The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has claimed that the climate is changing by humanity increasing CO2 output over time and to stop this is to stop or drastically reduce the output of CO2.
But is this true?
In 2006 Dutch scientists, using German research data, concluded that the CO2 contribution by humanity was 3.5 per cent of the world's total output.
If the world cuts back its CO2 output to zero it will have very little impact if any at all.
Around that time it was claimed the Maldives, a very low island group, were going to be underwater in 10 years, because of the rise in sea level.
Well, it is still above water and their surface area is still the same.
Some islands elsewhere claim the sea level is rising, but these islands are actually sinking, but is caused by tectonic activity, not climate change.
Southern England suffers a rising sea level; however, the land is being pressed downward caused by post-glacial rebound of Scotland.
The IPCC claims the global average sea level rose 10 to 20 centimetres during the 20th century.
This is based on the behaviour of sea level in the North Atlantic region but this varies widely around the world. It acknowledges this but uses 18cm.
The number of tide gauges measuring variation is inadequate, so the observed data are not representative. Along the Australian coastline, the increase was 1.6cm.
Along the coasts of the remaining oceans, there was insufficient evidence for a globally rising sea level during the 20th century.
Claims an increase in sea temperature has a major effect on sea level due to thermal expansion are not reliable as it assumes this temperature rise will be uniform down to a depth of 2000 metres.
Scientists discovered that instead of CO2 causing a rise in temperature it is the opposite.
Historically the temperature rose first and then later there was a rise in CO2.
Most climate scientists are not climate scientists at all and worse none of the members of the IPCC are scientists but political appointees.
Some 32,000 scientists have stated they disagree with the IPCC.
Climate scientists' papers are rejected if they are contrary to what the IPCC and fellow believers claim.
Some were even told not to submit papers because they will not be published.
This is "group think". If you don't agree with the group you are ignored.
There are voices saying that climate change sceptics should be jailed.
This reminds me of Galileo's case
How do the alarmists explain the little ice age from about 1400 to 1850?
Vikings were able to farm coastal regions of Greenland around the years 1000 for about 200 years, because of a temperature rise.
They left when the temperature had dropped again.
The disappearing Arctic ice is not new and not entirely true insofar the current situation is concerned.
On November 2, 1922, the Washington Post announced the Arctic ice had largely disappeared, but it grew back later. There was no global warming claimed then?
According to the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction the average surface temperature of our planet was 140 C and rose by 0.4 degrees in 150 years since 1850, but had risen by several degrees during the early Middle Ages.
The IPCC is careful when it comes to its claims. Its reports have words like "should", "could", "would", "perhaps", "potentially", "low confidence" and "medium confidence", whatever these last two may mean.
The Media take the worst predictions and sound the alarm.
People become scared if they don't do something about this climate change.
Recently we saw how even school children are protesting.
Politicians worry, but this has probably more to do with fears they will lose elections.
Humans may think they control the climate, but that has not been proven.
The truth is the sun does.
Someone analysed the behaviour of the sun and its effect going back well over 200 years.
Starting around 2026 the sun will cool enough to cause a small ice age lasting about 30 years.
Some so-called climate scientists stated they would rather delete data then having to submit to a request made on the basis of a Freedom of Information Act, if that data contradicts their climate models.
Prior to the Copenhagen conference to address climate change the attending politicians were notified that a hacker had discovered two senior American and British climate change experts discussed the need to hide any data that contradicted the climate models.
The pollies ignored this information.
In summary then, we cannot control the climate, we can only take measures to minimise the impact, but this is not achieved by stopping the use of coal.
We should reduce the use of coal because of its pollution not because it affects climate, because it does not.