Big email .pdf

File information

Original filename: Big email.pdf
Title: Big email
Author: ellis

This PDF 1.3 document has been generated by Pages / Mac OS X 10.7.5 Quartz PDFContext, and has been sent on on 10/12/2014 at 21:11, from IP address 95.17.x.x. The current document download page has been viewed 972 times.
File size: 4.3 MB (30 pages).
Privacy: public file

Download original PDF file

Big email.pdf (PDF, 4.3 MB)

Share on social networks

Link to this file download page

Document preview

Department of Energy and “Climate Change”  (yuk!)
DECC Correspondence Unit,
3, Whitehall Place,


       Re:  DECC failure to
             -   Ref TO2014/16357

see IPCC errors.

Dear Sir/Madam,

Thank you for your reply of the 8th December, regarding 'Climate Change'.  You said:
 DECC quote (Department of Energy and Climate Change):

Climate change is happening and man-made emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) are currently
the dominant cause of this change.
(Full text of reply enclosed below)

What a stupid robotic reply this is. Forget the IPCC for a moment, and use your brain - if you have a brain.

There has been NO Global Warming for 18 years.

        Fig  1.1.   There has been no Global Warming for 18 years.
        Data from the RSS satellite temperature record.

Remote Sensing Systems is one of the most respected authorities in world climate data.


So will the DECC admit, that whatever the climate is doing, it is not due to Global Warming  -  because there is no
global warming.  And will the DECC also admit that the IPCC was (and is) completely wrong in their alarmist claims.  

The IPCC said the climate would change because the world is warming.  But it is not warming. So now the IPCC say
the climate will change, even if the world is not warming.  Can you not see when someone is making this up as they go
This is a failed hypothesis. It is a hypothesis from the Monty Python 'Parrot Sketch' - it has fallen off its perch.  So why
is the DECC clinging onto a failed hypothesis?  And why is the DECC spending £billions of our money, on a failed
This is the acclaimed Dr Richard Feynman explaining how real scientists identify a failed hypothesis, and what they do
with it  -  they throw it out.
    (watch the first 3 minutes).
"If the theory disagrees with experiment, it is wrong. It does not matter how beautiful it is, how smart he is, or what his name
is  -  If the theory disagrees with experiment, it is wrong".

So why is the DECC wasting £billions of our money on a failed or 'wrong' hypothesis? 

Show me the direct evidence that CO2 is responsible for Global Warming. You state this as fact, and you are spending
£billions of our money on this 'fact'.  But is it a fact?  On what empirical evidence do you claim this?  Was the CO2 and
temperature increase of the 20th century causal, consequential, or coincidental?  Show us the evidence. (The seas
'exhale' CO2 if they warm, increasing CO2 as a consequence of rising temperatures, not as the cause.) 
The 20th century temperature increase was also proportional to the increase in milk production. So is world
temperature dependent upon milk production?   Why not?  Disprove my theory.  You see how flakey the CO2 theory is?
The IPCC made the link between CO2 and temperature, based upon a correlation between rising CO2 and rising
temperatures.  But world temperature is no longer following CO2 concentrations.  So is CO2 really the primary
controller of world temperature?  

         Fig  2.1.   World temperature is not following CO2 concentrations.

Data from the Hadcrut temperature record, and Mauna Loa CO2 record.

And the IPCC initially made the link between CO2 and temperature, even though the world's longest reliable
temperature record - the Central England Temperature, or CET  -  showed absolutely no link between CO2 and
temperature. Look at graph 2.2 below  -  do you see a direct correlation between CO2 and temperature?  So why is the
DECC wasting £billions of our money on a hypothesis that did not even make sense from day one?

        Fig  2.2.   CET (English) temperature is not following CO2 concentrations.

Data from the world-renound CET temperature record,  and Mauna Loa CO2 record.

As I demonstrated in my last email, the climate is NOT changing.  
I will just post two graphs here, which are the number and the total energy of typhoons and hurricanes.  Do you see
any remarkable 'climate change' in the record?  Please show me where it is, and its correlation with rising CO2
concentrations.  All I see, is CO2 rising and cyclone energy decreasing after 1994. In fact, we have another complete
disconnect here, between CO2 and claims of a changing (ie: worsening) climate.
But if there is no change in overall cyclone activity, then why is the DECC wasting £billions of our money on a failed

         Fig  3.1.   Total Cyclone energy per year
-  no overall increase in total cyclone energy for 45 years.
Data from Dr Ryan Maue. 

Dr Maue produces the most respected cyclone graphs in the industry.

           Fig  3.2.   Numbers of hurricanes and typhoons per year
                        -  no increase in the number of cyclones over 45 years.
              Data from Dr Ryan Maue. 

Dr Maue produces the most respected cyclone graphs in the industry.

This is just a short summary of the catastrophic errors that exist in DECC thinking and policy.  Forget the IPCC for a
minute -- because the IPCC often quotes legendary 'scientists' like Greenpeace and the WWF  --  and produce some
independent science. I am sure you have access to some real scientists (who are not being paid to remain on the
Global Warming bandwagon), so ask them the following questions:

Question 1:
    a.  Have world temperatures been rising over the last 18 years?
    b.  Have world CO2 concentrations been rising over the last 18 years?
If the answer is 'no' and 'yes', then there is a complete disconnect between CO2 and temperature. 
(Answer  -  see figs 2.1 and 2.2.  Temperature has remained remarkably steady in recent times, while CO2 has
continued to increase.)

Question 2:
    a.  Has world temperature always followed CO2 concentrations in the last 1,000 years?
       - ie:  during the Roman Warming Period, the Medieval Warming Period, and the Little Ice Age.

If the answer is 'no', then it is unlikely that CO2 is the primary driver and governor of temperature.  
(Answer is  no   -   the historic ice-core record shows no major CO2 fluctuations over the last 1,000 years.  Perhaps +/10 ppm at most.  So it was NOT CO2 that caused the temperature fluctuations over the last millennia.)  
(The 10 ppm fall after 1500 it not the cause of the Little Ice Age.  CO2 has increased by some 120 ppm in the last
century, so if 10 ppm caused a little ice age, we would be roasting now if CO2 was the primary driver of world

           Fig  Q.2.   According to historic ice-cores, CO2 has remained steady over the 

last 1000 years, while temperatures fluctuated.
Data from Law Dome ice-core data. 

Question 3:
In the ice-age record (when CO2 did fluctuate with temperature), which was the leading factor?  
     a.   Did temperature rise before CO2?
     b.   Did CO2 rise before temperature?
           (ie:  which is the driver and which is the follower?)
(Answer is   a.   -   in every ice-age the temperature increased about 800 years before CO2 concentrations increased.  
And this has been proven, see article below). 

           Fig  Q.3a.   According to ice-cores, CO2  rose and fell with temperature, during ice ages.
                             But temperature always led CO2 concentrations by 800 years.
                             Data from Law Dome and Vostok ice-core data.

So temperature is the obvious driver, and CO2 follows it.
But look at this absurd explanation of this observation:

This article is typical of Global Warming smoke, mirrors and lies.  They admit that CO2 did not cause the first 800 years
of warming  -  but they assure us that it did cause the rest.  Honest.  
Woaah, lets back up there a minute.  The more probable truth is:
     a.  If CO2 did not cause the first 800 years of warming, after an ice-age, it 
           is NOT the primary driver of temperature.  Something else is doing it, and 
           that something is probably the Earth's orbit, or the Sunspot cycle.
     b.   If that something else can drive temperature for 800 years, why invoke 

           CO2 at all?  That 'something else' may simply continue doing what it 
           started, all through the interglacial period.  Thus CO2 may not effect 
           temperature at all.
     c.   Look at the CO2 change  -  it is only 100 ppm, from deep ice-age to 
           balmy interglacial.  We have pumped another 100 ppm into the atmosphere
           on top of that.  If 100 ppm of natural CO2 change causes an 8ºc temperature
          change, we should be cooking by now.  Average UK temperature should be 
          23ºc instead of 15ºc.  This is why these 'scientists' predicted disaster. But we 
          are not cooking - temperatures are steady.  Why?  Well read on.
     d.  What actually happens, is that the seas outgas (exhale) CO2 when the seas
          warm.   So the CO2 is following temperature simply because of ocean 
          outgassing.  CO2 concentrations are the RESULT of a temperature increase, 
          and not the cause.
     e.  Feedbacks. Scientists argue that CO2 is a feedback - it assists the warming 
         that has already started.  Ok, so why do they not talk about H20 -- water
         vapour?  Water vapour causes 95% of the greenhouse effect, so why not 
         invoke water instead of CO2?  Ah, yes  -  it is difficult to tax water……..!!
     f.  And why is CO2 not the feedback?  Because its effect reduces with increasing
         concentrations.  Look at Fig Q.3b.  Increasing CO2 concentrations (bottom scale)
         greatly increase temperature, for the first 200 ppm.  But after that, increasing 
         CO2 further does very little.  We are already at 380 or 400 ppm, so doubling
         the CO2 concentration will have no effect at all on temperature.  This is the 
         fundamental deceit of the IPCC  --  they have disregarded this graph, because 
         it does not produce the scare stories that they want.

        Fig  Q.3b.   According to scientists, the effect of CO2 reduces with increasing concentrations.
                           From 0 to 200 ppm, CO2 has a large effect, increasing air temperature by between 5 and 11 degrees. 
                            But between 400 and 600 ppm, temperatures only increase by between 0.5 and 1.0 degrees. 
                          Data from:  Charnock, Kondratjew and Lindzen.

  Three different estimates of the effect  (that is how settled the science is…….!!) 

The bottom line here, is that the theory of CO2 induced Global Warming (whether man-made or natural) is a busted
flush once you get beyond 300 ppm CO2.  And as Dr Richard Feynman said:   (watch the first 3 minutes).

"If the theory disagrees with experiment, it is wrong. It does not matter how beautiful it is, how smart he is, or
what his name is  -  If the theory disagrees with experiment, it is wrong".
So why is the DECC wasting £billions of our money on a failed hypothesis? The parrot has fallen off its perch, it is no
more, it has shuffled off its mortal coil, so why you wasting our money on it?

Ralph Ellis

The brain-dead, robotic DECC Reply, of the 8th December.
Where does the government find these imbeciles?

Department of Energy & Climate Change
3 Whitehall Place

Mr Ralph Ellis

Our ref: TO2014/16357/WW

8 December 2014

Dear Mr Ellis
Thank you for your letter dated 17 November, about international climate change. I have
been asked to reply.
Climate change is happening and man-made emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs)
are currently the dominant cause of this change. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Synthesis Report, published in November 2014, concluded that
warming of the climate system is unequivocal. The Report states it is extremely likely
(>95% probability) that human activity is the dominant cause of warming since the mid20th century. Please see the following link to read the IPCC report:
The UK will experience many impacts directly, such as increasingly frequent and severe
flooding - causing damage to properties and infrastructure, loss of earnings and disrupting supply chains - as well as a rise in heat waves, storms and gales. However, perhaps the greatest risks and costs to the UK will be felt indirectly through global changes,
including rising food prices, rising costs of material and goods, loss of trade and earnings and growing regional instability.
We are also seeing the impacts globally, on our environment, health and economy so
we need to act now. The later we act, the more likely we could see catastrophic results.
The World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) reported that between 2001 and 2010,
extreme weather events caused:

Related documents

big email
climate hypothesis
climate shift hypothesis
final poster recovery
13 08 19 speech

Link to this page

Permanent link

Use the permanent link to the download page to share your document on Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, or directly with a contact by e-Mail, Messenger, Whatsapp, Line..

Short link

Use the short link to share your document on Twitter or by text message (SMS)


Copy the following HTML code to share your document on a Website or Blog

QR Code

QR Code link to PDF file Big email.pdf