World Met Organisation)/NOAA &c to make the present appear warmer & the past colder”

“The utter disgrace of Official temperature “reports” –
~30% of USA data stations are now FABRICATED Data
Data fraud hits record levels every year since 2014

To see the record levels of fraud now perpetrated for USA date
(let alone UK and other Met Offices around the world and world bodies) go to Piers Corbyn latest Presentations (power Point Links in Right column of this home page) and go to:-
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/…/ncdc-breaks-their-own…/
and see a flip-flop of adjustments upwards which corresponds to CO2 amounts!!

By Cory Morningstar

Full Article : http://www.wrongkindofgreen.org/2019/09/11/the-manufacturing-of-greta-thunberg-for-consent-volume-ii-act-i-a-design-to-win-a-multi-billion-dollar-investment/?fbclid=IwAR2vIJfE114_ZMwQHJoCNg3iLmn_OdgSuG33xsIALcVBNudu_tNqgKDwwwMThe working class and citizenry at large will pay for the billion dollar oil giants to extract more oil from deleted reservoirs – to be consumed and burned – under the guise of saving the planet. The citizenry pays for it (without consent), while the corporations reap the profits (and tax breaks). The public assumes the majority of risk.Full Article : 

This is what a decarbonised economy looks like in practice. An enormous increase in fossil fuel extraction, land clearing, mining (up to nine times as much as current levels), pollution, resource wars, exploitation, and extinction. All the money XR is demanding that governments invest in decarbonisation is going straight to the oil, gas, coal and mining companies, to expand their industries and add to their profits.

Fossil fuel companies have been advocating net-zero for some years, as it is seen as a way to save a failing coal industry, and increase demand for oil and gas, because solar, wind, biofuels and carbon capture technologies are all dependent on fossil fuels for their operation.

Anyone claiming that a carbon-neutral economy is possible is not telling the truth. All of these strategies emit more greenhouse gases than they capture. The second demand directly contradicts the first. Full Article: https://medium.com/@kim.hill/unpacking-extinction-rebellion-part-i-net-zero-emissions-5a5eed68d9ce

Abstract. In this paper we will prove that GCM-models used in IPCC report
AR5 fail to calculate the influences of the low cloud cover changes on the global
temperature. That is why those models give a very small natural temperature
change leaving a very large change for the contribution of the green house
gases in the observed temperature. This is the reason why IPCC has to use a
very large sensitivity to compensate a too small natural component. Further
they have to leave out the strong negative feedback due to the clouds in order
to magnify the sensitivity. In addition, this paper proves that the changes in
the low cloud cover fraction practically control the global temperature.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.00165.pdf