The COP 21 world climate conference is scheduled to take place in Paris this December.

There is much comment in the media, with a variety of people expressing the hope that the conference will be a success and that a legally binding agreement will come out of the conference. What this will mean is that countries are somehow ‘legally bound’ to cut back on carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions to save the planet from man-induced climate change.

Well, I, for one, hope that the conference is not a success. I hope that it collapses in a heap of disarray. The conference objective is just plain wrong.

A number which is regularly mentioned is 2 °C. It is said that the world must contain global warming to below 2 °C this century to avoid climate change. This is unreasonable.

For a start, the 2 °C has been pulled out of computer models, which themselves have been shown to be no more than about 50% accurate. In fact, the existing computer models cannot predict today’s climate by feeding in data from 30 or 40 years ago. The climate system is very complex, and claims to be able to predict it with even the best computer models are plainly pie in the sky.

Thinking that mankind can hold a temperature increase at under 2 °C is much like King Canute of old standing on the beach, ordering the tide to go back.
This whole 2 °C thing comes from an assumption that CO2 in the air will cause global warming. Well, the evidence that this is true is extremely flimsy.

It is interesting to note that there has been no global warming since 1998, but that fact is covered up by the warming enthusiasts. They rather spend their time sending hate mail to people like me, recording videos that I am an enemy of mankind and stating in public that I am unethical. But the media say that everyone should just believe in their sincerity and honest intentions.

Another fact, ignored and swept under the carpet, is that during the era of the Vikings, the earth experienced a warm period called the Medieval Warm Period (MWP). This is well documented in the historical record. At that time, the world temperatures were warmer than they are now. There was no industrial CO2 to cause that. Why do alarm bells not ring?

This was followed by a very cold period during the time of William Shakespeare and Jan van Riebeeck, known as the Little Ice Age (LIA), during which the River Thames in London froze over. There was no large-scale industrial CO2 involved. Any more warning bells?

Meanwhile, now, since the Boer War, over a century ago, the world has warmed by 0.8 °C, most of which occurred around the time of World War Two.
Then, in Den- mark, a research team headed by Dr Henrik Svensmark found evidence that solar activity can be linked to the observed warming and cooling of the MWP, the LIA and the current slight rise.

Briefly, what happens is that the sun’s magnetic field interacts with the earth’s magnetic field, altering the strength of the shield against incoming cosmic rays from outer space. The cosmic rays affect how much cloud there is around the earth, which, in turn, affects how much warm sunlight strikes the ground.

The known solar activity matches the historical temperature profile; the CO2 argument does not. But organisations like Greenpeace do not care. They cover up the Svensmark findings.

For the COP 21 in Paris, Greenpeace is launching an antinuclear campaign. It advertises: “Buy a banner to show the world you don’t want nuclear energy to be accepted as a solution to combat climate change.” It also says: “We will organise a highly visible antinuclear block” at COP 21. Greenpeace adds that buses and trains will be provided to get people to Paris.

So, if Greenpeace is really concerned about the 2 °C and wants to ‘save the planet’, why try to ban nuclear, which would help in its objective? So, one wonders what the organisation's real objective is. Is it to slow down the whole world’s economic growth, as one sees on many websites? Is it to control world governments, also seen on many websites?

Hopefully, individuals really do think about this. Think about the 2 °C. Think about the scientific evidence. The real scientific evidence . . .