Millions of people around the world ( including hundreds of thousands of the Australian Federal Electorate ) are being grievously misled on the issue of 'global warming'/climate change. Representatives of the United Nations have lied, in print, as has Al Gore. Their purpose can only be to frighten people so that they will welcome the strong, but false, leadership on offer. You don't believe me? Jacques Chirac ex-President of France, and part time criminal, is on the record as calling for the creation of a 'world government'. The endgame is that the world will be governed by an anti-democracy, fascist, World Government - it certainly won't be a democratic government although, like the corrupt European Union, it will claim that what it is doing is in the name of democracy. So, disbelievers, ask what is the evidence? Come with me Virginia and I will enlighten you. All over the World politicians, scientists, and bureaucrats have conspired to contrive a threat of Biblical floods, droughts, plagues and extinctions worthier of St John the Divine than of science.

About a year ago Sir Nicholas Stern published a report on the economics of climate change in which he claimed ' the debate is over'. Not while I'm alive it isn't! There are more greenhouse gases in the air than there were so the world should warm up a little but that is as far as the 'consensus' goes. Amidst all the hysteria you might not find the truth easy to take but read on and all will be revealed. The Royal Society in Britain says that there is a world wide scientific consensus and brands Apocalypse-deniers as paid lackeys of coal and oil corporations. I am not and never have been. I am a rational human being who looks at the evidence and then makes up my own mind. Any decisions that I come to are not based on hatred of human beings

In 1988 James Henson, a climatologist, told the US Congress that temperature would rise 0.3C by the year 2000. It rose by 0.1C. He also claimed that the sea level would rise several feet in the same time frame. It rose by one inch!

In essence the United Nations, through its Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), undervalued the suns' effect on historical and contemporary climate, slashed the natural greenhouse effect, overstated the past century's temperature increase, repealed a fundamental law of physics and tripled the man-made greenhouse effect.

Firstly, the UN implies that carbon dioxide ended the last four ice ages. It displays two 450,000-year graphs: a sawtooth curve of temperature and a sawtooth of airborne CO2 that is scaled to look similar. Usually similar curves are superimposed for comparison. The United Nations panel did not do that. If it had the truth would be obvious - the changes in temperature preceded the changes in CO2 levels. Next they abolished the medieval warm period ( the global warming at the end of the First Millennium A D. In 1995, David Deming, a geoscientist at the University of Oklahoma, had written an article reconstructing 150 years of North American temperatures from borehole data. He later wrote " with the publication of my article in 'Science', I gained considerable credibility in the community of scientists working on climate change. They thought I was one of them, someone who would pervert science in the service of social and political causes. One of them let his guard down - a leading scientist working in the area of climate change and global warming sent me an astonishing email that said 'we have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period' ".

So they did. The United nations second assessment report in 1996, showed a 1,0000 year graph demonstrating that temperature in the Middle Ages was warmer than today. But the 2000 report contained a new graph showing no Medieval Warm period. ( Don't take my word for it go and check the two reports ). It wrongly concluded that the 20th century was the warmest for 1,000 years. The graph looked like an ice hockey stick. The wrongly flat AD100 to AD1900 temperature line was the shaft; the uptick from 1900 to 2000 was the blade. Here is how they did it.

* They gave one technique for reonstructing pre-thermometer temperature 390 times more weight than any other but did not say so.

* The technique they overweighted was one which the UN's 1996 report had said was unsafe: measurement of tree-rings from bristelcone pines. Tree rings are wider in warm years, but pine-rings are also wider when there is more carbon dioxide in the air : it's plant food. This carbon dioxide fertilisation distorts the calculations.

* They said they had included 24 data sets going back to 1400. Without saying so, they left out the set showing the Medieval Warm Period, tucking it into a folder marked "Censored Data"

* They used a computer model to draw a graph from the data, but scientists later found that the model almost always drew 'hockey-sticks', even if they fed in random, electronic 'red noise'.

The large full-colour 'hockey stick' was the key graph in the United Nation's 2001 report, and the only one to appear 6 times. The Canadian government copied it to every household. Four years passed before a leading scientific journal would publish the truth about the graph. Did the UN or the Canadian government apologise? Of course not. They have an agenda. And the UN still uses the graph in its publications.

Even after the 'hockey stick' graph was exposed, scientific papers apparently confirming its abolition of the Medieval Warm Period appeared. The US Senate asked independent statisticians to investigate. They found that the graph was "meretricious" (look it up! ) and that known associates 0f the scientists who had compiled it had written many of the papers supporting its conclusion.

The UN, echoed by Sir Nicholas Stern, say the graph isn't important. It is. Scores of scientific papers show that the Medieval Warm Period was real, global and up to 3C warmer than now. There were no glaciers in the tropical Andes: today they're there. There were Viking farms in Greenland that are now under permafrost. There was little ice at the North Pole: a Chinese naval squadron sailed right around the Arctic region in 1421 and found none. The Antarctic, which holds 90 per cent of the worlds ice and nearly all its 160,000 glaciers, has cooled and gained ice mass in the past 30 years, reversing a 6,000 year melting trend. Data from 6,000 boreholes worldwide show global temperatures were higher in the Middle Ages than now. And the snows of Kilimanjaro are vanishing not because summit temperature is rising ( it isn't) but because post-colonial deforestation has dried the air. Al Gore please note.

In some places it was also warmer than now in the Bronze Age and in Roman times. It wasn't CO2 that caused these warm periods. It was the sun. So the UN adjusted the maths and all but extinguished the sun's role in today's warming. Here's how.

The UN dated its list of "forcings" ( influences on temperature ) from 1750, when the sun and consequently , the air temperature was almost as warm as now. But its start date for the increase in world temperature was 1900, when the sun, and the air temperature, were much cooler.

Every "forcing" produces "climate feedbacks" making temperature rise faster. For instance, as temperature rises in response to a "forcing", the air carries more water vapour, the most important greenhouse gas; and polar ice melts, increasing heat absorption. Up goes the temperature again. The UN more than doubled the base "forcings" from greenhouse gases to allow for climate feedbacks. It didn't do the same for the base solar "forcing".

Two centuries ago, the astronomer, William Herschel was reading Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations when he noticed that quoted grain prices fell when the number of sunspots rose. Gales of laughter ensued, but he was right. At solar maxima, when the sun was at its hottest and sunspots showed, temperature was higher, grain grew faster and prices fell. Such observations show that even small solar changes affect climate detectably. But recent solar changes have been big.

Sami Solanki, a solar physicist, says that in the past half-century the sun has been warmer, for longer, than at any time in the past 11,400 years, contributing a base "forcing" equivalent to a quarter of the past centurys warming. That's before adding climate feedbacks. The UN expresses its heat energy "forcings" in watts per square metre per second. It estimates that the sun caused just 0.3C watts of "forcing" since 1750. Begin in 1900 to match the temperature start-date, and the base solar "forcing" more than doubles to 0.7 watts. Multiply by 2.7, which the Royal Society suggests is the UN's current factor for climate feedbacks and you get 1.9 watts - more than six times the UN figure. The entire 20th-century warming, from all sources, was below 2 watts. The sun could have caused just about all of it. Next the UN slashed the natural greenhouse effect by 40 per cent, from 33C, in the climate-physics textbooks, to 20C, making the man-made additions appear bigger.

Then the UN chose the biggest 20th-century temperature increase it could find. Stern says "As anticipated by scientists, global mean surface temperatures have risen over the past century." As anticipated? Only 30 years ago, scientist were anticipating anew Ice Age and writing books called The Cooling.

In the USA where weather records have been more reliable than elsewhere, 20th-century temperature went up by only 0.3C. Accuweather, a worldwide meteorological service, reckons world temperature rose by 0.45C. The US National Climate Data Centre says 0.5C. Any advance on 0.5C? The UN went for 0.6C, probably distorted by urban growth near many of the worlds fast disappearing temperature stations. The number of temperature stations around the world peaked at 6,000 in 1970. It has fallen by two thirds to 2,000 now: a real 'hockey-stick' curve, and an instance of the UN's growing reliance on computer guesswork rather than facts.

Even a 0.6C temperature rise wasn't enough so the UN repealed a fundamental physical law. Buried in a sub-chapter in its 2001 report is a short, but revealing section discussing "lambda": the crucial factor converting "forcings" to temperature. The UN said that its models had found lambda near-invariant at 0.5C per Watt of "forcing".

You don't need computer models to "find" lambda. Its value is given by a centuries old law, derived experimentally by a Slovenian Professor and proved by his Austrian student ( who later committed suicide when his scientific colleagues refused to believe in atoms.) The Stefan-Boltzmann law, not mentioned once in the UN's 2001 report, is as central to the thermodynamics of climate as Einsteins later equation ( E + MC squared ) is to astrophysics. Like Einsteins' it relates energy to the square of the speed of light, but by reference to temperature rather than mass.

The bigger the value of lambda, the bigger the temperature increase the UN could predict. Using poor Ludwig Boltzmann's law, lambda's true value is just 0.22-0.3C per watt. In 2001, the UN effectively repealed the law, doubling lambda to 0.5C per watt. A recent paper by James Hansen says lambda should be 0.67, 0.75C or 1C. Take your pick. Sir John Houghton, who chaired the UN's scientific assessment working group until recently, tells me it nows puts lambda at 0.8C: that's 3C for a 3.7 watt doubling of airborne CO2. Most of the UN's computer models have used 1C. Stern implies 1.9C.

On the UN's figures, the entire greenhouse-gas "forcing" in the 20th century was 2 watts. Multiplying by the correct value of lambda gives a temperature increase of 0.44 to 0.6C in line with observation. But using Stern's 1.9C gives 3.8C. Where did 85 per cent of his imagined 20th century warming go?

A spate of scientific papers in 2006, gearing up for the UN's 2007 report, give a possible reason for the failure of reality to keep up with prediction. The oceans, we are now told, are acting as a giant heat-sink. In these papers the well known central flaw ( not mentioned by Stern ) is that the computer model's " predictions" of past ocean temperatures only approach reality if they are averaged over a depth of at least a mile and a quarter.

Deep ocean temperature hasn't changed at all, it's barely above freezing. The models tend to over-predict the warming of the climate-relevant surface layer up to threefold. A 2006 paper by John Lyman, of the US National Oceanic Atmospheric Association, reports that the oceans have cooled sharply in 2005 and 2006. The computers didn't predict this. Sea level is scarcely rising faster today than a century ago: an inch every 15 years. Hansen now says that the oceanic "flywheel effect" gives us extra time to act, so Stern's alarmism is misplaced.

Finally, the UN's predictions are founded not only on an exaggerated forcing-to-temperature conversion factor justified neither by observation nor by physical law, but also on an excessive rate of increase in airborne carbon dioxide. The true rate is 3.8C per cent per year on year since records began in 1958. The models assume 1 per cent per annum, more than two and a half times too high. In 2001, the UN used these and other adjustments to predict a 21st century temperature increase of 1.5 to 6C. Stern suggests up to 10C.

Constant repetition of wrong numbers doesn't make them right. Removing the UN's grammatical errors and using reasonable data and assumptions, a simple global model shows that temperatures will rise by just 0.1 to 1.4C in the coming century, with a best estimate of 0.6C which is well within the medieval temperature range and only one fifth of the UN's new, central projection.

Why haven't air or sea temperatures turned out as the UN's models predicted? Because the science is bad, the "consensus" is wrong and Herr Professor Ludwig Boltzmann, FRS was as right about energy-to-temperature as he was about atoms.