Click on the link below to read my latest report on this:
It is simple, really. It is warmer during the day than during the night because of the sun. It is warmer in summer than it is in winter because of the sun. So, following simple logic, would you not say that if it is warmer now on earth than it was 100 years ago, it must also be because of the sun?
Generally speaking, I am actually quite happy to leave all people in their ignorance about climate science if it were not for the fact that the issue is beginning to affect my own pocket, i.e. via my tax bill.
Following the results of the analyses of various ice cores, https://foresight.org/some-historical-perspective/ I started to become a bit skeptical of the so-called ‘man made climate change’ (AGW). If you have some time, just read the above linked article to give you some perspective. It will make you think differently about climate.
Since that time, some ten years ago, I have been investigating AGW as a hobby and although I started off as a believer, I became more and more skeptical of any-and-all of the so-called man-made climate change as more and more results of my investigations looked completely opposite and different as to what one would expect if the theory of AGW were true…I was so surprised that there has really been no warming in South Africa for the past 40 years. I challenge anyone to do a precise statistical analysis of weather stations in South Africa that have reliable daily data going back at least 40 years, just like I have done. In fact I asked the same thing from the writers who put together the new proposed climate act here in South Africa. In my submission I showed my findings that the temperature over the past 40 years and rainfall over the past 90 years in South Africa has not really changed:
I did some calculations and theoretically I could not find any warming caused by the extra 0.01 % CO2 that was added to the atmosphere in the last 60 years. I think the original IPCC calculation was simply not correct and relies on the the relationship of more CO2 in the air caused by more heat. Here is my result of an analysis of infra red spectrum of CO2:
I immigrated into South Africa in 1976 and amongst a number of things that I remember from that time is that it was drought time here, just like about now. I recall that all the people in church and on radio asked us/me to pray for rain. Coming from Holland where it is mostly rainy every day, I had found this somewhat strange: In the Netherlands we would pray rather for sunshine if you wanted a beautiful day, not rain….
With the current drought time, I notice of course that those on radio and TV do not ask to pray for rain [anymore]. They just “explain” that the drought time is due to ‘man made’ climate change;
…..hence, the lack of rain is simply your own fault….
To understand about drought times you should first read this report:
It was recently also published in Dutch, see here:
(Let me know what you think of my report on this?)
I had a bit of a discussion going on with the presenters of the program on RSG called “Hoe verklaar jy dit” [How do you explain this?] and some of the arguments given to me/us on why it is that man must be warming the planet is the observation of the melting of glaciers in Europe, and ice, mainly on Greenland and in the Arctic.
In response to the RSG programme, I pointed out that generally speaking, ice has been melting for the past 20000 years, and if this had not happened would life exist as we know it today?
I also asked them:
In the case of Greenland, how do you explain that whole villages that were established in Greenland by the Vikings more than 1000 years ago are only now becoming visible due to the current melting of the ice? The implied question is of course: Does this not simply prove that it was warmer naturally in Greenland, a 1000 years ago, than what it is now?
Then I asked: As far as the melting of glaciers is concerned, [this seems to be more apparent in the northern hemisphere], how do you explain that most of the glaciers in the southern hemisphere (SH) are now growing? [note that my own data set shows no warming in the SH compared to warming in the NH]
So, anyway, not to worry when you see less ice in the arctic. We have been there, done all that. Must say that it appears from my results that minimum temperatures have been falling in the southern hemisphere whereas it has been increasing in the northern hemisphere. How can that happen? This observation does not at all support the notion of ‘global’ warming. See here:
Interestingly, at the end of the 16th century, one of my forefathers, Willem Barentz, went looking for a passage to the east via the north. Apparently he read somewhere from ancient Norse and Roman writings that such a passage existed. Sadly, he and crew died trying to find it. Hence, we still have the Barentz Sea, up there in the Arctic. So there is strong anecdotal evidence that a thousand years ago, the arctic was largely ice free, or almost ice free, or just like it is now? Willem would not have risked his own life and that of his crew unless he was sure about that passage.
Isn’t it funny, how the world changes in 400 years….meaning we now don’t want that passage to the east via the north anymore – not even just to discover it – like Willem wanted to find it
….how dumb is that, actually:
Most recently I identified a possible cause for the warming of the world. It was a completely unexpected result:
The question that remains now is what is behind all the disinformation, the lies and the misrepresentations about AGW, i.e man-made climate change, and who is really wanting it to continue, despite many observations proving the opposite. I wonder if the answer is locked in this article here:
i.e. that there really should be one world government aimed to solve ‘our’ problem of ‘man made climate change’. You will recall of course that food inflation was one of the reasons why Hitler came to power: people had to bring a wheel barrow full of money [Marks], just to buy some bread…..
I remember this story that at one stage or another Albert Einstein was interviewed by a number of journalists on one of his theories. I cannot remember now what it was about. However, one of the journalists told him that he could bring a 100 scientists who disagreed with ‘his’ theory, whatever it was that they had been discussing. It is said that Einstein looked at him, surprised and a bit puzzled, and then said: ‘Why bring 100? One would be enough?’
Please note that I am not saying that I am as great as Einstein was. I am just saying that we cannot have an ‘election’ about science. It is simply a matter of how we measure and what we find…