The UN CO2 Sting at ‘Concun’

Paul Newman in 'The Sting' A movie about a big con. Model for the UN?

Regardless of what happens, the UN and their fellow ‘warmers’ always report CO2 and temperature are breaking ‘records’ and are ‘unprecedented’. Blah! Blah! Blah!

If you’ve ever seen it, there’s a movie called ‘The Sting,” about a big con run by two guys to get revenge on an Irish mob boss back in the 1930’s. In my opinion, the UN and the ‘warmers’ appear to  have the same talents, only their con is on a a much larger (global) scale and will have not a good outcome as the movie, but will have a very bad outcome if they’re left to complete their nefarious goals.

The latest ‘warmer’ con, ‘conveniently’ timed to coincide with the Cancun Climate Conference, comes from (who else?) the United Nations. You can call it Cancon or Concun, the key is those three letters ‘con‘.

ABC News has an article titled ‘UN: Greenhouse Gas Concentrations at Record Level.” How alarmists can a title be? How ‘convenient’ this is put out the very day before the Cancun Climate Conference starts? If I were to believe, I might feel the need to hide in a bomb shelter after reading that headline. According to the article……

A report by the U.N. weather agency has found that greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere reached record levels in 2009.

The World Meteorological Organization (‘conveniently’ part of the UN) says efforts to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide haven’t diminished the atmospheric concentration of these gases widely blamed for stoking global warming.

Ummm…..OK, but here’s an article from Examiner.com titled “Global warming: Can we make it 3 years in a row of declining CO2?” that notes that the CO2 levels declined (YES DECLINED!) 2.6% in 2009 and moreover, declined the previous two years (2008 and 2007). So why is the UN making a claim that 2009 was a record? Calling Pinocchio! Calling Pinocchio! According to the article……

The world’s CO2 emissions declined by 2.6% last year, with Spain apparently leading the charge, with reductions of 15%. The U.S. has had two years in a row of declining CO2, with a total of 10% decline over that period.

Here is another one from the Christian Science Monitor titled “Global warming: Carbon dioxide emissions worldwide fell in 2009.”

Industrial carbon-dioxide emissions, the driver behind a new round of global climate talks set to begin in Cancun, Mexico, Nov. 29, eased in 2009, according to a group of scientists monitoring atmospheric CO2.

Can you say oops? Sounds like the World Meteorological Organization is full of anthropogenic BS to me.

So, it’s here we go again. The United Nations and the ‘warmers’ are making dubious claims, ‘conveniently’ timed to coincide with a major climate conference in Cancun. The one that’s predicted to be a major fail before even starting. They’re a bunch of liars in my opinion, foisting con upon con upon the public about anthropogenic global warming. Per the below, the con they put out is exactly that.

An article from Business Report, titled ‘Emissions Calculations Are Clouded,’ shows us that no one’s really measuring CO2 and no one really knows what amounts of CO2, higher or lower, are in the atmosphere. Amazing but true.

Nisbet (Earth Science professor at University of London) says the world puts too much faith in government estimates of carbon dioxide, methane and other heat-trapping gases blamed for climate change. That’s because companies and countries base emissions calculations on the raw materials that go into a process; they don’t check the pollution coming out.

“It’s like going on a diet without weighing yourself,” says Ray Weiss, a geochemistry professor at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, whose article with Nisbet in an issue of Science argues for measuring the atmosphere.

So, what is being promoted by the UN and the ‘warmers’ is basically a fantasy and no one has any clue about what’s really out there. Not very scientific is it? It is mighty ‘convenient’ when it comes to exaggerating things when one is trying to get that big climate deal going though, doesn’t it? Remember, they have to motivate (read con) people to get anything accomplished. Without uber-climate-drama they’re not going to get the power and those billions and trillions of dollars they lust for.

Thus, the old adage, ‘follow the money,’ rears its ugly head again……

Today, $141 billion (R994bn) worth of credits that help countries meet their Kyoto goals change hands in global emissions markets. And business is booming in offsets, the right for countries and companies that pollute too much to claim credit for green projects elsewhere. All of these efforts rely on bottom-up calculations being accurate.

Much of that $141 billion that may go away if the Kyoto Treaty dies, or if they can’t get a new treaty to replace it. Those big investors like governments, banks and brokerage firms stand to lose billions if carbon trading schemes die like the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) already has. No treaty no trady, no billions, no trillions, no removing money from people’s wallets. Remember, in the end, the consumer (you) always pays the tab via increased prices or taxes……

Traders and regulators say Europe’s carbon market, called the Emissions Trading System, and the UN’s offset market, called the Clean Development Mechanism, are making a real dent in greenhouse emissions. From $570 million a year in 2004, the global carbon market may surge to as much as $1.4 trillion worth of deals by the decade’s end.

A ‘dent in greenhouse emissions?” It’s more like a dent in everyone’s global bank accounts! Face it, $1.4 trillion doesn’t only talk, it screams! It screams that the fraud called anthropogenic global warming needs to be perpetuated or some people just aren’t going to be as filthy rich as they want to be. There’s money to be made and no one’s there to double-check on what’s going on. You can wager that there’s going to be some rather ‘creative’ accounting going on. That old saying “figures don’t lie, but liars figure,” must have been specially tailored for the carbon trading business as it has already come into play.

Below are some more salient quotes about this from the article, showing just how preposterous the UN claims are……

  • Matthias Jonas, a physicist at Austria’s International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis says: ““All the emissions we’re accounting for so far under the Kyoto Protocol are based on what we think the atmosphere sees by standing on the ground”
  • Pieter Tans, Colorado-based senior scientist with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration says: “As soon as emissions become worth a lot of money, I start losing faith in self-reported numbers regardless of who signs off on them,” he says. “We need something more objective – like checking what’s actually appearing in the atmosphere
  • US Department of Energy staff scientist Gregg Marland says: “If somebody lies, somebody loses,” he says. “In a CO2 transaction, you can lie and both win. We’re going to create a situation where both sides can win by cheating
  • John Bosch, retired EPA says: “When it comes down to it, these estimates are all guesses

Well, there you have it. From the proverbial horse’s mouths comes the truth. The truth is, they don’t know how much CO2 is in the atmosphere. The truth is, that the parties involved self-report with no checks or balances, thus inviting fraud. The truth is, that both sides of a carbon deal can then win by cheating because no one’s checking. The truth is, that it’s all a big guess and they’re clueless. Yes, that certainly sounds like “the science is settled” to me!

What it really sounds like is that it’s a con-artist’s dream! Billions and trillions of dollars at stake in a global fraud that needs to be perpetuated to keep those billions and trillions rolling in. Bernie Madoff would certainly be proud of this scam and he’s probably sorry he’s missed out on the biggest con ever. According to this article at New England Organized Crime, even the Mafia are in on it. They have thus far ripped off carbon trading to the tune of $7.4 billion! Amazing because what you have is scammers ripping off scammers.  Talk about a criminal’s dream! Carbon trading has to be the be all to end all con of all time.

This makes me wonder even more about how anyone with half of a brain can buy into the con called anthropogenic global warming. More evidence of the fraud is that the warmers are now contradicting themselves because they can’t even keep track of all the lies, or who’s saying what. For a couple of examples you can read how we have global warming  now slowed by global warming and the fakery of claiming Pakistan’s monsoons and droughts are caused by global warming. I’d love to hook up lie detectors to some of these people. I wonder if the machines would blow up due to overload when the questions were answered?

As I keep saying, the ‘warmers’ and UN will claim that everything and anything that happens or doesn’t happen is caused by anthropogenic global warming and that we better tax ourselves to stop that evil CO2. The reality is that it’s not about climate change, it’s all about power and money. Still don’t believe it? Well, here’s a nice little article about how the climate talks in Cancun are about the money, not the climate…….

Facing another year without a global deal to curb climate change, the world’s nations will spend the next two weeks debating how to mobilize money to cope with what’s coming — as temperatures climb, ice melts, seas rise and the climate that nurtured man shifts in unpredictable ways.

Yes, they want to ‘mobilize’ your money out of your bank account and into their bank account, nothing more. Climate change, global warming, climate disruption or whatever term you prefer is only a lame excuse for the world’s largest fraud.

Want more? We even have Ottmar Edenhoer (an IPCC guy) who actually has big enough balls to blatantly admit it’s about the money and globalization, not climate change. From American Thinker we have an article that notes the following……

On Sunday, Ottmar Edenhofer, a German economist and IPCC Co-chair of Working Group III on Mitigation of Climate Change, told the Neue Zürcher Zeitung (translated that climate policy is redistributing the world’s wealth” and that “it’s a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization.”

You can plainly see they desperately want power and riches. They will blatantly lie in order to generate enough panic to get the public to go along with their proclamation that man-made CO2 is the problem to make their nefarious goals come true.

Let them continue and the United States and all other sovereign nations will be no more than a name on a map. They will be shell countries with faux governments, run by the shills of the one-world dictatorship called the United Nations. It will be run by a select group of billionaires who will call the shots by dangling membership in the power and money club in front of all those bureaucrats they want to do their bidding.

Your life may be controlled by those members of the do as I say not as I do club such as Al Gore, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Maurice Strong, Bill Gates, James Cameron, George Soros and a long list of other wealthy hypocrites who want you to take the bus while they fly about in CO2 spewing private jets and tell you to live in a green constructed shack with no heat or air conditioning while they live in mansions.

This is the danger of CO2 Insanity. They will use their anthropogenically created CO2 Insanity to extract money from your bank account, enrich themselves further, gain global power so they can dictate the world’s every move. They will make Nazi Germany, Cuba, and the U.S.S.R., all combined, look like pikers.

Sources: ABC News, IOL Business Report, Examiner.com, New England Organized Crime, Associated Press/Google, The Christian Science Monitor

About these ads

2 Comments

Filed under Carbon Trading, Climate Alarmism, Climate Change, Co2 Insanity, Global Warming, Government, IPCC, United Nations

2 responses to “The UN CO2 Sting at ‘Concun’

  1. Russell

    Summary: Available ‘solid” data from, arguably, the most reputable and reprresentative site available does not seem to support the claims re CO2 reductions. Why not?
    ______

    WRT AGW and anything scientific I’m a “truth seeker” – that’s a person who looks at the data and puzzles over what it means while wholly convinced people from either end of the opinion spectrum curse them and throw rocks (and worse), impugn their paternity, make allegations about their funding sources (I wish) along with anything else unpleasant that they can think of, to convince me of the righteousness of their views.

    The ‘obvious’ 1st thing to do when people discuss atmospheric CO2 levels is to look at the MLO (Mauna Loa Observatory) record.
    eg recent http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
    or since 1958 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bc/CO2_data_mlo.svg

    MLO provides a single location reading and as such cannot account for worldwide regional variations and special factors. However, the relative merits and demerits of the site are extensively discussed ‘in the literature’ – as a single point proxy for world CO2 levels it is probably among the best available.
    (Some discussion here – much elsewhere – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mauna_Loa_Observatory)

    Either, the MLO data has been acquired with rigor and scientific integrity and openness since about 1958, as is claimed, OR it’s all cooked and adjusted and dishonestly presented. If one considers that the latter views is true (or something like it) then any argument is moot.

    If you consider that the MLO data is a fair attempt to measure CO2 levels long term in a way which provides a moderately good proxy for global levels and with assumptions well known, THEN the available data does not fit the premise on which this article and the one it is quoting are based. Why not? Citing the fact that MLO data does NOT fit the key premise of an article or paper would seem a necessary first step in honest reportage. Failure to do so might seem to reflect dishonesty or an excessive lack of knowledge of the subject and so perhaps a willingness or ability to be credulously mislead by others. Thomas Fullers article SEEMS honest and seems to reflect competence – which makes his apparent incorrectness all the more disturbing.

    When citing such significant claims as this some more direct research seems in order.

  2. This is so ridiculous! Don’t you realize that the profits raked in by fuel corporations DWARF any scientific research budget imaginable!

    Do you not realize the American public is being played by the tiny minority of ultra wealthy, ultra powerful international titans who OWN the media – and the government?

    You should really direct your ire at the appropriate villains. They are the super rich. The Koch brothers, Goldman Sachs, B of A, etc. You aren’t going to win the lottery, and when the teevee turns off because cheap fossil fuel subsidized by the government and protected by the massive military industrial machine is gone, then the shambles that is the remnant of our country will become apparent to you.

    Demonizing the UN and tree-hugging hippies and hard-working scientists is just dumb.

    http://witsendnj.blogspot.com/2010/11/busted-america.html