There is a lot of media coverage which presents climate change as the story of two warring factions: the first, being the intelligent and educated majority; and the second, the knuckle-dragging, red-necked supporters of corruption and environmental degradation. Now, why would the global media want to promote such an unlikely contest of entities? The answer will emerge at the end of this article. Meanwhile, I will not repeat painfully what millions of climate scientists and academics have already claimed, with which you, the long-suffering reader, have already been inundated on a daily basis for an entire decade.

First, let’s get something straight... Pretty much nobody is denying climate change. That claim is made to discredit those who do not believe industrial CO2 is causing change.

These “deniers" are in fact saying:

-        Ancient ice core analysis shows CO2 increases FOLLOW warming by an average of 800 years… not precipitate warming as alarmist’s computer-modeling claims.

-        There was five times more atmospheric CO2 during the Jurassic era, which was also the healthiest of Earth’s periods both for flora and fauna.

-        There was no Arctic ice when the Chinese navy explored the area in 1242, but plenty of polar bears. This was due to the warm period which ended in the 13th century, introducing the Little Ice Age, which killed millions and caused Greenland to be all but abandoned. This mini-ice age caused glaciers to extend dramatically until the 18th century, which are still melting two centuries later and are not a source of concern.

-        The interaction between the Sun’s sun-spot cycles and Earth’s magnetic mantle was well known to Piers Corbyn, whose weather forecasts were legend in their long term accuracy. He ascribed global warming/cooling to these.

-        So far, not one climate-panicked scientist has publicly corrected the myth that Kiribati Island is sinking, and is not being inundated by rising oceans as claimed. This pretty much shows up the AGW scientists for the frauds that they are.

[AGW or anthropogenic global warming is the hypothesis that too much CO2 is being created by industry and domestic animals farting, and somehow causes global warming] 

-        Logically, if we were to look for a more probable cause of rising atmospheric CO2 than industry, we could more credibly identify deforestation. That there is a matching fall in oxygen makes further speculation ludicrous.

-        Scientists who ridicule the CO2 hypothesis do not get employed. Only those that toe the propaganda line receive grants.

-        Finally, Aboriginal hunters of the North East Arnhem Land Coast, with whom I have fished and hunted for half a century, reject the claim that the seas are rising. These are people for whom every rock along the shore is as intimately recognisable as the back of your hand is to you.

So, we should ask ourselves, why the industrial AGW (anthropogenic global warming) hypothesis? Easy. The money behind the UN committee on climate change is that of the investment bankers who own the oil corporations who make the oil, plastics and chemical fertilisers that are poisoning and polluting the oceans. They want a phony global crisis which diverts attention from this massive problem, which threatens to suck trillions of their wealth in urgent remediation measures.

Thus, it is not “we” who must save the world but these irresponsible trillionaires who own our politicians and media. They will not act without commensurate urging… which I interpret as nothing less than irresistible people power... i.e., fix the oceans or go to prison.

Tony Ryan is an Australian globalisation researcher whose articles can be read on

http://www.oziz4oziz.com/