(High Court Judgment 2007 - "Mr Gore Appears to Have Inadvertently Reversed the Science.")
The High Court judgement of October 2007 should have heralded the end of the UN's global warming con-trick, but amazingly, no one appears to have realised the importance of this ruling, which exposes the UN's anthropogenic global warming as being a scientific impossibility.
The Government had been taken to court over its plans to show Al Gore's propaganda film, An Inconvenient Truth, to British schoolchildren.
Nine major scientific errors in the film were exposed, but the following error should have put an end to all 'green taxes', for good.
Al Gore had claimed that the 12,000 years old Ice Cores showed that rising CO2 levels were followed by identical rises in global temperatures, and that man's burning of fossil fuels had put the Earth on a 'tipping point' that threatened the entire planet.
“CO2, is a hazard to human existence,” Barack Obama.
However, it was proved in court, and conceded by both Government scientists and the makers of the film, that the Ice Cores actually show rising Global Temperatures were followed, 800 – 2000 years later by identical rises in levels of CO2. (Over hundreds of years global temperature heat the oceans causing them to produce more CO2)
To quote the Judge, “It would seem that Mr Gore inadvertently reversed the science.”
As this is an undisputed scientific fact, my first question is this: As CO2 levels are the result of the prevailing global temperatures 800 -2,000 years earlier; it follows that the CO2 levels of today are the result of the global temperatures that prevailed during the period 12 AD – 1200 AD. Why are we being taxed on CO2 emissions?
My second question is this:
Do Wind Turbines consume more energy than they produce? As they cannot power themselves because their electricity cannot be stored, they are wired to the grid, but the usage is not metered.
The supply from the Grid has to heat the blade, heat and de-humidify the turbine’s cowling, power the gears, alter the yaw and pitch of the blades, and power the brakes.
As their usage is unknown, could they be using more free energy than they are creating to sell to the grid?
I understand that the PM’s father-in-law has received £350,000 plus in renewable subsidies, is there not a danger that a reluctance to harm the family business will keep those blades a-turning?
