Category Archives: IPCC

IPCC Admits Its Past Reports Were Junk

It appears us deniers or skeptics were right. People like the Goracle, Pachauri, Hansen and others of the warmer persuasion have been passing off BS as scientific fact. It appears the gullible, all over the globe have been falling for it, too! We won’t hold our breath waiting for anyone to snap back into reality. We’re sure the BS will continue and the idiots at the EPA will continue to use Global Warming as a tool to get their way, regardless if it’s based upon reality or not. California, no doubt will continue to implement the AB32 law that creates a carbon trading fiasco. After all, it’s really about the money, not pollution. Read all the sordid details at the source below.

Source: American Thinker

1 Comment

Filed under AB32 California, Al Gore, Antarctica, California Air Resources Board, Cap & Trade, CARB, Carbon Taxes, Carbon Trading, Climate Alarmism, Climate Change, Climate Disruption, Climate Modeling, CO2, Co2 Insanity, Global Warming, IPCC, NASA, Politics, Weather

More Flaws with IPCC 2007 Climate Report AR4

IPCC method

It looks like more of those chickens are coming hope to root upon the roost of the United Nations building. Written by real scientists? Real climate experts? Ummm….OK, if you say so. But read this first.

A scathing new expose on the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change — which sets the world’s agenda when it comes to the current state of the climate — claims that its reports have often been written by graduate students with little or no experience in their field of study and whose efforts normally might be barely enough to satisfy grad school requirements. “We’ve been told for the past two decades that ‘the Climate Bible’ was written by the world’s foremost experts,” Canadian journalist Donna Laframboise told FoxNews.com. “But the fact is, you are just not qualified without a doctorate. In academia you aren’t even on the radar at that point.”

Amazing isn’t it? Not only is it amazing that the report appears to be even worse than initially thought, it’s even more amazing that the whole planet is supposed to change our evil CO2 ways because of this report, claimed as written by experts.  So who were some of these so-called “experts?”

  •  One lead author of the 2001 edition was a trainee at the Munich Reinsurance Company in 2000 and lacked a master’s degree while  on the panel. He did not earn a Ph.D. until ten years later.
  • Another lead author in 1994 earned his master’s only two years earlier and had his first academic paper published in 1995.
  • An Australian academic was an assistant author in 2001 and a lead author in 2007 — despite not earning her Ph.D. until 2009.
  • Dutch geography professor Richard Klein has been a lead author for six IPCC reports and in 1997 became a coordinating lead   author. He was promoted to the panel’s most senior role while he was 28 years old — six years prior to completing his PhD.

You can judge for yourself whether the world should spend billions upon billions over this report or if it should be tossed into the trashcan. The book is available at Amazon for less than $5 bucks if you want to read it. Source: Fox News

1 Comment

Filed under Climate Alarmism, Climate Change, Climate Disruption, Climate Modeling, Climategate, CO2, Co2 Insanity, Global Warming, IPCC, United Nations

Why Computer Models are Crap

Next time you read an article about global warming that states the computer models predicted something remember this article, which offers proof positive that the computer models used by so-called scientists to predicts unprecedented global warming are crap.

From Scientific American we get this:

When it comes to assigning blame for the current economic doldrums, the quants who build the complicated mathematic financial risk models, and the traders who rely on them, deserve their share of the blame. [See“A Formula For Economic Calamity” in the November 2011 issue]. But what if there were a way to come up with simpler models that perfectly reflected reality? And what if we had perfect financial data to plug into them?

Incredibly, even under those utterly unrealizable conditions, we’d still get bad predictions from models.

That’s right, even a computer model that is “perfect” isn’t worth the electricity used to run it. The problem is calibration. In a nutshell, take a “perfect” model and tweak it any and it is no longer going to predict anything correctly.

The problem, of course, is that while these different versions of the model might all match the historical data, they would in general generate different predictions going forward–and sure enough, his calibrated model produced terrible predictions compared to the “reality” originally generated by the perfect model. Calibration–a standard procedure used by all modelers in all fields, including finance–had rendered a perfect model seriously flawed. Though taken aback, he continued his study, and found that having even tiny flaws in the model or the historical data made the situation far worse. “As far as I can tell, you’d have exactly the same situation with any model that has to be calibrated,” says Carter.

Calibration, tweaking, adjusting, cheating, lying, stealing, or whatever you want to call it, produces crap. Crap financial models or crap climate models, it’s all the same crap.

Note, to reiterate. it doesn’t matter if it agreed with past data, a process called hindcasting, which is a big line you hear from climate modelers, it still comes up with crap predictions! Getting one to agree with the weather in 1900 means nothing according to this article.

The next time you read some horrific article about how global warming is going to make the sea-level rise, cause droughts, floods, and just about anything else you can name including 3-eyed cows and cooties, remember that the climate model used to predict it is crap. Perhaps it was even tweaked to arrive at a preconceived conclusion.

Proof? The computer models used to predict tomorrow’s weather aren’t even right all the time.  So, how can they predict what’s going to happen 20-30-100 years in the future?

Read more details about this at Scientific American.

3 Comments

Filed under Climate Alarmism, Climate Change, Climate Disruption, Climate Modeling, Climategate, CO2, Co2 Insanity, Global Warming, Government, IPCC, NASA, NOAA

Skeptic Economist in Critical Assessment of Climate Consensus

John O’Sullivan has an article about Professor Ross McKitrick’s latest paper at Suite 101. He describes Professor McKitrick as:
A prominent economist opposed to global warming doomsaying publishes a rebuke to climate consensus, comparing scientific and economic consensus.
Below are some excerpts from Mr. O’Sullivan’s article:

The Canadian professor holds strong views on this topic, having written frequent op-eds, a book, journal articles and think-tank reports. He concludes, “The public has acquired a dim view of the credibility of climate science, and based on what I have seen, the public is right.” 

The latest paper asks the reader to imagine that the International Monetary Fund (IMF) had created an economics version of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). McKitrick sets up the scenario that economists, like climate scientists might proceed to issue an Assessment Report and Summary for Policymakers every five years. Thus economists, like climate scientists, would seek to claim a consensus view of what “every mainstream economist believes.”

The point is, it doesn’t matter what you are talking about, consensus is not always a good thing. It is being misused with climate science and can be misused in other areas to usurp control for nefarious purposes.

You can read it all at the source below:

Source: Suite 101

Comments Off on Skeptic Economist in Critical Assessment of Climate Consensus

Filed under Climate Alarmism, Climate Change, Climate Disruption, CO2, Co2 Insanity, Global Warming, Government, IPCC, John O'Sullivan, Science, United Nations

Carbon Dioxide Not a Well Mixed Gas and Can’t Cause Global Warming

By: John O’Sullivan

One of the least challenged claims of global warming science is that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is a “well-mixed gas.” A new scientific analysis not only debunks this assertion but also shows that standard climatology calculations, applicable only to temperature changes of the minor gas, carbon dioxide were fraudulently applied to the entire atmosphere to inflate alleged global temperature rises.

Acceptance of the “well-mixed gas” concept is a key requirement for those who choose to believe in the so-called greenhouse gas effect. A rising group of skeptic scientists have put the “well-mixed gas” hypothesis under the microscope and shown it contradicts not only satellite data by also measurements obtained in standard laboratory experiments.

Canadian climate scientist, Dr Tim Ball is a veteran critic of the “junk science” of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and no stranger to controversy.

Ball is prominent among the “Slayers” group of skeptics and has been forthright in denouncing the IPCC claims; “I think a major false assumption is that CO2 is evenly distributed regardless of its function.“

School Children Prove Carbon Dioxide is Heavier than Air

Dr. Ball and his colleagues appear to be winning converts with their hard-nosed re-examination of the standard myths of climate science and this latest issue is probably one of the easiest for non-scientists to comprehend.

Indeed, even high school children are taught the basic fact that gravity causes objects heavier than air to fall to the ground. And that is precisely what CO2 is – this miniscule trace gas (just a very tiny 0.04% of atmosphere) is heavy and is soon down and out as shown by a simple school lab experiment.

Or, we can look at it another way to make these technical Physics relationships easy. This is because scientists refer to ratios based on common standards.  Rather than refer to unit volumes and masses, scientists use the concept of Specific Gravity (SG).  Giving standard air a value of 1.0 then the measured SG of CO2 is 1.5 (considerably heavier).  [1.]

CO2: The Heavy Gas that Heats then Cools Faster!

The same principle is applied to heat transfer, the Specific Heat (SH) of air is 1.0 and the SH of CO2 is 0.8 (heats and cools faster).  Combining these properties allows for thermal mixing. Heavy CO2 warms faster and rises, as in a hot air balloon.  It then rapidly cools and falls.

This ‘thermal’ mixing is aided by wind flow patterns, but the ratios of gases in the atmosphere are never static or uniform anywhere on Earth.  Without these properties CO2 would fill every low area to dangerously high levels.  Not ‘high’ in a toxic sense, only that CO2 would displace enough Oxygen that you could not have proper respiration.  Nitrogen is 78% of the atmosphere and totally non-toxic, but if you continue to increase Nitrogen and reduce Oxygen the mixture becomes ‘unbreathable.’

It is only if we buy into the IPCC’s “well mixed gas” fallacy that climate extremists can then proceed to dupe us further with their next claim; that this so-called “well mixed” CO2 then acts as a “blanket” to “trap” the heat our planet receives from the sun.

The cornerstone of the IPCC claims since 1988 is that “trapped” CO2 adds heat because it is a direct consequence of another dubious and unscientific mechanism they call “back radiation.” In no law of science will you have read of the term “back radiation.” It is a speculative and unphysical concept and is the biggest lie woven into the falsity of what is widely known as the greenhouse gas effect.

Professor Nasif Nahle, a recent addition to the Slayers team, has proven that application of standard gas equations reveal that, if it were real, any “trapping” effect of the IPCC’s “back radiation” could last not a moment longer than a miniscule five milliseconds – that’s quicker than the blink of an eye to all you non-scientists. [2.]

Doomsaying Climatologist Abandons ‘Back Radiation’ Meme

Only recently did Professor Claes Johnson persuade long-time greenhouse gas effect believer Dr. Judith Curry to abandon this unscientific term. Curry now admits:

“Back radiation is a phrase, one that I don’t use myself, and it is not a word that is used in technical radiative transfer studies. Lets lose the back radiation terminology, we all agree on that.”

IPCC doomsayers claim it is under this “blanket” of CO2 (and other so-called greenhouse gases) that the energy absorbed by Earth’s surface from incoming sunlight gets trapped.

But one other important fact often glossed over is that CO2 comprises a tiny 0.4% of all the gases above our heads. Nasif Nahle reminds us that this is a crucial point when considering the claims of the “grandfather” of the greenhouse gas hypothesis (GHE), Svente Arrhenius.

Change in CO2 Temperature Is NOT Change in Atmospheric Temp

When applying the GHE formula devised by Arrhenius, IPCC scientists appear to have forgotten that we must consider the proportion of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, not the proportion of the whole mixture of gases.

Even if Arrhenius was right about the GHE any change of temperature obtained from his formula is exclusively a change of temperature of the mass of carbon dioxide, not of the atmosphere.

The trick of climate doomsayers is that they draw their conclusions obtained from the Arrhenius formula for CO2 (only 0.04% of atmosphere), then apply that change of temperature to the WHOLE Earth; this is bad science, or possibly fraud.

Nahle poses this question for GHE believers:

“Is the atmosphere composed only of carbon dioxide? Why calculate the change of temperature of a mass of carbon dioxide and then after say it is the change of temperature of this trace gas that now becomes the temperature of the whole Earth?”

Astrophysicist and climate researcher, Joe Postma similarly comments:

“No one seems to have realized that any purported increase in temperature of CO2 due to CO2 absorption is APPLIED TO CO2, not the whole danged atmosphere! Again, just a slight tweak in comprehending the reality makes a whole paradigm of difference.”

NASA Data Confirms CO2 Not a Well Mixed Gas

Professor Nahle and his colleagues insist that in addition to the above facts the proven varying density of atmospheric CO2 also needs to be taken into account to show how IPCC scientists are guilty of the greatest scientific swindle ever perpetrated.

From the NASA graph below (verify with link here) we can discern distinct and measurable regional variations in CO2 ppmv. So even NASA data itself further puts paid to the bizarre notion that this benign trace gas is “well-mixed” around the globe.

NASA’s diagram thus not only proves CO2 isn’t a well mixed gas but also demonstrates that there is no link between regions of highest CO2 concentration and areas of highest human industrial emissions.

Groundbreaking Science Trumps IPCC Junk Claims

Both Postma and Nahle have recently published groundbreaking papers discrediting the GHE. Professor Nahle analyzed the thermal properties of carbon dioxide, exclusively, and found that 0.3 °C would be the change of temperature of CO2, also exclusively, not of the whole atmosphere. Nasif pointedly observes:

“Such change of temperature would not affect in absolute the whole mixture of gas because of the thermal diffusivity of carbon dioxide.”

Additionally, Nahle and his Slaying the Sky Dragon compadres demonstrate that carbon dioxide loses the energy it absorbs almost instantaneously, so there is no place for any kind of storage of thermal energy by carbon dioxide. To the more technically minded what Nahle and his colleagues say is that the release of a quantum/wave, at a different wavelength and frequency, lasts the time an excited electron takes to get back to its base state.

Thus the IPCC’s CO2 “sky blanket” is shot full of holes as rational folk are increasingly abandoning the unphysical nonsense that carbon dioxide “traps” heat and raises global temperatures. Policymakers may be the last to wise up but they, too, must nonetheless consign the man-made global warming sham to the trash can marked “junk science.”

Sources:

[1.] In our “current environment,” atmospheric nitrogen and oxygen vastly outweigh CO2. Nitrogen: 3,888,899 Gigatons; Oxygen: 1,191,608 Gigatons; Carbon Dioxide: 3,051 Gigatons. On a weight basis the specific heat of nitrogen and oxygen together is approximately 1 per kilogram, whereas CO2’s is about 0.844. Thus it’s clear that everyday air has a better ability to hold onto heat.

[2.] Professor Nahle, N., ‘Determination of Mean Free Path of Quantum/Waves and Total Emissivity of the Carbon Dioxide Considering the Molecular Cross Section’ (2011), Biology Cabinet, (Peer Reviewed by the Faculty of Physics of the University of Nuevo Leon, Mexico).

45 Comments

Filed under Climate Alarmism, Climate Change, Climategate, Co2 Insanity, Global Warming, IPCC, John O'Sullivan, Lord Monckton, NASA, Science, Slaying the Sky Dragon

Even Rick Perry gets the climate change fraud

Yes, even Rick Perry gets the climate change fraud. From the Dallas Morning News…….

He offered a deeply skeptical view of the need to change energy policy to address climate change, asserting that “there are a substantial number of scientists who have manipulated data so that they would have dollars rolling in to their projects. We’re seeing it almost weekly or almost daily, scientists who are coming forward and questioning the original idea that manmade global warming is what is causing the climate to change.”
“The cost to the country and to the world of implementing these anti-carbon programs is in the billions if not in the trillions of dollars,” he said, and he would refuse based on questionable research.

I’d say stick with trillions because that’s what the UN, via the IPCC,  is trying to screw the globe out of.  So, if you don’t want another greentard in the White House Governor Perry might be a viable candidate for your vote as he’s one candidate without CO2 Insanity.

Source: Dallas Morning News

 

 

2 Comments

Filed under Climate Alarmism, Climate Change, Climate Disruption, Co2 Insanity, Global Warming, Government, IPCC, Politics, United Nations

Australian Carbon Tax

The above video is from Koozzoo News and rips apart the Australian carbon tax being pushed by Prime Minister Julia Gillard and global warming in general.

1 Comment

Filed under Cap & Trade, Carbon Taxes, Carbon Trading, Climate Alarmism, Climate Change, Climate Disruption, CO2, Co2 Insanity, Financial, Global Warming, Government, IPCC, Politics, United Nations

IPCC – Intergovernmental Panel on Crack Cocaine?

Will Earth Henceforth be Known as the Planet with the Reflective Personality?

I thought IPCC stood for Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, but after reading this article I think perhaps it should be changed Intergovernmental Panel on Crack Cocaine. Why say you?

Well, I was taken aback by an article n the Telegraph today titled “IPCC  ‘considering sending mirrors to space to tackle climate change.’ I mean you have to wonder if  they’re all smoking crack? Here’s some snippets from the Telegraph.

Reflective aerosols would be sent into space under a series of radical “geo-engineering” measures being considered by the UN climate science body to tackle climate change, leaked documents disclose.

What are they planning to do send deodorant into outer space? Some aerosol deodorants do use aluminum, which I suppose might reflect all that nasty sunlight. We might even freshen up the planet if we send up a rocket full of the right scent. Imagine not having to buy bathroom spray anymore? I guess this could put Fabreeze out of business, though.

Or, perhaps they could use tiny little mirrors? I mean it really does go hand-in-hand with the crack smoking. They could call it the “smoke and mirrors” solution to climate change, global warming, climate disruption. I think I’ll have to reflect upon this for a while.

The article closes with……..

A spokesman for the IPCC was unavailable for comment.

I wonder what the spoksman was smoking I mean doing?

 

More CO2 Insanity that you can read all about at the source below.

Source: The Telegraph

2 Comments

Filed under Climate Alarmism, Climate Change, Climate Disruption, CO2, Co2 Insanity, Geoengineering, Global Warming, Government, IPCC, Radiation, Science, Solar

Top Scientist Says New Solar Wobble to Prolong Global Cooling

By: John O’Sullivan

As a new solar minimum takes our planet towards global cooling an increasing number of scientists give credence to a new theory blaming our Sun’s wobble.

It started in 2007 when scientists saw that gravitational forces in our solar system may have a huge impact on Earth’s climate. Professor Ivanka Charvátová, CSc. from the Geophysical Institute of the Czech Academy of Sciences, explains why there is suddenly so much interest in her theory in an exclusive interview with klimatskeptik.cz.

Professor Charvátová calls it Solar Inertial Motion (SIM) and she claims it will have serious impacts on our climate. She says a predictable “wobble” of our Sun called barycenter shift alters Earth’s weather patterns. Few climatologists have yet studied this phenomenon. But the evidence supporting Professor Charvátová’s SIM theory is becoming ever more compelling.

Our Wobbling Sun

Increased international interest in the SIM ‘wobble effect’ began after Australian scientist Dr. Richard Mackey published a paper addressing the effects of the barycenter shift in The Journal of Coastal Research in 2007. Mackey drew inspiration from the work of the late Rhodes Fairbridge.

Fairbridge was one of the first English-speaking experts to appreciate the significance of Professor Charvátová’s findings. The Czech expert had suddenly stolen the limelight because, as she says „I was the only one in the whole world who got the 23rd sunspot cycle prediction right.”

She recalls, “Even before my major discovery came, Prof R.W.Fairbridge contacted me after I published an article about SIM periodicity in Paris.” The publication was in her former name, Jakubcová.

Climatologists Accused of Ignoring New Science

When asked how much of this groundbreaking new science the UN’s beleaguered climate panel, the IPCC, took into account in their global warming reports, she answered, “Nothing at all. They are allergic to SIM.”

She explained that traditional thinking only considered science that supports the greenhouse gas theory which, in turn, attributes a substantial component of climate change to human influence. Professor Charvátová laments that the IPCC still fails to consider a whole range of climate forcing phenomena with any solar-terrestrial link, e.g. cosmic rays, geomagnetic, solar gravitational forces, volcanic activity, etc.

3 Comments

Filed under Climate Alarmism, Climate Change, Climate Disruption, CO2, Co2 Insanity, Global Warming, IPCC, John O'Sullivan, Solar, Space Weather

Global Warming Fraud Creates Third World Food Crisis

By: John O’Sullivan

How saving the planet causes famine: the climate crisis melts away but global food shortage is legacy of the foolish rush to biofuels.Evidence for dangerous, human-caused global warming was always slim, now it lies cruelly exposed both by a cruel blowback and it’s not just coming from within the science.A far more devastating catastrophe is unfolding and it is entirely the product of the mad rush to biofuels: third world famine. Today a whopping 6.5 percent of the world’s grain has been stripped from the global food supply. That’s the kind of catastrophic cut in food supply that triggers a tipping point so that Third World hunger explodes into mass starvation. Why did it happen?

Kyoto Protocol: The Trigger to Mass Starvation

What mechanism prompted mankind to instigate this genocide of the world’s poor?  The Kyoto Protocol. International governments signed up to the idea that biofuels were going to be the better, cleaner, greener source for mankind’s energy needs in a new utopia predicted for us by ‘expert’s inside the United Nations.

Canadian Geophysicist Norm Kalmanovitch is as concerned as many independent scientists at the alarming rate at which this international food crisis is now escalating.

Kalmanovitch is semi-retired now and not in fear of having his scientific career tarnished by blowback from speaking out. He argues that the facts easily demonstrate that the Kyoto Protocol is based entirely on fraudulent science.

Misguided Climate Scientist Primed the Politicians

Honest scientific inquiry serves the single purpose of advancing human knowledge and understanding free of any bias or ulterior motivation and it is clear that promoting “human caused global warming” a full nine years after the world had already started cooling serves no such lofty purpose.

Kalmanovitch accuses a small clique of self-serving climate researchers for violating the fundamental ethics of science protocol and propagating the false science that made the Kyoto Accord the international vehicle for crimes against humanity. Listening to his arguments you cannot help but see he has a point.

So what was the root catalyst for this cataclysm? Astonishingly, you can pin a lot of it on one well-intentioned but misguided do-gooder. His name: Professor James Hansen. Hansen was NASA’s bright-eyed scientist back in 1988. The eager climate modeler appeared before a Congressional Committee and prophesized that mankind would kill the planet if it continued to burn coal and gasoline at modern industrial rates.

Kalmanovich explains, “When you look closely at the climate change issue it is remarkable that the only actual evidence ever cited for a relationship between CO2 emissions and global warming is climate models.”

Hansen made unfounded and highly alarmist claims based on his computer forecasts. He predicted doomsday scenarios that panicked Congress and that wave of fear stampeded the world into believing in a non-existent crisis. Global temperatures have never rocketed as Hansen forecast. In fact all five global temperature datasets show zero net global warming over the past decade in spite of record increases in CO2 emissions from fossil fuels (climate scientists have now grudgingly conceded no statistically significant rise in temperatures has occurred since 1998 from their doomsaying). But once the stampede was launched it caused a rush to biofuels that stripped millions of crop acreage from the world’s food basket.

But more sickening is that many have made sizeable fortunes from trumpeting a short period of warming that lasted from (1975-1998); a vast international array of speculators in wind, solar, wave and biofuels alternatives are onboard the great global warming gravy train.

Hansen’s friends in the infant science of climatology have also fed well off government grants where the ‘climate change’ industry generates tens of billions annually in this self-perpetuating Ponzi scheme that symbiotically melded the interests of speculators with climate researchers.

In effect, those great riches and shining scientific careers were together built upon exploiting a 0.6 C rise in temperatures that all but vanished in the first decade of the 21st Century.

Alternative Scientific Views Now Come to the Fore

But since Hansen’s watershed moment in 1988 the science has moved on and many independent scientists, not on the government grant gravy train, have cast their eyes over the numbers for carbon dioxide (CO2), the prime bogeyman of climate alarmism.

From physical measurement of the Earth’s radiative spectrum impartial eyes saw that the 14.77 micron band of the Earth’s thermal radiation accessed by CO2, is so close to saturation that it is a physical impossibility for any increase in that trace gas to have anywhere near the effect claimed.

Analysts then looked back at the natural warming since the 1830’s that ushered in the end of the Little Ice Age, a time 100 years before any scientist claims humans had impact on the climate. They say natural warming in the order of 0.5°Centigrade per century. We can calculate this to show that the maximum possible effect from CO2 increases is just 0.1°C per century of the claimed 0.6°C per century of the observed temperature increase.

Hansen and his self-serving followers in climatology conveniently chose to ignore such inconvenient truths.  Kalmanovich seethes, “They falsely attributed the effect of CO2 to the full 0.6°C and incorporated a range of wavelengths from 7 to 14 microns when CO2 only has an effect over a range from 13.5 to 17 microns and the wavelength band is at least 80 percent saturated. Though never stated explicitly this formed the basis for the CO2 forcing parameter which Hansen used in his earlier climate models and is still used by the IPCC today with the basic formula of 5.35ln(2) = 3.71watts/m2 for a doubling of CO2.”

Like other independent scientists Kalmanovich saw that the fuss all stems from a 1981 paper by Hansen that was peer-reviewed and published in SCIENCE magazine. Here’s where Hansen’s alarmist and skewed climate models captivated scientific literature on the matter. It is by repeated reference to Hansen’s original paper and his 1988 modification of it that the current climate change issue was premised.

Global Warming Fraud Creates Third World Food Crisis

All the other evidence is either of warming or misrepresentations of the greenhouse effect but never of an actual relationship between the two other than a stated correlation stating that CO2 increased and global temperature increased and therefore CO2 caused the global temperature increase.

Kalmanovich’s findings have been corroborated by a group of independent scientists calling themselves the ‘Slayers’ who claim to have refuted the greenhouse gas effect.

They agree that correlation between temperatures and CO2 is easily refuted and they cite the same numbers used by the IPCC in the 2001 report.That report shows cyclic warming and cooling trends that are completely out of step with CO2 emissions as explained by Kalmanovich, “it shows rapid warming from 1910 to 1942 with only a trivial 14 per cent increase in CO2 emissions. That is followed by 33 years of a global cooling trend with a 500 percent increase in CO2 emissions from 1942 to 1975.”

Greenhouse Gas Theory Falls Apart

Kalmanovich argues that is more than enough physical evidence to completely destroy the greenhouse gas theory. But that requires the doomsayers to accept numbers and scientific arguments that they have not yet been prepared to do.

The irony of this travesty is that Hansen himself never claims in absolute terms that CO2 emissions cause global warming. Kalmanovich notes,  “Hansen instead uses the output from his climate models to make this claim absolving him of having his statements challenged.”

This technique was masterfully employed by Al Gore in his Inconvenient Truth in which he makes no claims directly but shows out of context snippets of evidence to make the claims for him.

Here is Kalmanovich in-depth reasoning:

The satellite measurements of outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) demonstrate that OLR is responding strictly to the fourth power of the Earth’s absolute temperature in perfect accordance to basic physics theory, but is in no way responding to the 57.1% increase in CO2 emissions from fossil fuels since 1979. This completely refutes the Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change, which is based on an assumed “enhanced greenhouse effect” from increased greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, but these satellite measurements demonstrate conclusively that this enhanced greenhouse effect from GHG emissions never actually existed!

This single physical observation makes the Kyoto Protocol completely fraudulent, and anyone promoting the concept of CO2 emissions from fossil fuels enhancing the greenhouse effect in support of this fraudulent Kyoto Accord, must be seen as complicit in this fraud.

Kalmanovich then reaches a devastating conclusion:

“This is not a trivial scientific error because over 6.5% of the world’s grain has been removed from the global food supply to serve as feedstock for the 85 billion litres of ethanol produced annually as fuel in accordance with the dictates of this fraudulent UN Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change.”

It is basic food staples that are being removed from the global food supply; the wealthier portion of the world’s 6.6 billion people end up paying substantially more for their food but the poor simply starve, making this Kyoto Accord a true “crime against humanity” and those who have fabricated the false science on which this crime is based are therefore guilty of being complicit in this “crime against humanity”.

Green Energy Promise Just a Pipe Dream

Americans are fast waking up to the harsh reality that this is all pain for no gain. There is stagnation in constructing conventional power generating sources in the wake of large government subsidies to wind and solar power generating facilities. That has dramatically increased power bills but has provided virtually zero additional peak power to consumers.

There is also a huge moral issue in the US. It removes more food from the global food supply than any other country in the manufacture of ethanol for fuel, making Americans key culprit in this crime against humanity. In the United States a staggering 39.7 percent of the world’s ethanol is created from crops that should be used as food.

The new moral question now to be posed is: if the US government was truly looking after the interests of the people then shouldn’t better investment ought to be made in natural gas and coal conversions to liquid fuels? That would bring the price of gas to under $2.50/gal. President Obama could then do away with subsidizing biofuels production, which only serves to raise the price of gas at the pumps and add to world hunger.

(The 85 billion litres of ethanol production comes from a compelling Marketwire article.

Why is 2011 the Critical Year?

Europe views 2011 as a critical year as member countries ramp up their production and use of ethanol to meet the European Union’s Renewable Energy Directive. In this year alone, Europe is expected to produce 5.4 billion liters of ethanol that is a 15 per cent increase over 2010 (see table).

World Ethanol Fuel Production in Million Liters

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Europe 1,627 1,882 2,814 3,683 4,615 5,467
Africa 0 49 72 108 165 170
Americas 35,625 45,467 60,393 66,368 77,800 79,005
Asia/Pacific 1,940 2,142 2,743 2,888 3,183 4,077
World 39,192 49,540 66,022 73,047 85,763 88,719

Source: F.O. Licht

The Global Renewable Fuels Alliance promotes “biofuels friendly policies internationally and represent over 65 per cent of the global biofuels production from 44 countries.” They predict only growth in this voracious business and if their numbers are correct, a death sentence is being issued on millions more in the future.

World Ethanol Production Forecast 2008-2012 by Country, Millions of Gallons

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 CAGR, %
Brazil 4,988 5,238 5,489 5,739 5,990 2.8%
U.S. 6,198 6,858 7,518 8,178 8,838 5.7%
China 1,075 1,101 1,128 1,154 1,181 1.4%
India 531 551 571 591 611 2.2%
France 285 301 317 333 349 3.2%
Spain 163 184 206 227 249 6.9%
Germany 319 381 444 506 569 9.7%
Canada 230 276 322 368 414 9.9%
Indonesia 76 84 92 100 108 5.6%
Italy 50 53 55 58 60 2.8%
ROW 2,302 2,548 2,794 3,040 3,286 5.7%
World 16,215 17,574 18,934 20,293 21,653 4.6%

(Note that these are imperial gallons and not U.S. gallons. This is why the 2010 value of 18,934 million gallons is 85,763 million liters and not 73,653 million liters as would be calculated for US gallons).

In this mad, bad crazy world western good intentions spawned a crime against humanity; the law of unintended consequences turned the Kyoto Accord into a perverse death sentence to millions. Now we must put an end to this genocide.

Source: John O’Sullivan

3 Comments

Filed under Biofood, Biofuel, Climate Change, Climate Disruption, CO2, Co2 Insanity, Energy, Food, Global Warming, Green Energy, IPCC, John O'Sullivan