The issue of the environment specifically CLIMATE CHANGE has become an issue that raises the emotions of the CLIMATE CHANGE guardians to the point of lunacy. The issue is one which has not been properly examined and one where politics has ingratiated itself has a means to be seen as looking after the best interests of the people and the creation of various taxes to assist the government in controlling CLIMATE CHANGE.

Those academics and scientists that disagree with the governments and mainstream media are silenced and criticised as CLIMATE CHANGE DENIERS... yet these deniers present proper evidence and research to back up their claims. 97% of scientists agree that CLIMATE CHANGE is real and manmade, is the sentence often touted as evidence.

The 97% number was popularized by two articles, the first by Naomi Oreskes, now Professor of Science History and Affiliated Professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences at Harvard University, and the second by a group of authors led by John Cook, the Climate Communication Fellow for the Global Change Institute at The University of Queensland. Both papers were based on analyses of earlier publications. Other analyses and surveys arrive at different, often lower, numbers depending in part on how support for the concept was defined and, on the population, surveyed.

These studies are definitely flawed have been debunked numerous times. One needs to look at the issue sensibly and realise that the world is not going to end tomorrow, next week, month, year or in the next 50 years. This planet is far greater than the total capacity for destruction that can be reeked by mankind. That is not to say man cannot do some damage, man does and we can and should solve that problem.

The Paris accord was, is one of the most stupid agreements worked out by political leaders and their scientific advisers. The Paris Agreement central aim is to strengthen the global response to the threat of climate change by keeping a global temperature rise this century well below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase even further to 1.5 degrees Celsius.

It is hoped to keep the temperature rise to .3C by the end of the century, in other words within the margin of error and it is estimated to cost One trillion dollars a year until the end of the century. This is of course a total waste of money this often pointed out by economist Bjorn Lomborg and he has studied the problem and come up with some brilliant solutions, One good point he makes is, if one raises the GDP of people on this planet to $5000 they can then live properly and they then would be careful and look after their part of the planet.

Using one trillion dollars a year for the next 70 years in R&D would solve the problems. How often in the past have humans invented, developed or improved upon engineering and technology to change the way we live. Look at how life has changed from 1900 to 2020! We can continue to do more.

Barack and Michelle Obama bought a property in Martha's vineyard for just $11.75 million not the actions of someone who is climate change warrior, yet Martha’s vineyard would be a prime target to be swamped by the sea.



Former President Barack Obama's possible new mansion on Martha's Vineyard could be totally underwater by the year 2100, according to a climate change model relying on government data.

Bjorn Lomborg President of Copenhagen Consensus Center and director of the Danish government's Environmental Assessment Institute EAI in Copenhagen has laid out a strategy for combatting climate change by investing heavily in R&D.

There is an overwhelming scepticism about human-induced climate change. Many scientists claim that the mantra of human-induced global warming is the biggest scientific fraud of all time and future generations will pay dearly. A hypothesis where 97 per cent of scientists agree is a statistical impossibility.

Scepticism underpins all science, science is underpinned by repeatable validated evidence and scientific conclusions are not based on a show of hands, consensus, politics or feelings. Scientists, just like lawyers, bankers, unionists, politicians and those in all other fields, can make no claim to being honest or honourable, and various warring cliques of scientists have their leaders, followers, outsiders and enemies. Scientists differ from many in the community because they are allegedly trained to be independent.

Of course, this attitude may well change when tempted with enormous research grants for climate 'science’ being dangled in front of them with the suggest that a result in favour of climate change would fit nicely into the political scheme of things.

So, what needs to be done: There are environmental issues.

1) R&D should be at the top of the list.
2) Population reduction worldwide
3) Develop Thorium reactors
4) Develop Hydrogen cars
5) Build houses that are 'passive'
6) Make recycling of aluminium, glass and plastic recyclable via drop off centres or supermarkets receiving money back for products.
7) Taking advantage of the 'Circular Economy'. A circular economy is a systemic approach to economic development designed to benefit businesses, society, and the environment. In contrast to the 'take-make-waste' linear model, a circular economy is regenerative by design and aims to gradually decouple growth from the consumption of finite resources.

More to come

Robin Jacob
Founder Member
DGM