Skip to main content

Man-Made Global Warming & Galileo

  • Author:
  • Updated date:

I am an interested victim of the man-made global warming hoax


Science by majority vote

Global Warming must succumb to science by majority vote, say some university researchers. Just as in the time of Galileo, when he faced a sentence of death for suggesting that the earth moved.

Surely you have come across these people.

Men who dreamed of becoming eccentric scientists with long, unkept hair, living on government research funds. Men who pined away in hopes of tax-based bottomless purses of gold, which would enable them to rise late and with which to maintain a brace of mistresses who would adore them for their brain. Since they had nothing else going for them.

They were destined to become the property of the first willing wallet with specific requirements, but in which direction it layeth? That was the only dilemma they faced. Which branch of the sciences they would devote themselves to.

And suddenly, like Columbus, sailing westwards for India after losing a bet with his aunt Amorosa who was sick of supporting him, they suddenly trip over Globalist Greed and discover American gold. The annihilating consequences of Global Weather Change.

The need for more taxes

During one of their annual meetings, Globalists were giving vent to their distress about ‘how times had changed’. In the good old days, the Ruler had the right of ‘prima nocta’. For those without a classical education, that was the legal right of a monarch to have sex with any female subject, particularly on her wedding night. If the peasant, the aspiring groom, was unsporting and objected to the honor, he could pay a tax to avoid any unpleasantness. If he had the money to pay the tax, of course. Otherwise, the couple were both screwed.

‘Yes, those were the days’ said one of the members, looking like a dentist with a toothache. ‘We used to tax urine, for God’s sake. Do forgive me, I am so stressed, I am taking the Lord’s name in vain. We even taxed soap! Not that the Great Unwashed would notice, but it’s the principle of the thing. The Brits, taking advantage of their excellent weather, taxed fireplaces. The French royals taxed salt. And what do we do today? We throw money away by giving $50 tax DISCOUNTS, to double amputees. This insanity has to stop I tell you!’.

The other Globalists nodded in agreement and attempted to drown their sorrows, like kittens, in magnums of Champaign.

‘I know what,’ said one of the younger octogenarians. ‘Let’s tax the weather’.

Everyone perked up.

Global cooling

‘I read a letter in the Times today by some nut scientist who claims the weather is getting colder and in 50 years’ time we shall all starve to death because crops will fail. Let’s find more idiots like him to pay to do “research” to prove the point. The peasants will insist that we tax them so that we can do something about it’.

That was in the 1970s.

(Page 64 of Newsweek's April 28, 1975, issue. Titled "The Cooling World," it argued that global temperatures were falling—and terrible consequences for food production were on the horizon. Meteorologists "are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century," …... "The resulting famines could be catastrophic.")

There was ‘almost unanimous’ scientific consensus on the impending cooling disaster then, as there is now for the exact opposite position: ‘The Consensus On Global Cooling’

Regrettably for the collage of philanthropists at that meeting, things went the other way and climate, as it always has done, changed. It became warmer, instead.

Global warming

No problem.

All research grants now arrived with new instructions to the same scientists who were warning us of Global Cooling. ‘Prove that CO2 is causing global warming, which will destroy the planet.’

In fairness, honorable scientists refused to accept the base coin and did not play along, but since the Globalists owned all the media (Newsweek being a case in point) and scientific publications, dissenting voices were erased from global platforms.

Scroll to Continue

That left us with access only to the opinion of the ‘eccentric scientists with long hair’ mentioned earlier.

Since higher solvency was their only life ambition, they were singularly and persistently tireless in their efforts to achieve it. The males by selling their souls and the female version, better equipped, selling whatever was available.

How times and Newsweek have changed.

It is now 2019.

Global cooling was a bust, so Newsweek tries to patch things up:

According to Newsweek some silly people, not Newsweek obviously, made silly claims in the 70s

Don’t breathe

Now, if you read this far, you are probably a deplorable unbeliever like me, so be warned!

If you do things like breathing or if you eat beef, you are the scum of the earth and you are destroying the planet by adding ‘greenhouse gases’ to an atmosphere already too difficult to sustain life on earth.

It is therefore in the interest of your offspring to INSIST on paying Carbon Tax, to offset this calamity.

Fortunately for us, one of these fraud scientists made a booboo. He believed his own nonsense and so filed a legal claim in a Canadian court of law for libel, against a real scientist, who had publicly called him a fraud.

Oh, the joy!

It turns out that Canadian courts, not known for their conservative views, have not yet been bought by the owners of Newsweek.

  • Michael Mann, a climatologist at Penn State University, sued climatologist Dr Tim Ball for libel. Dr Ball called Mann and his theories a fraud.
  • Mann’s theories were prominently featured in the 2001 U.N. Climate Report, and formed part of Al Gore’s 2006 movie ‘An Inconvenient Truth’.
  • The court has ruled that when Dr Ball called Mann a fraud, Dr Ball was not committing libel.

Ergo, Mann and his theories are a fraud.


‘Not only did the court grant Ball’s application for dismissal of the nine-year, multi-million dollar lawsuit, it also took the additional step of awarding full legal costs to Ball.’

This decision has beheaded Mann and his global warming theories in a very embarrassing public execution and his scientific plant has withered in the waterless desert of self-interest.

Adding excruciating injury to the insult, Dr Ball is now asking for a ruling that Mann did act with criminal intent when using public funds to commit climate data fraud.


Again, Tah-dah!

Michael Mann, the poster boy for Climate Change, has turned out to be a lying unoriginal, paid-for flame, inviting moronic suicidal moths to glorious conflagration on the altar of the Globalist Elite who hired him. Like all moths, they are moths temperamentally incapable of individual thought or sensible actions. But their numbers are legion and they increase like crows.

Mann’s employers know his ilk well. They know just how much to pay snakes in order to produce and harvest their poison. Had Mann’s theories persisted, they would have driven us to drink and we’d be floating on a cloud of alcohol fumes searching for the meaning of life, or revert to walking on all fours. The world would have been a most diabolic Eden of drugs, pimps and climatologists.


Global warming fraud science

But thankfully for us he made the stupid decision to have his theories challenged in an impartial court of law and was exposed for what he is. A fraud.


As I sign off, think of me grinning like a lion after a satisfying zebra lunch, thinking with fondness of Galileo.


The Great Global Warming Swindle


De Greek (author) from UK on October 02, 2019:


My Gift To Climate Alarmists


John Welford from Barlestone, Leicestershire on September 05, 2019:

That guy is making all the usual mistakes, which generally means attacking people for things that they never said and claiming some sort of victory.

De Greek (author) from UK on September 05, 2019:


Another point of view for you :-)

John Welford from Barlestone, Leicestershire on September 05, 2019:

Misguiding? I certainly hope not!

De Greek (author) from UK on September 05, 2019:

So you are guilty of misguiding swarms of poor youth, John? :-)

John Welford from Barlestone, Leicestershire on September 05, 2019:

De Greek,

There is a good reason for so doing, which is that certain media outlets have a long track record of giving voice to people who spout complete nonsense based on absolutely no reliable evidence, and whose qualifications are either highly dubious or non-existent.

I qualified as a librarian back in 1976 and have spent much of my career advising students on finding reliable sources of information and avoiding unreliable ones. Most of my time I was dealing with printed sources, but the same principles to online ones and it soon becomes obvious which these are.

The golden rules are: Find out who the author really is - how qualified or otherwise are they to be saying what they are saying? - what is their motivation for saying what they do?

De Greek (author) from UK on September 05, 2019:


Unsurprisingly, I have come across this argument before. I have a very old friend who actually lives on a campus, his wife being a renowned researcher in DNA. He is of your persuasion. ;-)

Every time I raise a point he does not agree with, he finds fault with the media source which reported it :-)

John Welford from Barlestone, Leicestershire on September 05, 2019:

Surprising facts? No way! These are all standard fare and all have been debunked many times in the past by people who use real evidence to do so.

John Welford from Barlestone, Leicestershire on September 05, 2019:

De Greek,

Armstrong Economics has a long track record of producing reports that have no basis in fact. The one you cites makes claims that are simply not justified by the research it draws attention to.

De Greek (author) from UK on September 05, 2019:

5 Surprising Scientific Facts About Earth's Climate

De Greek (author) from UK on September 05, 2019:

Global Warming is Undermined by New Discoveries

John Welford from Barlestone, Leicestershire on September 03, 2019:

De Greek,

I have spent many hours investigating the facts about global warming, although clearly - like you - I am not an expert on the subject and all my knowledge is second-hand.

However, one thing that is crystal clear to me is that every single point made by climate science deniers has been made many times before and there is a ready way of debunking it, which is the result of proper science carried out by people who really know what they are talking about.

This will always be the case, because the science is all on one side - global warming is real, there is no hoax, and it is a real crisis that the world needs to be getting to grips with right now.

However, I fully accept that it is possible to overstate one's case, and mistakes are often made that can be challenged. It annoys me when a simple mistake or exaggeration is blown out of all proportion by the other side of the debate, but - in the end - the truth will always win through.

De Greek (author) from UK on September 03, 2019:

John Welford

Obviously you have not listened to Corbyn's hour long lectures on the subject. You are too set in your inflexible ways, John. If you are not willing to spend the time learning, I shall not be able to convince you through this space. ;-)

John Welford from Barlestone, Leicestershire on September 03, 2019:

I have done. Piers Corbyn takes the line that temperature rises precede CO2 rises, not the other way round, his conclusion being that CO2 rises cannot therefore be the cause of increased temperature.

Where he goes wrong is to ignore the fact that as ocean temperatures rise CO2 is released into the atmosphere. This extra CO2 then generates more warming, leading to further CO2 releases. In other words, each is a cause of the other. If you only look at this from one side, you will see rising temperatures preceding CO2 increases, but this is only half the story.

De Greek (author) from UK on September 03, 2019:

just listen to the man with an open mind. I cannot do him justice on a site like this. Just listen to him on YouTube

John Welford from Barlestone, Leicestershire on September 03, 2019:

De Greek,

I would be interested to know what you think Piers Corbyn has said that is correct, and you why you think that. As far as I can see, he is completely wrong about just about everything!

De Greek (author) from UK on September 03, 2019:

John Welford

The fact is, until about a year ago I used to think exactly like you. Then I happen to listen to Piers Corbyn on the subject and I thought he was crazy. But since he made some valid points, I decided to listen to other scientists.

I was astounded by the number of bona fide scientists who agreed with Corbyn. I’ve spent dozens of hours researching the subject and, reluctantly at first, reached my current beliefs, as expressed in the article above.

I was not an easy sale, I can tell you. But if you spend some time researching, I think that you will come to realize that we are being manipulated by powerful forces whose only aim is to get us to INSIST on taxing ourselves for our supposed common good.

You are an intelligent person; of that I have no doubt. Do yourself a favour and look into the matter more deeply.


John Welford from Barlestone, Leicestershire on September 03, 2019:

De Greek,

OK - let's have your opinion - what do you really think is happening in terms of climate change and global warming? Whose evidence do you trust to be pointing to the truth?

De Greek (author) from UK on September 03, 2019:

John Welford

Since you like poetry, do yourself a favour and read the poems of the best poet you never heard of here;


De Greek (author) from UK on September 03, 2019:

John Welford

You would be such a fascinating case study, were it not for the fact that you speak the required party slogans that everyone else of your persuasion speaks, so it's become common.


Look at the two graphs above.


The two scientists were required to prove to the court how they reached the results reflected by their graph.


Ball presented his methodology.

Mann refused.


It is a myth fabricated by your controllers that the majority of scientists support man-made global warming.


It is exactly Mann's "hockey stick" that has been disproven under extremely thorough conditions, with scientific evidence presented by real scientists to a judge, in an impartial court of law.


So, according to you, an intelligent human being - a judge - cannot decide whether the evidence presented to him over a 9 year period BY THE ACTUAL CREATOR of the 'hockey stick', is acceptable or not.


Another intelligent human being - you - WITHOUT access to all that information, can express an opinion and seriously expect it to outweigh that of the judge with actual access to the full story.

Come, come, John, your bias is showing again :-)

John Welford from Barlestone, Leicestershire on September 03, 2019:

Exactly. A judge deciding on a matter of science - not the vast majority of climate scientists who know full well that the vast body of evidence supports Mann's "hockey stick" and has done so for years.

Just one thing worth noting about the two graphs in question. Mann's graph is that supported by the IPCC - an INTERNATIONAL body, under the United Nations, that considers worldwide trends. Ball's graph is only "climactic changes in Europe" - they are not comparisons of like for like. Why not?

Another little fact that might have escaped your attention is that it is well known that an error was made about 30 years ago (I can't give you the exact date offhand) in the method used for collecting temperature data from the oceans.

The old method used to involve scooping up buckets of water from a research vessel and taking the temperature of the water in the bucket. It was appreciated that this distorted the actual temperature - due to residual heat from the metal bucket and other factors - and so the temperature reading was reduced when entering the figure on data sheets. This was done to avoid any question of data bias.

The method was then then changed - to taking measurements directly from the water and not via scooped-up bucketfuls. However, the standard deductions were still made - the computers had been programmed to do this and nobody thought to change the program in question. It was several years before this error was spotted and corrected.

What this meant was that the published figures for ocean temperatures were artificially downgraded for a number of years, and global warming sceptics seized on this as apparent evidence that global warming had been halted, when in fact this was not the case.

That is the reality of science. You can argue all you like about what the evidence means, but you must - in the first place - be absolutely certain that the evidence you have is correct and verifiable. Unfortunately, this is not always the case.

De Greek (author) from UK on September 03, 2019:


You are a joy to observe. So perfectly in line with the establishment's requirements and dictates.

Naturally, as usual, you are wrong. Please don't be offended, I enjoy speaking with you and I would hate to lose you. :-)

This was not a case of lawyer against lawyer, as you claim. this was a case of two scientists presenting their case in a court of law, for an intelligent man, a JUDGE, to rule upon.

YOU feel qualified to rule on the case without even being there, simply on the basis of your own bias. Not sporting, me thinks.

Whether you like it or not, a case was presented in a court of law by two scientists of differing positions. Look at the conflicting graphs provided above in the article. How could anything be more different. It is Mann's graph that has been proven to be a Freud.

Tah-taaaaaah :-)

John Welford from Barlestone, Leicestershire on September 02, 2019:

The Ball v Mann case is an interesting one, not least because it was a libel case, not a debate over scientific evidence. Legal and scientific evidence are not the same thing and should not be confused.

Your logic is at fault here. You say that because Ball was ruled not to have committed a libel when calling Mann a fraud, then Mann is therefore proved to have been a fraud. Not so. This statement ignores the fact that there can be many reasons why a libel is proved or not, and these are reasons according to legal statute and precedent. Mann may or may not be a fraud, but proving whether a single statement is a libel does not affect that fact by one iota.

A court of law is exactly that - it is not a scientific institution. It weighs the evidence presented to it and comes to opinions based on how the weight of evidence falls on each side of the balance. It is influenced by the skill of the lawyers who present that evidence. It does not, therefore, proceed according to the rules of scientific method, under which a single piece of evidence can upset the whole apple-cart because it cannot be disproven whereas all the other pieces, however many there are, cannot be proven.

In other words, this verdict you are so happy about may not be what you think it is.

De Greek (author) from UK on September 02, 2019:

John Welford

Ring the church bells. I shall concede a victory for you. Yes, Galileo was threatened with death unless he recanted, which he wisely did - not actually sent to death.


Dr Tim Ball has just won a momentous victory in an actual court of law, where both sides (one being obviously yours) were heard by an impartial judge.



This was not a TV discussion where everyone talks over everyone else. This was a court of law where everyone got his say at the appropriate time.

Dr Tim Ball WON!

Your side LOST!

And you call Dr Tim Ball a charlatan.

Tsk, tsk, tsk. I am beginning to think there is no hope for you Young John.

But I shall not give up on you yet. I shall persevere. My aim in life is to spread knowledge. truth and happiness, not necessarily in that order.

And I do enjoy sparring with you :D

John Welford from Barlestone, Leicestershire on September 02, 2019:

De Greek,

You used the phrase "sent to death", which surely implies that Galileo suffered the fate of Giordano Bruno, who was burned at the stake in 1600 for opposing the Vatican's views on astronomy. This did not happen to Galileo, neither was he imprisoned, although he did spend the rest of his life under house arrest, which is not the same thing.

Also, the idea that he murmured "and yet it moves" is a myth that was created many years after his death.

There is also the interesting idea that what Galileo was most in trouble for was demonstrating the use of his telescope - this was an instrument of the Devil, because it was a machine that sought to outdo the work of God, who had decreed that the human eye was adequate for all visionary purposes!

I was in a hurry when I read your piece and in no position to do other than pick up on this obvious error in the opening sentence. There is so much that is wrong with your article that it will take somewhat longer to draw attention to everything.

However, for a start, relying on Tim Ball as your authority puts you in the wrong from the off. This man has long been "outed" as a charlatan who spouts nothing but nonsense and claims to be far better qualified than he is.

De Greek (author) from UK on September 02, 2019:


Bless you, child. It's pretty lonely out there in the world of paid-for pseudo science.

Thank you for you contribution.

savvydating on September 02, 2019:

Quite a unique and admirable writing style you have there, De Greek.

I'll add my own little story. My son, who has had the good fortune to have worked in the arts most of his life, met a good lady who contributed to the arts and whose husband was a rocket scientist. NASA called said scientist (as a respected independent) before launching the Challenger space shuttle and asked him whether the shuttle was ready to be launched. The rocket scientist looked over all the data, plans, reports. His answer? No way! Absolutely not! It isn't safe!

And what did NASA do? They launched the rocket anyway; the rocket exploded, and all seven crew members died.

Fast forward....that same scientist and his wife had my son over to dinner. They talked about Global warming. He brought out all of these graphs and data from the IPCC. He went over it, line by line. My son had no idea what he was talking about, (he's an artiste, after all) except at the very end, when his new rocket scientist friend said, "It's all garbage."

Well, that's good enough for me....not to mention, I am aware of the money that goes into the "science" of "global warming" and how scientists who dispute the matter are indeed silenced and/or denied grant money.

A fabulous article.

De Greek (author) from UK on September 02, 2019:


Does E pur si muove or Eppur si muove ("And yet it moves") remind you of anything?

Are you saying that Galileo was not imprisoned and threatened with death by the Inquisition?

He recanted under threat of death to save his life. Poetic licence permit the slight exaggeration.

You say:

“There are many errors in your piece, but can I just cite one that I am sure you will able to agree with me on?”

Come, come now. This is the favourite trick of those who have no other argument to put forward.

I challenge you.

What are my ‘many errors’?

Come on, John. Let’s have another healthy argument again :D

And while you are at it, this is something you are BOUND to disagree with :D

John Welford from Barlestone, Leicestershire on September 02, 2019:

There are many errors in your piece, but can I just cite one that I am sure you will able to agree with me on?

Galileo was not "sent to death" as you put it, merely silenced by being unable to publish any further research.

De Greek (author) from UK on August 31, 2019:

I used to be an unquestioning believer in man-made global warming. I simply accepted the stories in the MSM.

Then i heard a scientist question it and I thought he was a fraud. Since then I have spent dozens of hours listening to real scientist, including Dr Ball's lectures and I have accepted what I believe to be the most logical explanation.

Dr Ball's victory in court is crucial, because both sides could present their arguments unencumbered. The result is hugely satisfying. ;-)

Shadesbreath from California on August 31, 2019:

Well, since you asked, top scientists of their times have told us the Earth is flat, that leeches and blood letting were good medicine, eggs are bad, eggs are good, eggs are bad again, the sun orbits the Earth, there are humors in the air, and various EOTWAWKI predictions across the ages. So you may be right.

However, they also told us that there were livings so small we can't see them causing diseases, that light travels in waves, that mutation leads to speciation, and lots of other stuff that ended up being true.

The problem with the climate debate is predictive, not scientific. Science is about proposing a specific hypothesis and then working to find ways to support it that are repeatable and consistent. Science as I understand it is not about arguing about prognostications derived from data. That is the realm of politics or entertainment (the two having largely merged in contemporary times).

So, in the same way I don't agree or disagree with some religious person arguing the existence of some partical God or another, I also don't agree or disagree with the ardent certainty of an athiest. They can all believe whatever they believe and proclaim the Truth of it to their heart's content.

Humanity has proven itself to be awful at predicting the future, and scientists do best to prove the provable rather than getting sucked in to the debate. I'm sure some sell out for money, others are just wrong, or have lost sight of the method. Henny Penny makes money for Foxy Loxy. But nobody will know who was "right" until after it's all said and done.

Odds are, whoever that turns out to be, won't be any of the people anyone has been listening to. It will be some other outcome entirely, predicted obscurely by someone history discovers, someone we all probably dismissed an idiot or heretic.

De Greek (author) from UK on August 31, 2019:

As a fellow senior citizen, I can only point out that we Modest Great Authors, deal only in provable facts. :D

The article here - besides it's brilliant play on words - presents the results of a recent court case, which has shattered the opposition.


You must bear with me. My modesty sometimes prohibits me from using extravagant phrasing :D


Suzie from Carson City on August 31, 2019:

LOL.......I understand but shall we DEFINE "good argument??" I prefer not to exit bloody, torn, shaken & demolished! Truly my friend.....I'm a fragile Senior Citizen. LOL

De Greek (author) from UK on August 31, 2019:

Good to see you again Paula.

I for one enjoy a good argument :D

Suzie from Carson City on August 31, 2019:

Dimitri.......Re: Global warming....I know only all the controversial back & forth that I read. I have not personally done any research nor investigation of my own. Thus, when this topic comes up, I use the "Rule for Wise Women," and say nothing. Actually, after following the 4000 comments on James Watts.'s article, I've come to the conclusion, ANY wise person may want to reserve comment, unless they enjoy the outrageous fighting, vitriol, insults and senseless argument!

I, for one, can assure you, I haven't the time nor patience for that sort of needless banter. I say "needless," because it seems to me, despite which side of this issue is correct.....I'm too old to think I will be around to see the actual results.

Nice to visit your site once again. Have a nice week-end. Paula

De Greek (author) from UK on August 31, 2019:

You can hear Dr Ball here:

De Greek (author) from UK on August 31, 2019:

Thank you John!

May I take it that we are in agreement on the subject? :-D

Shadesbreath from California on August 31, 2019:

Man, I continue to envy your writing style as much as I ever have. You are sooo good. Great read. Glad to see you at it again.

Related Articles