Is a Clexit coming?

As the group describes itself: “Brexit was Britain’s answer to the growing over-reach of EU bureaucracies. Clexit is our answer to the push for global control through climate hysteria.”

Leader of the group, Lord Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, a conservative British politician and inventor of mathematical puzzle “Eternity,” has announced his discovery that climate change is based on faulty mathematics.

The confusion over global warming is perpetuated by the encouragement of a bipolar dispute over the extent to which it is on the one hand, a reality or on the other, anthropogenic.

The majority of claims that the earth is warming and that modern industry is the cause, are primarily based on incorrect computer models, the mathematician told Infowars reporter Millie Weaver.

At a conference in Phoenix called, “Global Warming: An Inconvenient Lie,” Monckton discussed in depth a mathematical discovery made by his team. He said their findings have since been submitted for an academic peer review.

‘I knew there was an error’

The team of international scientists “discovered a major, significant, substantial error in the way in which the computer models calculate how much warming they would predict should be happening.” He said if the error is taken away, “there is no longer any climate problem.”

While he admits that there are “one or two degrees Celsius of warming” and a doubling of CO2 concentration, “you won’t get much more than that”.

Monckton said he has known that the modeling error existed and that he had been trying to find it for about a decade. “But I didn’t know what the error was,” he told Weaver. “I just knew they’d made a mistake.”

The New American, reported that Monckton — a climate realist and former science advisor to the late British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher — maintains that the so-called “red flags” of climate change based largely on United Nations data, were nearly all wrong.

Because of these errors, he has proposed that both Britain and the US leave the UN. Leftists, ecologists and liberals face the prospect of a Donald Trump presidency with extreme hostility, portraying the new Republican president as a man under the control of oil and coal lobbies with zero concern for the environment.

But in an earlier report by The Daily Caller it was noted that 95 percent of climate models predicting rising temperatures have been wrong.

Dr. Roy Spencer, a former scientist for NASA, says climate models relied on by the federal government to create actual policies “have failed miserably”.

Spencer said he examined 90 climate models and compared them to real surface temperatures and satellite temperature data; he found more than 95 percent of the models “have over-forecast the warming trends since 1979, whether we use their own surface temperature dataset (HadCRUT4), or our satellite dataset of lower tropospheric temperatures (UAH)”.

On his blog, Spencer wrote that he had grown tired of assertions that “most warming” is “human-caused,” or the lie that “97% of climate scientists agree humans are contributing to warming”.

He said such statements also should not have led government policymakers to conclude that “we need to substantially increase energy prices and freeze and starve more people to death for the greater good”.

The US Department of Enegry has asked for a list of all employees or contractors who had attended United Nations climate change meetings in the past five years, as well as all DOE employees or contractors who had attended interagency working group meetings whose mission was to put a price tag on the additional impact of burning fossil fuel on the environment, human health and infrastructure.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency, both involved in climate research and regulations, are targeted by Trump and his transition team for possible budget cuts.

There is also talk of refocusing NASA on space exploration and pulling the agency back from satellites that study the earth and whose data is the basis for climate change studies.

A 2012 study by Gordon Gauchat published in the American Sociological Review on the politicization of science, divided the public into liberals, moderates and conservatives and found that all three groups started out roughly equal in terms of their trust in science in 1974.

But that trust declined precipitously in both moderates and conservatives in the 1970s. Conservatives confidence levels continued a steady decline from 1974 to 2010, the end of the study period. That decline was linked with the growing battle over climate change and global warming, with a 2014 Pew Research Center survey showing that only one-in-10 conservative Republicans believe the Earth is warming due to human activity vs. 78 percent of liberal Democrats.

Nick Loris, a research fellow in environment and energy at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank based in Washington DC, believes the science behind doomsday predictions is too speculative, especially if it involves dramatic impact on world economies.

Loris says the raging debate is a result of the limited dollars available for research. “If those who are truly concerned about climate change are that worried, now is the time to show what you got,” he added.

Forty years ago it was the new ice age and not global warming that was at the focus of official concern.

The New York Times of July 18 1970 reported that “The United States and the Soviet Union are mounting large-scale investigations to determine why the Arctic climate is becoming more frigid, why parts of the Arctic sea ice have recently become ominously thicker and whether the extent of that ice cover contributes to the onset of ice ages.”

Every major climate organization at that time endorsed the theory of global cooling, including the National Center for Atmospheric Research, the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia, the National Academy of Sciences, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The CIA was also issuing statements along similar lines.

A 2014 Pew Research Center survey of nearly 3 800 members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science showed that nearly half believed it was a bad time for science, compared with 23 percent in 2009. Fifty-five percent believed political groups or officials had too much influence on the direction of research in their scientific specialty.