Climate, Covid and Conspiracy E-Book

Peter Taylor

• Herausgeber: Clairview Books
• Kategorie: Wissenschaft und neue Technologien
• Sprache: Englisch

Seitenzahl: 441

Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2024

Beschreibung

In recent years, growing national and international networks are challenging the two dominant 'emergency' narratives that relate to the Covid pandemic and Climate Change. It was the experience of Covid, and the co-ordinated global response that involved suppression of the virus's laboratory origins, fast-tracking of mRNA vaccines, lockdowns, and neglect of the most vulnerable – all of which contradicted scientific evidence and proven effective responses – that led to alarm over the consolidation of emergency powers within groups of unelected bureaucrats. Whilst this kind of subterfuge has characterized the climate issue for decades, the Covid-led awakening brought many to question the origins and reality of the 'climate emergency'. Peter Taylor – an independent advisor, consultant and scientific expert on environmental issues – has long been asked for updates on his ground-breaking book, Chill: A Reassessment of Global Warming Theory (2009). Here he responds with a series of challenging and revealing essays. His treatment is based on published and peer-reviewed science as well as first-hand research in the field – visiting research labs and asking direct questions. His startling conclusions reveal that the science is far from 'settled'. Perhaps worse, discussion is no longer possible – the branding of critics as 'deniers' has become commonplace. But now the fight-back has begun, and this book provides scientific ammunition for anyone who cares about societal freedoms.

Leseprobe

CLIMATE, COVID AND CONSPIRACY

Peter Taylor

Clairview Books Ltd.,

Russet, Sandy Lane,

West Hoathly,

W. Sussex RH19 4QQ

www.clairviewbooks.com

Published by Clairview Books 2025

© Peter Taylor 2025

This book is copyright under the Berne Convention. All rights reserved. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study, research, criticism or review, no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, electrical, chemical, mechanical, optical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the copyright owner. Inquiries should be addressed to the Publishers

No part of this book may be used or reproduced in any manner for the purpose of training artificial intelligence technologies or systems. In accordance with Article 4(3) of the DSM Directive 2019/790, Clariview Books expresssly reserves this work from the text and data mining exception

The right of Peter Taylor to be identified as the author of this work has been asserted by him in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988

A CIP catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

ISBN 978 1 912992 78 2

Cover by Morgan Creative

Typeset by Symbiosys Technologies, Visakhapatnam, India

Printed and bound by 4Edge Ltd, Essex

Contents

Preface

Acknowledgements

Introduction

PART 1: CHILL

1.1 Chill Revisited

1.2 Reviews of Chill: A Reassessment of Global Warming Theory

PART 2: CLIMATE ALARMISM

Preface

2.1 Weather Chaos

2.2 Hothouse Earth

2.3 Heatwaves and Wildfires

PART 3: SUBTERFUGE

3.1 Heating Power declines with CO2 concentration

3.2 Clouding the Mind

3 3 Encountering the Modelling Mentality

3.4 Climate Change: Cloud Cover Evidence Challenges Flawed IPCC Model

3.5 Adjustments to Reality

3.6 World Climate Declaration

PART 4: SCIENCE AND PUBLIC POLICY

Preface

4.1 Science and Changing Climates

4.2 Where the Truth Lies

4.3 Science and Activism in the 21st Century

4.4 Plutonium Man

4.5 Net Zero Soul

Appendix to 4.5

PART 5: COVID, CLIMATE AND CONSPIRACY

Preface

5.1 Covid, Climate and Conspiracy

5.2 Masks—What They Show And What They Conceal

5.3 Awakening the Dream

APPENDICES

1.Responses to Criticism

2.Reviews

*State of the Climate Report reviewed, (2018) + Girardet letter.

* Healthy Planet—global meltdown or global healing book review, (2022)

*The Climate Book’ by Greta Thunberg—a review (2023) + Barton letter.

3.Are there Gender issues in Climate Science? Seminar Paper to World Congress on Anthropology of Climate Change (2016).

4.Renewable Energy Strategies—Seminars (2003 & 2016).

5.Summary of collaborative work at the Environmental Studies Institute

6.Previous critique of UN structures and development of the Precautionary Principle

Preface

The idea for this book crystallised during a meeting in the Quantock Hills of Somerset where a small group of ten citizens of Stroud, a ‘green’ town long known for its strong intellectual, environmental and spiritual base, asked for an update on my book Chill: A Reassessment of Global Warming Theory, published in 2009. The group were part of a nationwide network challenging two dominant ‘emergency’ narratives pervading the mainstream media, political parties, parliaments, governments worldwide and the agencies of the United Nations (UN), relating to the Covid pandemic and Climate Change.

The experience of Covid and the coordinated global response that involved suppression of the virus’s laboratory origins, the subsequent fast-tracking of mRNA ‘vaccines’, lockdowns, flimsy face masks; and neglect of the elderly and most vulnerable, all of which flew in the face of scientific evidence and proven effective responses, led many people to view with some trepidation the consolidation of emergency powers within groups of unelected, quasi-scientific bureaucrats, some of whom have clear conflicts of interest. Adding to this was a complicit mainstream and social media (e.g. Facebook) that would not engage with criticism of the UN’s policy.

The final straw for many informed observers followed US Congressional Hearings that showed government scientific advisors colluding with a major science journal to mislead the public as to the origins of the pandemic and the role of scientists in the creation of a dangerous chimeric virus.

Much of this kind of complicity and subterfuge had characterised the climate issue for decades, but this Covid-led awakening has also brought many people formerly accepting of the ‘climate consensus’ and equally far-reaching global, UN-mediated programmes of response, to question the origins and reality of the climate ‘emergency’—hence the delegation of Stroud citizens eager to extend their knowledge. They come from a ‘green’ town that has openly aligned itself with the ‘emergency’ of climate. My own Town Council, now led by Green Party councillors likewise voted to acknowledge the ‘emergency’ of climate and support for government Net Zero policies. A critical debate on these issues at which I spoke in April 2023 filled the Town Hall. I have been approached many times by people formerly accepting of the ‘scientific consensus’ and role of the UN on climate, only to question this relationship following their experience of Covid policies.

I usually preface my work with a disclaimer—that I have no links to, let alone funding from the fossil fuel industry. The majority of my professional work is as a scientific and political ecologist—not party political, but political in the sense of involvement in policy. My expertise is in the analysis of science on issues of environmental pollution, and as an independent advisor and consultant I have worked with a wide range of environmental organisations and citizens’ groups from a grass-roots level, through district and regional councils, my own and foreign governments, the European Commission and Parliament, as well as agencies of the United Nations. Working with teams that I have assembled and led we have changed laws and regulations, particularly with regard to marine and atmospheric pollution that have made this world a better place. This remains my motive.

I say this knowing it will make little difference to the left-liberal-green coalition on climate policy—a coalition that involves political parties, environmental NGOs, the mainstream media and even human rights organisations, all of whom have taken on board ‘the science’ as delivered by the UN’s special panel of government-appointed experts. On this issue, my analysis conflicts not only with the fifteen hundred experts convened by that panel, but also currently, every national academy of science. However, I am not alone in my dissent—on the contrary, thousands of scientists, including Nobel laureates, have made their views known in a World Declaration. There are plenty of dissenting books and scientific papers—none of which have made much of a dent in the coalition.

Something other than ‘science’ is involved. In all the forums of policy that I have previously been involved with, we had a relatively friendly and open mainstream media and the scientific world was open for discussion and change. Not now. For some reason things have changed—environmental groups are closed to discussion, the media impervious, and the science world well-defended against itself. Branding of ‘heretics’ as ‘deniers’ is commonplace, and mainstream media such as the BBC have stated they will give no space for discussion with such ‘deniers’.

One thing is changing—the Covid Saga has demonstrated the corrupt association of scientific funding, commercial interest (e.g. the vast pharmaceutical industry), the complicity of the media, supine nature of parliaments, captured government and UN agencies, and even the collusion of formerly respected science journals such as Nature. The consequences are still reverberating and this book is partly a guide to that process. The fight-back has begun and the aim of this book is to provide scientific ammunition.

The main book is based on published articles from two journals—Caduceus and New View that have followed my scientific analysis, but whose main focus is the reform of medicine and the broadening of the scientific worldview. Some of the latter emerges in my treatment—however, that treatment is always based upon published and peer-reviewed science. In the world of science itself, I was invited to collaborate with my former colleague in the battle to protect the oceans, Professor Jackson Davis, at the University of California, who founded the International Environmental Policy program at the Monterey Institute of International Studies in 1995, one of the main training grounds for US diplomats. In the past, we worked together to successfully change environmental law and bring in the Precautionary Principle. After working on marine issues, Professor Davis helped found the UN’s Framework Convention on Climate Change and as the scientific advisor to Pacific Island states and the Alliance of Small Island States, he authored the AOSIS negotiating brief that shaped the final draft of the Kyoto Protocol.

However, Professor Davis had not thought to question what he thought was ‘settled’ science, and on receiving the draft of my book, he immediately recognised that my questions required answers. As I document here, we visited research labs and asked direct questions, and realising the issues were not settled, he dedicated several years to the quest.

In our collaboration at the Environmental Studies Institute in California, we re-examined the science of climate cycles of warming and cooling as revealed in the ice-core data, in particular delineating the all-important centennial cycle which we argue drives the global warming and cooling cycle phase of the millennial cycle missing from all computer models of climate change. The appendices provide links to our published papers and to an invited conference presentation.

With regard to motivation—my science work is my duty and this partly stems from a sense of obligation. I was educated to the highest standard at Oxford University entirely paid for by the public purse at a time when University education was free and available to persons of humble origins and limited finances. I was schooled to hold a critical edge to my thinking and take nothing on authority alone. My contemporaries in the Honours School of Natural Sciences became professors and even among them a highly respected Major General.

I have other work that is to me equally important considering the issues we face. I work with musicians, dancers, yogis, shamans and magicians—and this has attracted comment from some in the media who have little appreciation of these realms. We work in the shadows with the demons of our rapidly failing democracy and a society on the edge of a precipice. Scientific advances and political inadequacies have brought us to this point. I believe that eventually we will see the restructuring of scientific education, an admission that gender issues are involved and that the origin of our malaise lies within the patriarchal system of thought itself. We have been led astray by powerful but unbalanced minds and we need now something of a rebalancing act!

Peter Taylor

June, 2024.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Taylor (environmentalist)

Acknowledgements

I thank Sevak Gulbekian at Clairview Books for agreeing to publish this project and the initiative to publish Chill in 2009. The book is still in demand and proving a seminal read on the science and policy issues. I am indebted to Simon Best, editor of Caduceus, and Tom Raines, editor of New View for their continued interest in my work since 2009 and for permission to compile this volume of articles. Their attention to detail and edits regarding clarity have helped me to make this often-complex material more widely understandable. I thank Professor Jackson Davis for reading the manuscript and for his inspiring work—it has been an honour to collaborate; and I thank Dr Elena Koslova, and Dr Owen Taylor also for their careful reading and comments on the draft, and Dr Richard House for editing the Introduction and his overall encouragement for and indeed inception of, this project.

Caduceus Editor, Simon Best, 14, Wallbridge Gardens, Frome, Somerset BA11 1RJ.

Tel. [phone]

New View Editor: Tom Raines, 198/15 Lindsay Road, Edinburgh EH6 6ND.

Tel. [phone]

Introduction

It is now some 15 years, as I write, since my book Chill: A Reassessment of Global Warming Theory was published. I observe an overall trend in the dominant narrative of human-induced warming, with the focus having shifted to ‘extreme’ weather and ‘record’ temperatures. This focus has drifted far from the science base. Certainly, we are experiencing ‘record’ daily temperatures—but the ‘record’ referred to is the last 150 years of instrumental readings. These temperatures are far from unprecedented considering warmer peaks in a past millennial cycle that has been consistent for thousands of years (as determined by proxies for temperature such as the ice-core record, tree-rings and constituents of ocean sediments). The weather does appear chaotic—but this is due to changes in the Jetstream that alter wind patterns and to be expected toward the peak of the cycle.

Even the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in its 6th report finds no long-term trends in droughts, wildfires and floods. The current alarm at ‘unprecedented’ changes is almost entirely a ‘media’ creation behind which powerful well-funded ‘coalitions’ of interest groups operate.

There is, however, strong evidence that the world is in a major ‘warm’ period (see Chill Revisited, 1.1). Temperatures of land and ocean have been rising since 1850, along with retreating glaciers and rising sea levels. However, the proxy records do not support any statement that current temperatures and their rates of change, nor the rate of sea-level rise, loss of ice and consequent movements of flora and fauna, are unprecedented—as often maintained by the mainstream media, and sadly abetted by some scientific papers upon which there is no consensus.

Proxies are used for past temperature patterns in the pre-instrumental record but they are inexact and caution is needed when they are compared to modern satellite-aided global coverage by advanced instruments. It is possible that current northern hemisphere temperatures are now higher than in the previous warm period about one thousand years ago (The Medieval Warm Period) when the Vikings colonised Greenland, but this is by no means an established fact. Whereas we have global coverage of land and ocean temperatures, both surface and atmospheric, from satellites as well as a network of surface stations, the 1,000-year records rely upon ‘proxies’ in the ice cores, ocean sediments and tree-rings, all of which are localised.

In the case of the Arctic, I reported in Chill that many station records up to the year 2000, only just matched the record of the 1940s—an Arctic Oscillation (a regular cycle) was involved (see 2.1, Fig.1). Although some Arctic station temperatures peaked later, the global average showed no trend for the next 15 years—known as the ‘hiatus’ or ‘pause’ in surface temperatures. As I predicted in some of the articles—temperature would likely drop unless there was a major El Niño. We had two—one in 2016, and one in 2023/24, both riding on top of the longer cycles.

The media and many scientists claimed ‘global warming’ had resumed—but we need to wait for the expected post-Niño drop, and it is disingenuous of scientists to include these Niño peaks as indicative of accuracy in their modelling, or continuation of a late 20th-century trend.

The pattern is clear—several decadal, centennial and millennial cycles were in their rising phase in the period 1900~2000 at the same time as carbon emissions began in earnest—but these cycles are neither represented nor predicted in the models that underlie the UN’s supposed consensus.

Since Chill (2009), there has been growing interest from the scientific community in my analysis of climate-change cycles. This is the fruit of 12 years of collaborative work with Professor Jackson Davis at the Environmental Studies Institute in California, in the 1980s. Jackson and I worked for 15 years on ocean-pollution issues (1980~1995) when he was an advisor to Pacific Island States at UN conventions. I acted as advocate and chief scientific advisor to Greenpeace International, also at the UN conventions (see Appendix 6). Working closely with a coalition of like-minded parties we successfully curtailed the ocean dumping of toxic and nuclear waste, incineration at sea of dangerous chemicals, and discharges from land-based sources of toxic and radioactive waste streams. This work led to the World Maritime Organisation, which hosted the UN conventions and provided the secretariat, to bring me in as consultant to revise the legal conventions and accommodate the newly drafted Precautionary Principle. I worked on the development of that Principle, engaging a research assistant—Tim Jackson, now Professor of Sustainable Development at Surrey University (see the link in Appendix 6).

It is seldom remarked upon by the media, or indeed by any of the modern-day environmental groups so keen to follow the UN lead on science, that the UN has a long history of being on the wrong side—in particular, a history of its agencies being captured by both commercial and scientific ‘interests’. At one time, the UN’s Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) supported the x-raying of pregnant women despite mounting evidence of harm. This stance was shared by all the major science academies worldwide—with the exception of the US National Academy of Sciences Committee on the Biological Effects of Radiation, under Professor Edward Radford, with whom I also worked.

The fact is, a consensus of world scientists has been wrong in the past and gender issues were involved as pregnant women were ignored as a potentially vulnerable subgroup, despite many warnings. Gender issues may also be involved in the modelling of climate where cycles, irregular periods and spiral dynamics, all features of the paleo-climate data records, are missing from the computer models (see Appendix 3). The models are built by male-mind physicists and mathematicians who demand ‘exactness’ in cycles.

Likewise, the UN’s marine-science agency—the Group of Scientific Experts on Marine Pollution (GESAMP)—defended ‘dilute and disperse’ strategies for toxic-waste disposal despite mounting evidence of harm to marine life and human food chains. In each case, established policies were turned around by concerted, independent ‘dissident’ scientists having to fight the vested interests not only of industry but also regulators and laboratories specialising in monitoring and surveillance. One key element of our work was the analysis of computer models that created a virtual reality of oceans. Our opponents had a greater belief in their models than in mounting real-world data (see Appendix 6).

In those days, such initiatives were strongly supported by environmental campaigners and the media. Things have changed mightily. Now, environmental campaigners, the media and a large number of collaborators in science have co-created a UN-led ‘consensus’ to which all governments and their regulatory agencies have signed up. Further, dissident scientific analysis is ignored and marginalised, rather than welcomed as a necessary safeguard against ‘captured’ agencies. There is also a process of vilification of dissenters—often labelled ‘deniers’ or ‘sceptics’ supposedly all funded by fossil-fuel interests and established scientists are not immune to so labelling their critics.

This kind of behaviour was mirrored with ‘anti-vaxxer’ and ‘covidiot’ labels from the media and politicians at the outset of the Covid ‘emergency’—but in contrast to the climate emergency, dissident scientists gained a presence in alternative media, and in the USA, Congressional Hearings and subpoena of email traffic exposed the level of collusion between pharmaceutical (and broader financial) interests, scientists and government in a), a cover-up of the lab-origin of the virus; and b), the unscientific nature of the governmental response.

There is still much to unfold, for many people there is still a perceived ‘consensus’ among the world’s scientists that climate change is a global emergency demanding a radical restructuring of industrial society (see Net Zero Soul, 4.5). Critics are still labelled ‘deniers’ or presumed to be in the pay of ‘right-wing’ free-market forces, or Big Oil interests, and the de-platforming of speakers and personal vilification have been commonplace.

Recently, democratic institutions have awakened to this issue, with US Congressional Hearings (see Preface to Part 5) leading the way and the UK Parliament’s House of Commons beginning to question the narrative. Of particular note has been the uncovering of vested interests pervading the medical foundations, academic research institutes and scientific journals, such that regulatory agencies have been ‘captured’ and dissident views ignored or suppressed. In this, government health agencies as well as the UN’s World Health Organisation have been heavily implicated.

At the outset of the Covid epidemic, there were competent scientists arguing that evidence supported a laboratory escape of an engineered virus—in contrast to the favoured political and scientific narrative of a ‘zoonotic’ source (i.e. contamination of the food chain by a naturally occurring bat respiratory virus). These critics were labelled ‘conspiracy theorists’, with the term even being used in the top medical and science journals to discredit dissident voices and play to the mainstream media. Ironically, these same actors were themselves conspiring to cover up the lab-origin! (See Preface to Part 5).

Further to the revelations of the laboratory origin of the virus, it has emerged that the ‘pandemic response’ was carefully planned at the highest level in the year before the pandemic, putting aside tested protocols and instituting ‘lockdowns’ across the global economy that have had far-reaching economic and social impacts.

If it is not obvious already, it will finally emerge that the Covid pandemic was exaggerated way beyond the reality of a respiratory virus. In the UK at least, the excess deaths were comparable to a ‘bad flu’ year—which is not to gainsay serious impacts on the elderly and those with comorbidities, as bad flu always has induced. Official data comparisons extended to the previous five-year averages and did not include ‘bad flu’ years in previous decades.

There are claims that Covid killed tens of millions of people worldwide and that the vaccines also saved millions of lives. Such claims require closer analysis. Firstly, flu registrations all-but disappeared, compounding the attribution data, and secondly the vaccinations came in after the main peaks of a viral epidemic that was losing power naturally and reductions of mortality could not be clearly attributed. In terms of worldwide impacts mortality assumptions are made regarding large relatively unmonitored populations in India, Africa and rural China.

Of particular concern was the way in which older vulnerable people were not adequately protected—almost, as commented by some ‘as if killing off the elderly was intentional’ (see: https://solitudes.qmul.ac.uk/blog/covid-19-killing-off-older-people/). Many experts were astounded at the abandonment of previous protocols based upon protecting the most vulnerable—as would be normal procedure, rather than a policy of mass vaccination including those least vulnerable. I personally hold that the vaccination of young children and pregnant women (without adequate safety trials) was a crime against humanity. There is recent evidence of serious vaccine damage to women from Japanese scientific reports on increased ovarian cancer (https://pmc.ncbi. nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11077472/). The paper was reviewed by John Coleman (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=onww2X-ecfg), however, despite passing peer review, the editors have retracted the paper claiming correlation studies cannot be performed on the data as presented—the authors disagree with this decision (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11204115/).

There is now a growing awakening to the other ‘emergency’ also driven by UN scientific committees and now morphing into a worldwide, highly profitable financial trade in carbon-credits, new taxation regimes and the furtherance of what may prove to be useless and damaging technologies in the name of ‘renewable’ energy sources.

However, there is a notable difference: in the UK at least, there are very few dissident climate scientists in comparison to the number of senior virologists and medics, and they are largely ignored. The UK Parliament, in common with many democratic institutions worldwide, voted with hardly any dissent for a Net Zero industrial policy without any strategic environmental or social-impact assessment of its far-reaching implications, let alone any in-depth assessment of the scientific basis of climate change and the role of carbon dioxide.

There is a monolithic consortium of vested interests protecting the climate narrative which is in my view far more pervasive than around the Covid issue. There are a few dissident voices, particularly with regard to Net Zero, where The Global Warming Policy Foundation provides cogent analysis of costs, as well as objective information of what is happening with the climate (I recommend their annual State of the Climate Report by Professor Humlum—see Appendix 2). However, this Foundation could readily be dismissed as right-wing defenders of the free market as well as being anti-environmentalist (for example, avidly pro-nuclear and pro-GMOs), and thus unlikely to be consulted by any ‘greens’.

I find it ironic that defenders of personal freedoms as well as resilience to media-driven propaganda are seen more often within the ‘conservative’ spectrum than the traditional left, to the point where ‘left’ and ‘right’ have lost their original meanings. Truth and freedom have become the issues of a new movement beyond the old divisions.

This shift in consciousness presents problems for grass-roots activists who want to support their arguments with science. This is why I have been asked to make a compendium of my ongoing published work on these issues more easily available.

The articles in the compilation that follows are for a general readership, where the editors of the journals have been concerned to provide jargon-free explanations for scientific terms. However, the magazines Caduceus and New View, which are the original source of the bulk of the articles published here, are far from mainstream. The former specialises in medicine with environmental and spiritual themes, while the latter is strongly influenced by anthroposophical writings; and stylistically, whereas Simon Best at Caduceus has preferred detailed scientific references, Tom Raines at New View has favoured in-text explanation.

Since the publication of Chill (which questions not the reality of global warming, but the percentage influence of humans compared to natural cycles and forces), not a single invitation to talk, meet, discuss or debate has come from any of the ‘green’ movement—not one in the past 15 years. Not even from Greenpeace, for whom I was for 12 years chief advocate at UN Conventions on ocean pollution.

There is one exception—about ten years ago, the Cornwall chapter of Transition Towns invited me to present on renewable energy sources. I should emphasise that until 2005, when I began my own review of climate science, I was a specialist advisor to the UK government on integrating renewable energy into the landscape, including rural community and biodiversity objectives. I had not thought to review the science, thinking it was ‘settled’. I led a small consultancy specialising in ‘visualising’ change, and we worked with the Countryside Agency to develop a computer virtual reality tool to envision the placement of the wide range of renewable options, each with their respective impacts upon the different English landscapes (see Appendix 4).

I made my presentation in Penzance, and was informed a few weeks later by the organisers that they had been severely upbraided by the founder of Transition Towns, Rob Hopkins—they should not have entertained a denier. In the past ten years, this has remained the standard response of all environmental groups, the BBC, The Guardian, The Independent and The Observer, upon which modern ‘greens’ are so reliant for their news and views.

In stark contrast, in the time since Chill and my instigation of a research programme with Jackson Davis, and after publication in climate-science journals, there has been a great deal of interest in our work. Professor Davis endorsed my 2009 book (stating that its many questions must be answered before global-warming theory could be accepted). Since this endorsement, we have jointly published scientific papers focusing upon natural climate cycles and outlining our theory on their causes based upon the marshalling of substantial evidence from the ice-core records.

None of these credentials made any difference to the ‘greens’. I rapidly became persona non grata with all the campaign organisations with which I had hitherto had good relations, including contracts and consultancies—the World Wild Life Fund, Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace. All of these organisations are part of a ‘Climate Coalition’ lobbying for mitigation strategies that have morphed over the years into the Net Zero policy. None of them have critically reviewed the science—they follow the UN assessments, and of course, the mainstream media interpretation, and gain thereby much financial support.

In 2010, following the publicity around Chill, the director of documentaries at ITN (Independent Television News), a major TV channel in the UK, on the advice of their resident science journalist, wanted to produce a documentary on my work. Being televisual, they asked what could I suggest? ‘Fly me to Greenland’ I said—and where David Attenborough had looked out on glaciers crumbling into the sea, I would look down at the thawing permafrost and recently uncovered Viking graves, and tell the story of the one-thousand-year cycle.

After three meetings, the director called me in to apologise—the programme had been pulled due to pressure from above—‘the Gorites’, he opined. The science journalist resigned in protest and asked how he could help. I told him that I needed to go to the US, see my colleague Jackson Davis and visit the top US modelling lab. He paid my air-fare from his own pocket.

We began with a visit to the top US government-sponsored climate modelling laboratory—The National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), where I presented data drawn from my review. The chief modeller, Gerry Meehl, had not seen the data—essentially, evidence that more energy came into the Earth system by a change in the amount of sunlight absorbed by the oceans. This was caused by reduced cloud cover. ‘They were worried’ opined Jackson Davis, and thus began our collaboration.

On the basis of our joint work over a ten-year period and after the publication of our first paper, I was invited to be keynote speaker at a major global-warming science conference in Prague in the Spring of 2019 (see Appendix 5: ‘Causes of Global Warming’). Our first paper had drawn widespread interest from the climate-science community, and was widely regarded as impressive work (Professor Davis should take maximum credit for that). At the conference, I was able to challenge the model-based predictions of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)—in particular, in discussions with their lead modeller, Professor Ramaswamy Venkatachalam, director of the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory at Princeton University. He agreed that they had not handled the issue of climate cycles at all well. I have appended abstracts of these papers and links to the full text: they are not lay-reading, though the Prague presentation is aimed at the general scientist.

I tell this story here because, as with the Covid saga, it has lessons about the nature of what has been called ‘noble-cause corruption’ in modern science, where scientific rules are bent for the greater good of humanity. I have no doubt that at the outset, a small group of scientists believed that the future of humanity was at stake. Scientists in that position naturally seek to engage in policy-making, and policy makers demand simple answers with no caveats. I saw this process happen with those scientists who developed the ‘dilute and disperse’ policies for toxic discharges and ocean dumping of toxic waste—that policy involved regulations and relatively cheap costs for industry. When real-world data started to challenge the models that justified the policy, the institutions of science put up great resistance—as a consequence of what I have called ‘prior commitment bias’. I have appended links to this work including to papers that still draw citations after 30 years (Appendix 5 and 6).

We can see the same phenomenon in relation to Covid. In order to press forward with a new experimental programme of ‘vaccination’ which scientists believed would be superior and could be rapidly deployed, safety protocols were compromised. For example, no safety trials could be conducted on pregnant women and only later was it discovered that the ‘spike protein’ generated by the ‘vaccines’ genetic code, did not stay in the muscle tissue of the arm but spread and concentrated in the uterus.

When it became apparent that the virus had not morphed naturally from bats but had been the subject of laboratory ‘gain of function’ (i.e. genetic manipulation), a group of top specialist professors wrote a paper for Nature—the top science journal—stating that the virus could not possibly have originated in a laboratory, and that such claims were mere ‘conspiracy theory’. That paper, early in 2020, was of course widely publicised in the mainstream media, and critics were immediately branded as conspiracy theorists. If not for the US system of Congressional Hearings and the subpoena of emails regarding that paper, we would not know that several of the co-authors believed it quite possible, even likely, that the virus came from the Wuhan lab. In the email traffic they openly discuss the potential detrimental impact on ‘science’, and in particular on collaboration with China upon which much pharmaceutical research and investment depend (see links to documentation in Preface to Part 5).

The email ‘leaks’ from the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit in 2009 had much the same flavour—ranging from collusion to prevent publication of contrary research, personal denigration of critics, abuse of the peer-review system and the covering up of scientific malpractice (e.g. the ‘Hockey Stick’ controversy). However, that was not the opinion of three supposedly independent inquiries, including one by the House of Commons Committee on Science and Technology, to which I submitted a memorandum. I recommend the treatment of this scandal by Andrew Montford in two detailed books: The Hockey Stick Illusion A.W. Montford, Stacy International, London. 2010; and Hiding the Decline: a history of the Climategate affair. A.W. Montford. Anglosphere Books, London. 2012; and in addition The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, Eighth Report of Session 2009-10, House of Commons Science and Technology Committee. Memorandum submitted by Peter Taylor Vol. II, pp185~191, Montford’s history of the affair includes a detailed critique of how the establishment mobilised to exonerate UEA and the Climate Research Unit of any wrongdoing. Much the same can be expected of the UK Covid Inquiry.

Thus far, I have heard no ‘green’ critique of the origins and lab-creation of the virus, nor of the close relationship of the pharmaceutical industry and US government in its creation, and also nothing on the vast profits made from the pandemic by that industry. Similarly, I have heard no ‘green’ critique of Net Zero and all the UN/Davos/World Economic Forum programmes (with their ‘lessons learned from Covid’) as now taken up by governments worldwide in order to meet the ‘threat’ of climate change. Yet these programmes—of wind turbines, global bio-fuel plantations and hydro-schemes—threaten pristine wildlife habitats, whole landscapes and the rights of indigenous peoples—and not withstanding also the huge cost and diversion of resources from important social and environmental programmes. There are substantial financial interests at stake in carbon credits, taxation and global investment in technology—with much of the latter dominated by Chinese industries. Trillions of dollars are involved.

Net Zero social engineering on a scale now practised by China is openly embraced as the ‘Green New Deal’. And the ‘greens’ seem quite happy that 80~90 per cent of the technological fix for climate comes from Chinese factories which now lead the world in carbon emissions, and whose labour forces live in the social poverty of cell-block high-rise towers and work without proper labour rights or environmental protection (see 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3). It is for me, who was partner to the first shoots of the Green Movement, quite bizarre. I do not recognise modern ‘greens’ as the same kind of people.

If still at all possible—I would herewith reach out to my former allies—in Greenpeace, the World Wildlife Fund, Friends of the Earth and the Green Party, and ask for a hearing. They can bring as many experts as they wish.

Most of those experts would not know the computed relationship of carbon-dioxide concentration to the actual effect measured in watts at the Earth’s surface, nor would they know how this compares to the natural flux. They would be well aware that concentration has increased by 50 per cent—a scary number, but few know that this adds less than 1 per cent to the natural flux at the surface (the only significant source of heat for the planet). Few ecosystem specialists would regard this as an ‘emergency’ situation, and would immediately ask what was the natural variability over time in decades or centuries—because ecologists generally would know that long-term cycles exist.

In my work with Professor Davis, some of it previewed in Chill but most in scientific papers, we have argued that natural variability of the global average temperature is about 5 per cent, and that we are now in a warm phase where that 5 per cent increase—of about 1°C, would have been expected. The global warming is on time. My colleague would even argue that this points to additional CO2 having potentially zero impact as a greenhouse gas because the atmosphere is already saturated, and very small increases in natural flux are likely to be compensated by natural feedbacks. I append links to his paper on this issue (Appendix 5).

Professor Davis is far more concerned about the acidification of the sea-surface micro-layer central to almost all marine larval species (zooplankton and fish), and the potential for a marine mass-extinction event within the next century. He has published a recent paper on mass extinction and the potential role of carbon dioxide, and we are in intense scientific discussion over the data—I have appended links in Appendix 5 and added some commentary.

In these realms of science my credentials have never been impugned. Although I am not an academic, I have lectured widely in universities, written scientific papers, helped to develop university courses and oversee Masters and Doctoral theses, though my working life has been more concerned with policy than the actual doing of science. However, there occurs in some of my essays in this book comments on the relationship between the outer scientific perspective and the inner, often referred to as yogic ‘science’, and in some cases the shamanic dimension of reality as applicable to the ecological and political issues of our day. I have written separately for scientists—many times—but here I will embrace something I consider essential in our future endeavour regarding truth and freedom—the ‘outer’ scientific realities of the physical world should not be separated from the ‘inner’ realities. Indeed, all of the truly great scientists sought to balance inner and outer work—Newton and Boyle, for example, embraced Alchemy as a process of ‘inner work’ (its apparent concern with the transformation of base-metals to gold was a ‘cover’ to protect it from the religious Inquisition, as well as to attract funding from financially challenged monarchs). Newton was also a strong defender of Astrology as a tool for inner work on the nature of consciousness.

All of these perspectives are relevant to the crucial political issue we all face—that of ‘control’. Few people today have an entirely free will, where you wake up in the morning and can freely decide to do what is in your heart to do. The rest of us must negotiate a world that has power over us. We are born into a web of power. The philosopher of science, Paul Feyerabend, foretold of the times we now face in his book The Tyranny of Science—where ‘a view may be false but show a prodigious power of performance’. All political parties are now mesmerised by this power (see 5.1, Covid, Climate and Conspiracy).

In my scientific work, where I focused on combatting pollution and environmental risk, I saw the power structure very clearly—but first, only on a political level. We used to call the organised enemies we faced a ‘mafia’. They were scientists who worked for industry, corporations and the State, and believed in their right to make decisions about technology and control on behalf of others—and all according to an econometric cost-benefit analysis. It was only sensible, they argued, that some people must be exposed to some risk for the majority to benefit from technological progress. The problem for science is that its institutions become, over time, so closely enmeshed in the ‘interests’ of their funders—always government or industry—that their judgement goes awry. This is not to entirely gainsay the role of science in society—in the course of my own work, I have met some extraordinary scientists—people totally dedicated to humanitarian issues and to the truths and role of science and I have done my best to summarise their work.

At the same time as I have worked with individual scientists and was regularly consulted by governmental and non-governmental organisations, I was training in the ‘science’ of yoga. It was not easy to bridge those two worlds, given the antagonism of the ‘enemy’ (mostly the media and campaign groups), and how my opponents sought to denigrate and cast doubt upon my competence and analyses. Ironically, no scientist ever publicly did that: rather, it was political writers determined to sling mud.

Finally, there is one conclusion above all others with which I will preface this collection of essays. It is that there exists a cadre of souls with strong esoteric training akin to that which yogis and shamans undertake but one particular to the modern ‘Western’ world, and which has as its work and goal an influence upon the collective mind, and though this cadre is capable of affecting and controlling individuals, its main focus is the ‘maintenance’ of the Western civil order. There is, of course, a hidden power structure within an overt Masonic Order, but few are aware of its historical roots in the Western ‘magical’ tradition.

The historian Paul Kléber Monod’s Solomon’s Secret Arts: The Occult in the Age of Enlightenment traces the evolution of modern scientific thought during the 17th century, showing its origins in Alchemy and Astrology with Elias Ashmole and later Isaac Newton. The scientific Royal Society was founded by active ‘magii’ (see Tobias Churton’s The Magus of Freemasonry—a biography of Elias Ashmole). Surprisingly, Monod concludes that science publicly divorced itself not through any natural antipathy, but because of a popular fear of occult practice as the work of ‘the Devil’. The well-developed esoteric tradition then remained hidden and science divorced from Sophia (wisdom) morphed into the cold rationalism identified by Feyerabend.

Everything we now see present in that civil order—the architecture, the technology, the hierarchy of control and risk and benefit—has to have been dreamed before it could be constructed (see 5.3, Awakening the Dream). Each human being is born with that same power to dream. It is, in my view, the ultimate creative power—and, as such, ‘divine’. No other creature on Earth, as far as I can tell, has ‘evolved’ this power.

It is my impression, and I know one shared by many of those around me, that humanity is trapped within a mesmerism of the cold-hearted paradigm of economic values, perpetual growth and material benefit. This paradigm has led us to the brink of annihilation—either by nuclear war and the nuclear ‘winter’ that follows, or as consequent ecological dangers of stripping the planet of its natural ecosystems. There is an acute lack of wisdom. Ironically, those early shoots of science respected Sophia—the realm of intuitive wisdom, as it was in the very name of the Royal Society for the promotion of Natural Philosophy. It was a male endeavour, of course, and although science itself opened its doors to women, they had to adopt the rationalist paradigm. The esoteric wing—the ‘dreamers’, kept women at bay, and in my view, it is this Order that is responsible for bringing us to the brink. If we can step back, the future priority must be a deep-rooted educational reform that creates a fundamental equality between the feminine polarity of love and the masculine polarity of thought, an equality of heart and mind.

I have a few close associates and friends who work together in different ways as healers, musicians, dramatists, dancers, drummers, storytellers, shamans and yogis. I will talk about that but briefly here, since we are evolving a network. We are, everyone, committed to the humanitarian task of bringing more love and awareness into this creative world.

PART 1: CHILL

This article first appeared in New View magazine, no. 95, Spring 2020, pp. 59–70. There is some repetition following themes in the Introduction that I have not edited out.

1.1 Chill Revisited

The editor of New View magazine has asked me to write an update1 of my climate book Chill: A Reassessment of Global Warming Theory, which was published in 2009. It was reviewed in New View, and I have read the original article by Richard Phethean republished in the last issue, as well as Terry Boardman’s take on COP25 in Madrid last year,2 the most recent meeting of the UN Climate Convention (the next is scheduled for Glasgow later this year, as I write). It is clear that readers of New View magazine place climate change, the science and the politics, in a certain context, a much wider one than is typical in the circles of environmental science which I have occupied for over 40 years. Climate science does not address the impact of the policies it generates upon the human psyche, or soul. Neither does it examine itself as a science generated by its own collective psyche. It could do so—but only if scientists were regularly taught self-examination and humanistic psychology—which, of course they are not. On the contrary, they are taught to actively repress and ridicule astrology, homeopathy and any alternative medicines, without understanding that reality has two dimensions—the seen and measurable, and the unseen and not measurable. In all my scientific and policy work, I made the choice to keep to the dimension science understands—so deeply rooted is the prejudice and fear of the ‘unscientific’.

In my book Chill, I argued that the science of global warming—both the extent of the warming and its causation—could not be fully established other than in the context of natural cycles. Since its publication in 2009, I have given a seminar to the World Congress of Anthropology (in 2016), organised by the Royal Anthropological Institute, addressing the social and anthropological issues around climate change. I proposed that the masculine mindset of science was prejudiced against ‘cyclic’ behaviour, especially irregular periods, spiral dynamics and elements of chaos—all of which were in some way ‘feminine’. The reason for this was that several well-documented natural warming cycles were peaking together during the main global-warming period, which I take to be 1980-2000. Readers may not be familiar, but the world warmed rapidly from 1920 to 1940, cooled until 1980, and then warmed again; and the curve then flattened out after 2001.

As evidence to support my argument, I showed data on the flux of energy at the Earth’s surface—a strangely neglected data-set—because the coalition of scientists at the UN focused their attention upon the energy flux at the top of the atmosphere (TOA). The reason for this focus lies primarily in the nature of modelling and the requirements of the mathematics. The data to which I drew attention showed clearly that over the key warming period of 1980–2001, 3–4 times more energy was reaching the surface from short-wavelength sunlight than from the infrared spectrum associated with carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. Further evidence was presented to show that over the same period, cloud cover thinned to allow more sunlight through.

The real-world data was, I thought, incontrovertible. There were also three high-level scientific papers published in 2005 on the surface flux which supported my conclusions drawn from the raw data. In fact, the flux of sunlight (in wattage) was so great that it meant that the carbon-dioxide model that related concentration to effective warming must be seriously wrong. A basic calculation left the carbon-dioxide effect at a maximum of 25 per cent of the driving force. The models had to be overstating the potential of CO2 to warm the surface layers of the planet by at least a factor of two.

My Motivation in Studying Climate Science

The above conclusions were made after three years of intensive, unfunded, study of climate-science papers and data sources. I had a strong motivation. As a scientific ecologist and conservationist with a series of ongoing cooperative endeavours with major UK landowners such as the Forestry Commission and the National Trust, part of my brief was to keep track of climate change and its implications for countryside policy. Indeed, as long ago as 1996, the then Countryside Commission contracted me to examine advice they’d received from the University of East Anglia on this very issue.

Furthermore, between 2000 and 2003 I sat on a UK government advisory group—the Community Renewables Initiative—during which time I reviewed the Royal Commission Report on Climate Change with its policy recommendations for renewable-energy sources. And then, in collaboration with the Countryside Agency, I developed a visualisation tool—using computer virtual-reality landscapes (at the time, leading-edge work)—to look at the Royal Commission recommendations and their environmental impact up to 2050. I would have given you the link to that work, but my website has been under continual destructive attack.

The consequences of those policies for renewable power were enormous: thousands of giant aerospace turbines on the hills, large acreage of solar panels in the field-scape, and huge demand for biofuels, including wood-burning power stations. It was also obvious that nuclear-power sources would experience a renaissance. I care about wild as well as cultural landscape, tranquillity in the countryside, rural communities, and what is called biodiversity. Much of what we value would be severely compromised, and I wanted to know just how urgent things were. Many people, including environmentalists at Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace—two organisations for which I had often worked as a consultant and advisor—were calling for the sacrifice of these values on behalf, for example, of ‘Bangladesh’, deemed to be threatened by sea-level rise.

These were, and remain, my motivations, and I state them here because a large part of my update will relate to people questioning my motives and competence, rather than actually looking at my scientific analysis. I will also take a moment at this point to rehearse my scientific qualifications—since they, too, are regularly impugned.

I studied Natural Science at Oxford, gaining a good degree in 1970. In 1976, I returned to study linguistic anthropology and the meaning of symbolic language, and was set for an academic career; but by 1980, I had decided that that world would be too restrictive, and so I left to set up my own research group. I pulled together an inter-disciplinary team of engineers, physicists, biologists and sociologists, and we set our expertise at the service of communities and environmental groups. We ran the group co-operatively for 12 years, and we became experts in the critical review of scientific evidence used to support various policies of government, the European Union and the UN.

We had a broad focus—from oceanic and atmospheric pollution, nuclear risks, whaling, wildlife conservation, organic farming, climate change and carbon sequestration. In that time we developed particular expertise in understanding the role of computer models. We obtained several such models (by subpoena), ran them ourselves and picked apart their assumptions. In addition to community work, we were contracted by governments in Ireland, Sweden, Germany, Spain, among others, and eventually the UK, as well as the European Parliament, the European Commission and the International Maritime Organisation. I also represented Greenpeace International as advocate at the UN for 12 years until 1993. My own work on pollution control, technology, law and risks has all been published in the scientific literature.

Attacking the Messenger

If you search on the internet for my name and work, you may well come across material from journalist George Monbiot at The Guardian, Rob Hopkins at Transition Towns, and Alistair MacIntosh, author of many environmental works—all of whom ignore the science, and instead scurrilously mine an autobiographical account (my book Shiva’s Rainbow) of the period 1984, when I first began intensive yoga training with the Himalayan master, Herakhan Baba (the Babaji of Yogananda’s autobiography). In that rather too honest an account, I talk of my encounters and experience of homeopathy, astrology and astral travel—and all of this those commentators interpret as signs of madness, despite the obvious juxtaposition of my yogic efforts with major international science and policy work. I will not detail here the idiocy of their commentary; I will merely point out that these people are perfectly capable of understanding the science, and yet chose not to. They play to the gallery of public misunderstanding. I readily admit that having one foot in the science world at a high-policy level and one foot in the realms of psyche (at a rather lowly level), maintaining sanity was not always easy!

The Science since Chill

It should be a simple task to look at how the science has changed in the last ten years. I could present many graphics—the continued rise of sea level, the loss of summer sea ice in the Arctic, permafrost thawing, ocean heat content increasing, and so on. This is what science focuses upon. But it is what is not