For those of you who have suffered through this blog for a while, you would have recollected a brief segment I did on the imprecision of temperature sensors supposedly touting global warming but, in fact, situated in areas of artificially high temperature. (If that makes utterly no sense to you, the blog I’m referring to, from November last year, is here, Example Three.)

Well, a panel of Japanese scientists have pored over the climate change data and, in a report that will — in all probability — never see the light of day in English, have come to a variety of conclusions, of which the following are just two:

* The global mean temperature rose continuously from 1800-1850, even though the sudden increase in CO2 emissions only began occurring after 1946.

* The global mean temperature has plateaued since 2001, despite increasing CO2 emissions.

Just those two facts, by themselves, should be enough to halt the global warming train. As the Japanese put it (via The Register):

the IPCC’s (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) theory that atmospheric temperature has risen since 2000 in correspondence with CO2 is nothing but a[n] hypothesis.

The Japanese are of the opinion that the temperature fluctuations we’ve seen are connected to sunspot activity, although they’re not completely sure, for reasons that will become evident anon. From satellite findings in 1980, it has emerged that times of no sunspots produces more transported energy and light emissions from the Sun than times of many sunspots. More transported energy, in this case, means more heat, although the scientists are also quick to point out that there is no perfect correlation between lack of sunspots and higher temperatures. What they are asking for, however, is a complete revamp of the climate change model to take into account the “enormous sum of energy” that even a 0.5% variance in transported energy from the Sun can make to the Earth. They also note that sunspot activity affects the level of UV rays, our ionosphere and ozone layer and are asking for more research into this area. Sounds reasonable to me. As they put it:

When constructing models, if our scientific understanding is poor, we are not able to capture the model.

Sounds like basic common sense, doesn’t it? Here’s the thing. Not only have we failed to take into account fluctuations in the Sun’s energy and its effect on the Earth (obvious, when one thinks about it), the IPCC climate change model also neglects the effects of aerosols on climate systems, the mechanics of cosmic ray ionisation processes, and the lack of true analysis of systems feedback data.

So, you’re saying, if you agree with this, Kaz, where’s the scam? Well, first, it’s in the Western nations now blaming the developing nations for all its global ills. (Remember Ben Bernake blaming us for the financial meltdown? Pure ballsy gold, that statement. Also a blatant lie, but let’s not let truth get in the way of a damned good excuse.)

Secondly: global warming is good for the corporations. For one thing, it’s yet another way they can manipulate consumers and pull a “bait and switch” at the same time. Oh look, my company GrCo (Green Company) is soooooo much more environmentally friendly than that other mob. And while gullible consumers are trampling a path to GrCo’s  door, the fact that GrCo is literally killing people by dumping toxic sludge into a river in the Amazon basin is passing everybody by.

Thirdly, the preferred way to tackle climate change is through the “cap and trade” method of tradeable concessions, rather than the more straightforward strategy of straight out carbon cuts. Why the preference? Well, as Matt Stoller points out:

By creating tradable financial assets worth tens of billions of dollars for governments to distribute among their industries and plants and then monitor, a global cap-and-trade program also introduces powerful incentives to cheat by corrupt and radical governments. Corrupt governments will almost certainly distribute permits in ways that favor their business supporters and understate their actual energy use and emissions.

Of course, Matt mentions “corrupt” governments, but I think we’re pretty clear on which governments are in the pockets of industry, which is what we’re really talking about here.

Global warming, as it’s being portrayed now, plays straight to the unthinking consumer, of which there are too many to contemplate without wanting to slit your wrists. It pats on the head all those little, lazy, PC do-gooders like “Mark” who, according to Anna Shapiro said:

“What a relief …. Finally, I can stop arguing in my head with all these conservatives, trying to sway faith with reason, you know? …. Obama’s much smarter than I am. I’ve handed it off to him. [my emphasis]“

What a lovely attitude to have. Democracy? Nah, we don’t have to fight for it, watch it, know that its price is eternal vigilance and constant criticism. No, if someone who even looks a quarter-decent comes along, I’ll just hand the entire responsibility over to him. Likewise, global warming? Nah, we don’t have to think about it, try to understand it, read up on it more. So what if the effects will last multiple generations? What this mob say (the IPCC) sound okay, and those pictures of penguins are heart-breaking, so I’ll go with them.

You know what first tipped me off to the fact that some players (corporations and Western nations) are going to make huge financial, economic and political gains out of climate change? Al Gore. On the one hand, you have his Inconvenient Truth documentary (his words). But, on the other, you have his unbelievable annual electricity bill and the fact that, when he was Vice-President for Clinton, he vehemently opposed the Kyoto Protocol and advised the President to do the same (his actions). That’s why the US never signed Kyoto. It was because of Gore.

Right now, in the IT field, I can already see a huge PR war beginning over which company is “greener”. They’re not doing it for the environment. They’re doing it purely because it’s another weapon in their competition arsenal. They’re doing it for profit. That’s what capitalism is all about and that’s what you should be thinking about every time you’re confronted by dogma. Who profits?

We’re — well, you’re — being scared into taking for granted something that has not been fully vindicated. It’s a big responsibility (and takes a lot of time) to go wading through the facts and come up with your own independent opinion. What a pity most people aren’t going to bother. After all, it’s only the future economic and political landscape of our planet that’s at stake. We can leave it to the big guys, right? I mean, they did such a good job on finance, what the hell’s there to worry about?

For anyone interested, the Reg’s article is here.