Wednesday, July 26, 2023

Ian Bradford: How The Human Induced Climate Change Fraud Began

How The Human Induced Climate Change Fraud Began and Why Some People are Easily Manipulated to Believe That There is a “Climate Crisis”.

The belief that the Earth faces an unprecedented and imminent catastrophic threat from human induced climate change has been one of the most extraordinary episodes in the entire history of either science or politics.

It has led scientists and politicians to contemplate nothing less than a complete revolution in the way mankind sources energy required to keep modern industrial civilisation functioning by phasing out the fossil fuels on which that civilisation was built. 

The global warming/climate change scare has absolutely nothing to do with the environment or “saving the planet.”  Its roots lie in an environmental movement of the 1970’s. This movement realised that doing something about claimed man-made global warming would play to quite a number of the left’s social agenda. The Club of Rome  (environmental consultants to the UN), made up mainly of scientists and academics, used computer modelling to warn that the earth would run out of finite resources if population growth was left unchecked. They came up with the following statement:

In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that... the threat of global warming.... would fit the bill.”

The Club of Rome produced  “The limits of growth” in 1972. It predicted a dire future for mankind unless...... “We act now.” 

Margaret Mead, anthropologist, organised a 1975 North Carolina conference. The conference concluded that anthropogenic (human produced) Carbon Dioxide would fry the planet, melt the ice caps and destroy human life. The idea being to sow enough fear of man-made global warming to force cutbacks in industrial activity, and halt third world development. 

Then we had Maurice Strong, founding member of UNEP (United Nations Environmental Programme) , and then the IPCC - the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change, under the premise of studying ONLY human CO­ driven causes of global warming. Here are two statements he made:

“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrial civilisations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about.”  (UNEP) 

“Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class-involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, air conditioning, and suburban housing – are not sustainable. (Rio Earth Summit)     

Ingrid Newkirk, a co-founder for the ethical treatment of animals, states: 

Mankind is a cancer. We are the biggest blight on the face of the Earth. If you haven’t given voluntary human extinction much thought before the idea of a world with no people in it may seem strange. But if you give it a chance, I think you might agree that the extinction of Homo Sapiens would mean survival for millions of Earth dwelling species. Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on Earth, social and environmental.” 

Well, what a load of rubbish. Every animal species would breed like rabbits. Each species would exhaust their food supply. Then we have survival of the fittest.  Stronger species would kill off weaker species and with no curb on the stronger species they would also eventually exhaust their food supply and so on.  

We even had the Pope chiming in with his Laudate Si. “A very solid scientific CONSENSUS indicates that we are presently witnessing a disturbing warming of the climatic system.” 

He goes on to mention a constant rise in sea level, melting of the polar ice caps (both of them), Carbon Dioxide pollution, and acidification of the oceans.   

Current sea level rise is about 1.5 mm per year. The polar ice caps are still there. Carbon Dioxide is NOT a pollutant. The ocean has been alkaline for many millions of years and still is.  There’s that word “consensus.”  Consensus isn’t science and science isn’t consensus.  It’s like me standing in front of a group of people and saying: “put up your hand if you think humans are causing global warming.” So they all put up their hands.  So you have a consensus.  Is that proof? NO of course not. 

So we have a totalitarian ideology enforced through punitive emissions controls under the guise of saving the planet. The motives of the UN and its affiliates are no different from those of the radical eco-zealots of the 1970’s. They despise capitalism, growth and freedom  with the misguided fear of over-population a principal driver. Their solution is to pursue a radical  transformation in cultural, economic, and political structures across the globe.  

Note what the caption under the photo says:  


Dr Ottmar Endenhoffer, a member of the IPCC said this at an interview in 2010: 

“We, the UN/IPCC redistribute the world’s wealth by climate policy. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy any more.” 


About forty years ago, an eminent Professor of psychology at Yale University, Irving Janis, produced a book called GROUPTHINK. Janis defined scientifically just how what he called GROUPTHINK operates, according to three basic rules. What this narrative tries to show is the astonishing degree to which they explain so much that many have long found puzzling about the global warming story. 

Rule 1:   The first rule is that a group of people come to share a particular way of looking at the world which may seem hugely important to them but which turns out not to have been based on looking properly at all the evidence. It is therefore just a shared, untested and totally unscientific belief. 

So remember, we had the Club of Rome which decided that the world’s population was too great and could not be sustained.  They relied on the Malthusian idea that population increased exponentially and that food supplies increased in a linear fashion. 

1, 2,  4,  8,  16,  32,  64......  etc is exponential,   while 1, 2, 3, 4,  5,  6...... etc is linear.

Malthus did not think that much more efficient ways of producing food would evolve and we also had birth control if necessary. 

Rule  2:    Because they have shut out their minds to ANY evidence which might contradict their belief, they like to insist that it is supported by a “consensus”.  The one thing those caught up in Groupthink cannot tolerate is that anyone should even question it. 

We remember National MP Maureen Pugh who said she was yet to see the evidence for human caused climate change. The Groupthink National party, led by Luxon, a good mate of James Shaw, tore her to bits over that comment, and like Galileo she was forced to retract.    

Rule  3:     Because their belief is ultimately subjective, resting on shaky foundations, they then defend it only by displaying an irrational dismissive hostility towards anyone daring to question it.   Anyone holding a contrary view must simply be ignored, ridiculed, and dismissed as not worth listening to.


Here is an example that reflects Rule 3.  The consensus was that polar bear numbers were  declining due to lack of ice. (The global warming scam).  In fact, Susan Crockford, highly qualified, and with many years studying polar bears, declared that their numbers were actually increasing.  She was victimised and lost her job.  She is one of probably many thousands. 

So we had in the late 1980’s the false and manufactured belief that the rise in Carbon Dioxide levels was causing the Earth to warm. 

At the Rio Earth summit in 1992 global warming became the international scientific and political  “consensus”. 

The consensus continued right through till 1998, helped by the fraudulent Mann Hockey stick and Al Gore’s Book;  An Inconvenient Truth.   Cracks started to appear in 1998 because the Earth entered a hiatus period when the temperature did not rise with increasing Carbon Dioxide levels.   Slowly, highly qualified scientists who were outside Groupthink, started to speak out. Between 2009 and 2010 the consensus suffered three serious blows.

·      The release of the climategate E-mails  

·      A series of scandals that showed claims in the 2007 IPCC report were not based on science at all, but on claims made in press reports and false reports by climate activists.

·      Despite supporters of the consensus such as the BBC and the UK Met office trying to keep the alarm going, it became clear it was no longer possible to keep the hysteria going.  

But various individuals such as NZ’s James Renwick, a member of the IPCC, who comes on TV periodically, and tells us global warming is still continuing, along of course with Green party leader James Shaw, try to keep the global warming scam going.   

Eventually the truth will prevail. 

Ian Bradford, a science graduate, is a former teacher, lawyer, farmer and keen sportsman, who is writing a book about the fraud of anthropogenic climate change.


Anonymous said...

Yes. Fraud, Scam, Psyop, Wealth transfer mechanism, Depopulation mechanism.
Bloody Rockefeller.

Ray S said...

It's like a rampant virus, it infects gullible people, particularly the young.
It is almost impossible to have a sensible conversation with a group of young people about climate, global warming etc. The fear they present is quite palpable.

Anonymous said...

John Kerry says farmers need to stop growing food in order to achieve “net zero” climate goals

Hillary Clinton Blames Republicans for Weather

Dancing COVID Nurses That Supported Draconian Mandates Switch To Climate Change, and now they're here to tell us that accepting carbon controls is just as important as the mandates.

Don't these headlines just scream out a GLOBALISTS AGENDA?

Anonymous said...

Interesting that only 10% of the world has signed up. China now emits more than the entire West, also interesting is that electricity prices are so high in the West generally they are de industrializing. Lets see what happens next as the BRIC's assume a larger portion of the global GDP.

Ewan McGregor said...

So, this commentator thinks that ‘Some People are Easily Manipulated to Believe That There is a “Climate Crisis”.’ Well, I’m happy to be one of the suckers that believes that the weather that is increasingly becoming erratic is actually not climate normalcy. I read the papers and have personally witnessed unprecedented weather patterns where I live – Central Hawke’s Bay. For one, winter frosts now are rare, whereas when I was young, they were common, and more recently, the rainfall over the last 15 sunless months being nearly double the normal, with at least a hundred-year flood in the middle. This has done catastrophic damage, overtopping the stopbanks through the region, which are higher than they have ever been, thanks to modern earthmoving machinery.
But that’s just us. Read the reports from around the world. Unprecedented fires in Canada and the Mediterranean, seawater temperatures off Florida at an unheard of 37.8 degrees Celsius, thanks to the hottest (northern hemisphere) June on record. As one columnist has said, “the summer of 2023 is behaving like a broken record about broken records”. Does this prove that the climate is changing due to the conduct of humans? I believe it does, but shall we just settle for ‘the jury is still out’? Maybe just that is a concession that the deniers could at least make. The stakes, after all, are pretty serious.
I could go on, but what’s the point, for ‘there are none so blind as those who do not wish to see’.

Rob Beechey said...

And the brain dead public who swallow this anthropogenic climate change religion are delusional enough to think that it is based on science. As Ian points out nothing could be further from the truth. It demonstrates if you tell a lie often enough etc etc. Do you remember when MP Maureen Pugh questioned this religion. Not a single MP stood by her but gutlessly chose to re-educate her. How evil our society has become to allow the brainwashing of our most vulnerable by embedding this nonsense into the school curriculum without a peep of opposition.
Power prices escalate through the inefficiencies of windmills and solar panels as China built 80 new coal powered energy plants last year. Look at the damage the idiot Biden wrought on the States.
Enough is bloody enough.

Anonymous said...

No one could deny that the world's climate is changing. There is a very good reason, and it has nothing to do with GHG's.
The orbit of the earth is eccentric. It goes from circular to elliptical. The 3% variation takes us 5million km closer to the sun. It is impossible for 0.0.0417% of the atmosphere-CO2 - to absorb and contain earth's radiated heat. That is a scam that is a nonsense. However, we will see continued warming and with 8 billion people on earth, the effects will be clearly obvious, but all we can do is learn to live with it. QED.

Ian Bradford said...

Replying to Anon. Agree with all you say. Yes climate has been changing since the Earth was formed. No one disputes that. But humans are not causing climate change. That is left to the sun, clouds, and the oceans.
Replying to Ewan:
1. "I read the papers" I think that says it all. You don't seem to realise that the govt controls almost all the media including the papers. The govt tells the media what to print.You never read about the other side of the climate fraud.
2. "Winter frosts are now rare." This is common. When I went to primary school in Auckland there were frosts on the school grounds. There are no frosts in Auckland city now. The population grows, There are more people, vehicles, planes, livestock industries etc etc. These all cause a warming in places of population It is called "The urban heat island effect." Consequently, frosts disappear from these places.
3. "Rainfall over the past 15 months nearly double normal." You may have been aware of the Tongan volcano eruption in Feb last year- about 18 months ago. This eruption was an undersea on and unprecedented in modern times. It out many millions of litres of water into the atmosphere. This increased the water vapor content of the atmosphere by between 10 and 15%. This caused changes at the south pole to the airflow. As a result the East coast of NZ and Australia have received much increased rainfall.
4. "Fires overseas and high temperatures." Read my next article about the fires. I have asked a question that they be deliberately lit, an have stated why I think that.The ferocity of the fires may be caused by fine particles of Aluminium Oxide in the air, used as a weather modifier.
I have an extract from the San Francisco Chronicle of June 13th 1877. In San Bernardino and the eastern parts of Los Angeles and Santa Barbara counties the mercury rose in the shade to the startling figure of 133 deg F. That's 56 deg C! High temperatures in the USA and Europe do not mean that the temperature of the whole world is increasing.
5. Finally. Between 1900 and now the Earth ahs alternated between hot and cold periods. It cooled when CO2 levels were rising. Further back in geological time the figures clearly show there is no correlation between the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and the temperature of the earth.

Richard Jones said...

How can the proponents of human cause of climate change ignore history which indicates the earth well before industrial times and with a much much smaller population underwent quite significant climate change where the world was both much warmer and much cooler. Written history, archaeology, and geology indicate this, the latter two scientific disciplines providing physical evidence. People forget that just because things haven`t happened within the last two generations lifetimes doesn`t mean it never happened before. Unfortunately modern urban populations within developed nations have an ignorant view of their own importance and surprising ignorance of natural forces, importance of the sun`s relevance and the fact that evolution of animal and marine life does not stop just because its in our lifetime. Reality is things are always changing. That is life.

Empathic said...

I still suspect the depleted ozone layer of causing the amount of global warming that is human induced. Although the ozone layer appears to be recovering towards previous levels it is still a long way from that so year after year it lets in excessive solar energy of particular wavelengths that also damage various life forms including surface sea algae, the biggest carbon sink on the planet. Recent correlations between warming and atmospheric carbon, which anyway are not strong, may well reflect an underlying cause for both phenomena. One of the most fundamental scientific principles is that correlation doesn't equal cause.

Ozone depletion was, and from some countries continues to be, caused by chemicals that never existed before humans invented them last century. Huge carbon and other naturally occurring substances have been sent into earth's atmosphere during its history through volcanos and huge forest fires but the geological records don't show good evidence this caused warming periods. Warming does currently appear to be occurring faster that what can be inferred from past geological evidence, so it stands to reason that some very different thing is at play. Recently invented chemicals seem to be a likely suspect.

If so, then the approach to combat global warming will be very different from what is currently pursued, and much less damaging to our civilization.

If anyone has any insight into the evidence underlying the climate activists' cursory dismissal of ozone depletion as a cause of warming, I would be keen to hear this and to disavow myself of this reasoning if justified.

Ian Bradford said...

Relying to Empathic: Human induced climate change has always referred to people putting Carbon Dioxide and cows etc. putting methane into the atmosphere. Not other chemicals. However,there are over 50 countries at present modifying the weather by spraying chemicals into the atmosphere to form aerosols which cause rain to form. As an aside these people can also cause droughts. It is these aerosols which are currently depleting the ozone layer. So you may have a point Empathic. More sunlight through and hence a warming. My feeling is that this is all deliberate. Reliable sources considered the Earth was actually cooling slightly. not what the alarmists wanted.

James said...

It is worth listening to Prof. Tim Ball being interviewed by Leighton Smith in podcast episodes 21 and 33. Clearly supports Ian Bradford’s narrative.

Ahwen Boone said...

James Renwick and James Shaw: Both high priests in the Church of Apocalyptic Climate Change.