Wherever the term “narrative” is applied, it is intended to stifle divergent discussion of critical issues. But if those who adhere to “the narrative” would link it to the agenda of its proponents, they would discern motives that have everything to do with power and control. Dr Mahmood Youssef Baker’s adherence to the narrative on global warming is a case in point (The Mercury, November 2).

Contrary to his claim that temperatures are rising dangerously, Dr Steven Koonin, Professor of Engineering at NY University, who was Under Secretary for Science in Obama’s administration, has emphasised that temperatures have been consistent for the past 60 years. He notes that heat waves, hurricanes and droughts have been just as common as they were more than a century ago.

History exposes the fallacy that global warming is man-made. Two warming periods occurred in the past 2,000 years when the use of fossil fuels was negligible – one in the late Roman period, the other between 900 and 1300.

None of the apocalyptic predictions of scorching temperatures and rising oceans has occurred since they were first made 50 years ago. Temperatures in the Medieval period were so exceptional that vineyards flourished in central England and olive groves existed as far north as Hadrian’s wall. Floods occurred in Natal in 1848, 1856, 1868, 1905 and 1917 when the use of fossil fuels was minimal.

Dr Baker’s reference to 198 countries having endorsed the UN’s narrative on climate emergency is disingenuous because it reflects a political agenda that ignores scientific reality. The projections of the selected computer models used by the UN show that even if all fossil fuels were eliminated, the effect on global temperatures would be less than 0,2°C.

The 1997 Kyoto Declaration which claimed that greenhouse gases are harmful to the environment and to human welfare, was challenged by 31,000 scientists in 1998. In what was called the Oregon petition, experts in the fields of atmospheric and environmental sciences, biochemistry, aerospace and medicine urged the US government to reject the Declaration on the grounds that carbon emissions are essential for plant growth and therefore beneficial to the planet.

What Dr Baker should be querying is the purpose of this false climate emergency narrative. If he did so, he would find it empowers the satraps of the World Economic Forum to impoverish populations through carbon taxes and the elimination of fossil fuels which are essential to everyday life and livelihoods. Of course, the sub-text of that agenda, like that of the World Health Organisation’s vaccine campaign, is depopulation.

If Dr Baker’s exhortation to “save the planet for future generations,” is to be meaningful, it requires recognition of the mendacity of globalist narratives.

About Author